Sarenco,
Why on earth would Mr Kissane post this evidence on an open forum for the bank's to view and try to come up with legal defences ? You are even more naive than I thought. Ever hear of the phrase " Keep your powder dry." From taking to other posters it appears, not many take note of your waffle and attempt to keep the scales firmly balanced in favour of the banks. Yourself, Brendan44, Delboy and Andy836 should get together for coffee to come up with another strategy.
Getting back to the topic, you have an interesting argument, however I feel the compensation ( ordinary damages part ) should be the same for a borrower who has lost a million euro home and a borrower who has lost a 200,000 euro home.
I never suggested that 80% of mortgages issued in the USA, involved mortgage fraud.
Sarenco,
Simple really, because PTSB erred and as a result on this incorrect interpretation of the contract, the borrowers lost their houses unlawfully. ( the error resulted in the same consequential loss, that being th loss of the borrower's home. ) In the law of tort, if possible, a Judge is obliged to put the injured party back into the same position they would have been in, if the tort had never occurred.
Sarenco, the corollary of your argument is also valid, that being, a million euro house would have gained more in monetary value from capital appreciation in the last 5 years than a 200,000 euro house.
There is a difference between could and would. You should consult a dictionary.
In relation to the criminal law, the utilisation of a false instrument is invariable involved, when mortgage fraud occurs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?