greenspun.com : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread




Six years from the date of repossession, not the date of sale.


-- Lee (repossession@bigfoot.com), March 19, 2000.

Interesting question

time could run from date of default (ie 2 months in arrears) or

date of last payment or

date of repo or

date of sale

depends on the facts of each case

-- (ahmadbutt@talk21.com), April 16, 2000.

And if you look at the chap quoted in the HRP newsletter of the 12 June, he says "I was told by my barrister that as far as he was concerned, the time limit would start from the first date that the contract was broken, and that a contract is broken from the first default of payment." Read the rest - it's interesting stuff. E.

-- Eleanor Scott (eleanor.scott@btinternet.com), August 04, 2000.

You will tend to find that the average Barristor is hopeless on Reposession cases,a debt advisor tends to know more,most Barristors arrive at the court on Hospital passes a term used -which to be fair to them the case is handed to them the same day,as the Barristor who should be there cant make it. There are many Solicitors who are more aware of case law ,ive even seen one Barristor who at a court case would not look at the clients statement even though it was false-yet since the case it has been checked by accountants and several bodies who all agree!yet the Barristor did not bother about the figures being incorrect and made vague statements about it not being important-yet we see on this website that figures should be challenged-perhaps they will arrange some course for them in future at the Bar!

Charles Twford

-- charles twford (charles.twford@lineone.net), August 04, 2000.

Oh dear spelt Barristor incorrect,well it was late at night but does not matter sorry Barrister, well allowed SLIP RULES in court!

Charles Twford

-- charles twford (charles.twford@lineone.net), August 05, 2000.

After giving this some thought I would propose the following: If the Lender is relying on the Mortgage Deed then the debt starts from date of default according to the deed and accompanying terms and conditions. Reposession and Sale of the property are merely actions in the in the recovery of the debt that became due on default. The dates of these actons are red herrings and serve no purpose other than to illustrate the lenders undue delay and negligence in the recovery process. You can uses Hopkinson & Others v Tupper to illustrate this (See the Reposession section - 6 or 12 years to see why this case is important in establishing the start point). If anyone else has any opinions on this please let me know. Regards Tim.

-- Tim Heath (tim_n_heath@hotmail.com), February 04, 2001.

We tend to forget that many of theses documents ie deeds which the lawyers tend to use as evidence ,are signed many a time without the person having full knowledge of what they are signing. Many are signed in what they call Escrow (undated and awaiting the lawyers to sign ) this covers both Mortgage and remortgage. The Mig they refer to are policies which the client never sees(unlike any other insurance policy)Just look at thre PIA regulations for all those that have to sell them. So the client can also have the same firm acting for them ,conflicts of interest can occur,but the signing and completion is done without there Knowledge, The mortgage industry is not regulated like the others PIA etc and the lawyers tend to work in two camps -those who are firms in there own right and those that are employed by the mortgage companies-so they have more interest in there company policy as duty to there employers ,than to The Law or the Solicitors Practice Procedures! The law is then used against the client and the basis of (untill proved guilty)? The figures do not matter,but if they were for Vat or Tax purposes in any other field they would have to account and be called to account

The lawyers just throw the figures in and should there be a mistake in the court,they just pass it by as those that have been to court will know!

Yet the client has no such justice no such legal security and no wonder they get mad

this is just part of the story, im sure it is familiar to many who have been there. There has to be changes in the law on many of these, we are not protecting the very legal process we are so proud of in this country and yet when is comes back to the date of the when the Date starts from everyone gives a different answer. I have been fighting over DEED Law since 1991 -visited the Land Registry in 1995 fought various cases on this point-Taken it to the Law society O.S.S. The law on Deeds is vague at the time of Repossession is the Deed Snuffed out then the debt becomes a simple debt or is it still under Charge which brings you back to the date of the Repossession as already stated each Question you put to the Legal Eagles comes back as we all see with differing answers-perhaps as they are not clear themselves? or to suit themselves One could state that if the Lender is chasing you for debt under deed (or Charge) then the deed is still active yet as someone else is living in your ex property the deed OR CHARGE has been snuffed out and a new one put in there name or names with the new lender. So it can only be a simple debt else you could ask for possession back of your property whilst the debt was argued!!!!

The law is working wrong on this subject and Money Judgements coming after several years based on a property in previous Charge to you is, Has the or why has the orginal Deed been snuffed out? For they have passed possession over to a new owner.

There are many arguments to Deed Law but on Repossession you will not find many text books on this subject?

At the end of the day its like the Legal eagles waving ther hand in wembley stadium and hopinh there is no answer of course not we all know its not there now!!!!

sorry so long but a very complex subject and a lot more could be said than this

regards Charles Twford

if you wnat to email with any research documents i would be very interested

-- charles twford (twford@lineone.net), February 04, 2001.

Charles, I would have to agree you gave a very long and complex answer. Not quite sure from your answer which part of the thread you are referring to. My posting was related to the establishment of a starting point. Whether the time in which a lender can chase is 6 or 12 years is irelloevent to my thoughts. I have my own opinions on this, but again this was not the purpose of my point. I feel that if a debt becomes "due in full" under deed (and the lender for arguement sake claims and it is found that this is 12 years) that those 12 years are from date of sustained default and not from repo or sale. My reasoning is that repo and sale are meerly actions taken in order to revover the debt. Just because a lender takes action to recover a debt does not start the clock ticking again. If the lender claims that the time starts from time of shortfall inception then this to me is clearly an indication that this is a new debt. A new debt under simple contract. They can only have their cake and eat it if we let them, though our own ignorance of the issues, or we employ questionable counsel that allows them to do it.

Regards Tim

-- Tim Heath (tim_n_heath@hotmail.com), February 04, 2001.

do not dispute what you say TIM but refer you to the answer,given by AHMADBUTT in an earlier answer on this question on this page, Given that the law is so unsure on this it is quite reasonable to look at his last statement. Depends on each case! and that is how it is viewed in Court. I do not make the rules neither do I disagree with the point you are making but would like to see like you appear to be making more come forward and comment on this



-- charles twford (twford@lineone.net), February 04, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ