- Joined
- 30 May 2022
- Messages
- 1,319
- Reaction score
- 782
- Country
It was just my 2 peneth worth.
No need to try and divert the thread topic over it.
-
Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.
One for the legal eagles - forcing the sale of a jointly owned house
- Thread starter MeldrewsMate
- Start date
No need to try and divert the thread topic over it.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,788
- Reaction score
- 5,340
- Country
You were close with what you posted.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 17,905
- Reaction score
- 1,500
- Country
I tried and failed to summarise it into a single point.
Seriously what kind of legal system won’t allow two parties to settle a debt to the benefit of both unless one throws in a horse or a cloak
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,788
- Reaction score
- 5,340
- Country
It doesn't. We have insolvency rules as well as the doctrine of estoppel introduced in the 1930s. F v B has not stood unchallenged for 150 years.. A frequently referenced case is Central London Property Trust v High Trees House, heard by Lord Denning in 1947. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1946/1.pdf. It was Denning that created the concept of Promissory Estoppel (i.e. a promise acted on to the detriment of the party, should stand, if that party later changes their mind. It would be unfair to trick someone into paying a larger chunk of a debt, borrowing money to do so, and avoiding the protection of bankruptcy, if your intention was to go back for the rest later.
If you act on a promise to you detriment, you can be shielded from the creditor later changing his mind and wanting to enforce his contract.
In SS' example - we have the promise not to declare bankruptcy and an offer of additional funds from other sources. Had the bank changed their mind at a later date - his actions based on their promise would have given him a good chance of defending the claim. Of course, it was always worth a try to come back again later.
Reported
I get that, but why wasn’t Foakes’ offer to settle by paying instalments minus interest treated as “consideration?” The alternative might well have been bankruptcy or taking longer to pay the debt. How does that benefit/detriment differ practically from SS’ settlement?
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 9,314
- Reaction score
- 6,393
- Country
OMG why?
Contempt of court
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 9,314
- Reaction score
- 6,393
- Country
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,788
- Reaction score
- 5,340
- Country
Quite a bit has changed since F v B. But to recap: In F v B, B had already won a judgement for the full amount + interest. So that was owed. B agreeing to allow F to pay in instalments and not charge the interest owed, did not result in any benefit to B or detriment to F. So it was just a promise.
However if F had opted to take longer to pay because he thought he had an agreement with B not to charge additional interest, then he would have acted in a way that was detrimental to him. In that scenario F (today and since the 1940s) would have a defence to the additional interest.
In SS' case we have the following fact:
- The debt was joint and he was offering to pay as much as he could severally. - detriment
- He promised not to leverage the protection of bankruptcy - detriment.
- He was willing to borrow money from friends and family, Money that would not be available to the creditor - detriment.
On condition of promise not to seek recovery of the debt he paid in full what he promised and acted to his detriment.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 45,845
- Reaction score
- 3,514
- Country
The letter from the RBS to my solicitor dated 20 Nov. 1997 goes as follows:
Dear Solicitor
I refer to your letter dated 17 November in connection with your client's indebtedness at our above branch and acknowledge receipt of your cheque for £2000.
I can now confirm that SS's liability in respect of the aforementioned has now been repaid.
I can also confirm his name has not been passed to any credit reference agencies.
I trust this is satisfactory.
The house was bought for just under 30K in 1989. It was lived in by both of us together for a couple of years at most, and only sold by RBS in December 1997.
For £10,500. You'd think they would try and sell it it for a bit more, after settling with me.
Then in April 2000, I get a letter from a debt recovery company. Honestly, I thought it was a Y2K April Fool.....
So I get back to my wonderful solicitor, bless her, and she fires off a letter.
The reply comes back:
14 July 2000
Dear Solicitor
Further to your recent communication regarding the above account, your comments have been noted. (That I had been subject to distress and had to go to the expense of paying her to sort it out. They said her comments were noted, but that's all they did. They didn't offer a penny towards her fees).
We advise we have been in contact with our clients and they have advised us that the above account was paid and was sent to us in error.
Please accept our Client's apologies for this error.
We can confirm SS's account has been removed from our files.
We hope this matter has been resolved to your satisfaction.
These letters are in a file marked "IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS" and are kept safe.
Dear Solicitor
I refer to your letter dated 17 November in connection with your client's indebtedness at our above branch and acknowledge receipt of your cheque for £2000.
I can now confirm that SS's liability in respect of the aforementioned has now been repaid.
I can also confirm his name has not been passed to any credit reference agencies.
I trust this is satisfactory.
The house was bought for just under 30K in 1989. It was lived in by both of us together for a couple of years at most, and only sold by RBS in December 1997.
For £10,500. You'd think they would try and sell it it for a bit more, after settling with me.
Then in April 2000, I get a letter from a debt recovery company. Honestly, I thought it was a Y2K April Fool.....
So I get back to my wonderful solicitor, bless her, and she fires off a letter.
The reply comes back:
14 July 2000
Dear Solicitor
Further to your recent communication regarding the above account, your comments have been noted. (That I had been subject to distress and had to go to the expense of paying her to sort it out. They said her comments were noted, but that's all they did. They didn't offer a penny towards her fees).
We advise we have been in contact with our clients and they have advised us that the above account was paid and was sent to us in error.
Please accept our Client's apologies for this error.
We can confirm SS's account has been removed from our files.
We hope this matter has been resolved to your satisfaction.
These letters are in a file marked "IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS" and are kept safe.
That's clear, thank you. But in FvB although the judgement was granted, there is always the question of enforcing it. Likewise with SS, the lender could pursue the full mortgage debt. I understand the factual difference but both involve benefit and detriment.
Sounds more cock up than conspiracy but what a shock to receive such a letter
