One for the legal eagles - forcing the sale of a jointly owned house

[noseall]

You are very good at Googling laws. Everyone acknowledges that. You are just not very good at understanding them.

Spot on. Or reading his own links.

 

[noseall]

this is the man who spent a hundred pages arguing over the meaning of the word "approved", to cover up that he had misunderstood the basics of abortion law in the UK.

 

[blup]

No. Sadly the next person she went out with strangled her.

She had an dreadful upbringing. I thought I was "helping" by giving her a stable loving relationship, but all she wanted was for me to be violent towards her. I couldn't do it and she would lash out towards me. The awful thing is she found somebody who would.

I found out by chance listening to the news in the car on the way home one day and despite how she treated me, I was absolutely gutted. She didn't deserve that.

I still didn't quite believe it, so rang the local force and mentioned some facts and he gently confirmed it.

It screwed me up big time and I had nightmares about being unable to save her and went for counselling. I'm OK now, but it took a while. I was remarried at the time and Mrs S was pregnant with son number one and she was an absolute star.

Her murderer has since died.

We were.

That’s so sad, people can be so damaged in childhood and go on to damage themselves and others.

 

[motorbiking]

No. Sadly the next person she went out with strangled her.

She had an dreadful upbringing. I thought I was "helping" by giving her a stable loving relationship, but all she wanted was for me to be violent towards her. I couldn't do it and she would lash out towards me. The awful thing is she found somebody who would.

I found out by chance listening to the news in the car on the way home one day and despite how she treated me, I was absolutely gutted. She didn't deserve that.

I still didn't quite believe it, so rang the local force and mentioned some facts and he gently confirmed it.

It screwed me up big time and I had nightmares about being unable to save her and went for counselling. I'm OK now, but it took a while. I was remarried at the time and Mrs S was pregnant with son number one and she was an absolute star.

Her murderer has since died.


We were.

very sad story, I can see how that would leave a person very damaged. Glad you were able to come to terms with it.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

How did it drop in value, can you address any maintenance or structural issues and bring the price up before you sell?

I’m no expert but a court order may be required or you maybe able to sell your share independently.

Might have been answered elsewhere in the thread. I note they bought in 2006, when prices were crazy and not that far from the 2008 crash.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

So one knob who thinks he knows what he is talking about against MBK who actually does. That going to end well for you isn't it.

Most thinking people are aware that MBK talks a good talk, but doesn't actually really usually know what he is going on about.

He swerves, deflects and changes the goalpost to try to appear to be clever. A lot of people see through him

 

[motorbiking]

Might have been answered elsewhere in the thread. I note they bought in 2006, when prices were crazy and not that far from the 2008 crash.

Yes - he commented that it was. bought at peak, crashed and has failed to recover. This is not as unusual as people think.

 

[blup]

Might have been answered elsewhere in the thread. I note they bought in 2006, when prices were crazy and not that far from the 2008 crash.

I don’t remember a significant crash, certainly not one that hadn’t been overtaken by inflation

 

[MNW67]

So, a simple way of explaining last night's discussion has just popped into my head, which should suit all sides and ensure that other posters who were reading that discussion aren't left confused.

Say you have a simple loan contract with somebody, where you are due to repay them £10,000 in five years time. But you agree between you that you will pay £6,000 immediately to settle it. That payment completely wipes out the existing debt.

But say instead you have a contract where that five years has expired, and the payment of £10,000 is due immediately, and you cannot pay. The other side might agree to accept £6,000 in full and final settlement. In this situation, however, the debt is not wiped out. You still owe the balance of £4,000. The question then is whether that £4,000 can be pursued at a later date through the courts. And that is where promissory estoppel comes in. Even though the £4,000 is legally owing, a court might decide that it is unfair to allow the other party to recover it.

@motorbiking

 

[Deleted member 317777]

So, a simple way of explaining last night's discussion has just popped into my head, which should suit all sides and ensure that other posters who were reading that discussion aren't left confused.

Say you have a simple loan contract with somebody, where you are due to repay them £10,000 in five years time. But you agree between you that you will pay £6,000 immediately to settle it. That payment completely wipes out the existing debt.

But say instead you have a contract where that five years has expired, and the payment of £10,000 is due immediately, and you cannot pay. The other side might agree to accept £6,000 in full and final settlement. In this situation, however, the debt is not wiped out. You still owe the balance of £4,000. The question then is whether that £4,000 can be pursued at a later date through the courts. And that is where promissory estoppel comes in. Even though the £4,000 is legally owing, a court might decide that it is unfair to allow the other party to recover it.

@motorbiking

Is it not statutory barred after 6 years of no payments?

 

[motorbiking]

It's 6 years on the interest and 12 years on the loan.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

I don’t remember a significant crash, certainly not one that hadn’t been overtaken by inflation

ok

 

[MNW67]

Is it not statutory barred after 6 years of no payments?

Yes, I think the limitation period starts running as soon as you miss a payment.

The example was really to illustrate the difference between a debt that is totally wiped out legally and a debt that still exists but might be unenforceable in some situations. A mortgage shortfall debt, where you have made a part payment in full and final settlement, would be the second of those.

 

[motorbiking]

So, a simple way of explaining last night's discussion has just popped into my head, which should suit all sides and ensure that other posters who were reading that discussion aren't left confused.

Say you have a simple loan contract with somebody, where you are due to repay them £10,000 in five years time. But you agree between you that you will pay £6,000 immediately to settle it. That payment completely wipes out the existing debt.

payment now is fresh consideration because the debt has not fallen due - we both agree on that.

But say instead you have a contract where that five years has expired, and the payment of £10,000 is due immediately, and you cannot pay. The other side might agree to accept £6,000 in full and final settlement. In this situation, however, the debt is not wiped out.

Consideration can come in more forms than you might think. As long as the creditor obtains a benefit that he might not otherwise obtain, there is an argument of fresh consideration. Parking insolvency law for a moment, in SS' settlement there was the ability to seek bankruptcy and a promise not to do so, if they accepted a lower amount, in full and final settlement. In those debt letters there are similar offers (the money offered today, might not be there tomorrow).

When a bank lends someone money at a specified interest rate and risk profile it is against, the risk of default and the risk that other creditors will get a slice. In SS' case he had gathered all the money he could and borrowed/obtained some from friends and family (new source of funds = fresh consideration). He also said he'd have to go bankrupt if they didn't accept it. That is also fresh consideration. I owe you £10, here is £5, if I go bankrupt, you'll get £2. I can't remember the case law.

You still owe the balance of £4,000. The question then is whether that £4,000 can be pursued at a later date through the courts. And that is where promissory estoppel comes in. Even though the £4,000 is legally owing, a court might decide that it is unfair to allow the other party to recover it.

@motorbiking

which is why SS's lawyer referred to the money obtained from friends and family and the bankruptcy threat - fresh consideration.

 

[MNW67]

Consideration can come in more forms than you might think. it doesn't have to come in the form of a the gift of a horse, hawk, robe etc as per the famous quote. As long as the creditor obtains a benefit that he might not otherwise obtain, there is an argument of fresh consideration. Parking insolvency law for a moment, in SS' settlement there was the ability to seek bankruptcy and a promise not to do so, if they accepted a lower amount, in full and final settlement. In those debt letters there are similar offers (the money offered today, might not be there tomorrow).

When a bank lends someone money at a specified interest rate and risk profile it is against, the risk of default and the risk that other creditors will get a slice. In SS' case he had gathered all the money he could and borrowed/obtained some from friends and family. He also said he'd have to go bankrupt if they didn't accept it. That is fresh consideration. I owe you £10, here is £5, if I go bankrupt, you'll get £2. I can't remember the case law, but that is fresh consideration.

So, do you at least agree that where there is fresh consideration, the debt is legally wiped out. And that when there isn't any fresh consideration, the debt remains.

Part payment is not fresh consideration, unless for instance it is paid early. The debt still exists legally. Even if somebody tries really hard to get the money together. That is why F v B is still the leading authority. It has been tested many times in the courts over the past one hundred and fifty years. Unless you can find that case about threatening bankruptcy!

But it might, however, be a defence under promissory estoppel. That is where the debt still exists, but might be unenforceable. Maybe that is what your case was about.

That is why in the securespark case they tried it on by writing to him after several years. If the debt had been legally wiped out, there would have been no point in writing to him again, as there would be no debt to chase.