Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Idea for the People?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Banned Account
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    OisinT wrote: »
    How are you in a contract?

    This is the point. OP is suggesting that the lender reduces the payments thus stretching out the term, with the overlap being passed onto the mortgagees children, it now become incumbent on them to clear the remainder of the mortgage.

    In contract law, there has to be offer, acceptance and consideration between the parties for it to be enforceable - this could not be shown to have existed on behalf of an infant, or unborn child. Therefore, it will not work.


  • #33
    readyletsgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,276 ✭✭✭readyletsgo


    Fitzcaraldo wrote: »
    OK so, you're born in a rural area, go to college and look for a job. You can't find it in your home location and may need to go abroad but you can't because your parents have become ill and can no longer make the payments on the house so it now falls to you to pay the mortgage and your loan for college because the government have introduced fees.

    You have now been inducted into a contract before you were able to understand the implications of it and are now stuck in a bywater, unable to lease the house because your parents need a roof over their heads.


    Yup, life's hard! Especially now.

    I think mortgages are passed on to children in other coutries like japan.

    Smurgen, how do the Japanese do it?


  • #34
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Fitzcaraldo wrote: »
    This is the point. OP is suggesting that the lender reduces the payments thus stretching out the term, with the overlap being passed onto the mortgagees children, it now become incumbent on them to clear the remainder of the mortgage.

    In contract law, there has to be offer, acceptance and consideration between the parties for it to be enforceable - this could not be shown to have existed on behalf of an infant, or unborn child. Therefore, it will not work.
    That isn't correct, the only one responsible for insolvency is the estate of the deceased. If there if not enough money to repay the debts (via insurance or assets etc) then there is nothing to be passed to the child (unless they guaranteed the debts).

    Since the mortgage is over property, the person set to inherit the property can accept the property inheritance and the mortgage that comes along with it. That is, they are contracting with the bank to accept responsibility for the mortgage.

    I was saying how are you in a contract if your parents are just sick? Your parents have a contract, but you have none with anyone.


  • #35
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    grindelwald wrote: »
    Must be a big house with that sort of mortgage,

    Should have brought a smaller house with a smaller mortgage!

    Not for Dublin.

    Would have got you an average size house in Crumlin or Drimnagh at the height of the boom.


  • #36
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    readyletsgo wrote: »
    Does it not sound like a good idea to ANYONE on here the idea i put forward in my OP? Restucture mortgages to a smaller amount each month and pass on to the children when you pass on?
    I mean the kids live in the house too lol why shouldnt they pay it too when they pass 18 years old.


    Im not one for passing my debt on to my 3 kids, That's why i have life insurance so the mortgage is paid off when i die. Kids get the house no strings attached.

    My kids are going to have their own debts when they are older for one reason or another, so why add to it.

    If you think about it at 18 they get stuck with their parents mortgage how the hell will they get a mortgage of their own , buy a car or rent a house. If that's the way it goes the next generation will be screwed, more then they are now.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    grindelwald wrote: »
    Im not one for passing my debt on to my 3 kids, That's why i have life insurance so the mortgage is paid off when i die. Kids get the house no strings attached.

    My kids are going to have their own debts when they are older for one reason or another, so why add to it.

    If you think about it at 18 they get stuck with their parents mortgage how the hell will they get a mortgage of their own , buy a car or rent a house. If that's the way it goes the next generation will be screwed, more then they are now.
    This is the best way to ensure your children get the house, but they cannot inherit your debts. They can inherit the effects of your debts (eg. getting nothing from your estate).

    But again, unless they have secured your debts they will not inherit your debts.


  • #38
    Banned Account
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    OisinT wrote: »
    That isn't correct, the only one responsible for insolvency is the estate of the deceased. If there if not enough money to repay the debts (via insurance or assets etc) then there is nothing to be passed to the child (unless they guaranteed the debts).

    Since the mortgage is over property, the person set to inherit the property can accept the property inheritance and the mortgage that comes along with it. That is, they are contracting with the bank to accept responsibility for the mortgage.

    I was saying how are you in a contract if your parents are just sick? Your parents have a contract, but you have none with anyone.

    So, from this, there is no legal way for the OP's plan to be put into force as a child will not be able to guarantee the mortgage if below the age of consent and the banks will not leave an open ended mortgage which is subject to providence?


  • #39
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    20Cent wrote: »
    Not for Dublin.

    Would have got you an average size house in Crumlin or Drimnagh at the height of the boom.


    No one was forced to buy a house there, they chose to. Just because they want a posh Dublin 12 address, should have bought one in Dublin 11 same size 200k cheaper.


  • #40
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    grindelwald wrote: »
    No one was forced to buy a house there, they chose to. Just because they want a posh Dublin 12 address, should have bought one in Dublin 11 same size 200k cheaper.

    Drimnagh is posh?


  • #41
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Fitzcaraldo wrote: »
    So, from this, there is no legal way for the OP's plan to be put into force as a child will not be able to guarantee the mortgage if below the age of consent and the banks will not leave an open ended mortgage which is subject to providence?
    AFAIK or can remember (not my area of law tbh) it depends on the will. I guess the trustee would have to make the decision - it is likely they would sell the house and repay the mortgage and keep whatever is leftover on trust for the beneficiary.
    It's doubtful IMO that a trustee could accept debt in the form of a mortgage on behalf of a beneficiary.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    20Cent wrote: »
    Drimnagh is posh?


    Not too familiar with the all of Dublin (only phibsboro/ drumcondra) but doesn't drimnagh fall under the dublin 12 address which everyone is after.


  • #43
    Banned Account
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    OisinT wrote: »
    AFAIK or can remember (not my area of law tbh) it depends on the will. I guess the trustee would have to make the decision - it is likely they would sell the house and repay the mortgage and keep whatever is leftover on trust for the beneficiary.
    It's doubtful IMO that a trustee could accept debt in the form of a mortgage on behalf of a beneficiary.

    That would be my suspicion. Funnily enough, in the area of shareholder protection for company directors, there can be a contract which forces beneficiaries to sell shares in the company to surviving directors despite the fact that they were never party to the agreement.


  • #44
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    grindelwald wrote: »
    Not to familiar with the all of Dublin (only phibsboro/ drumcondra) but doesn't drimnagh fall under the dublin 12 address which everyone is after.
    ew Drimnagh is a kip. :D

    It is part of D12, but I've never heard of anyone wanting to live there. Raghnallach is quite popular at the moment


  • #45
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    grindelwald wrote: »
    Not to familiar with the all of Dublin (only phibsboro/ drumcondra) but doesn't drimnagh fall under the dublin 12 address which everyone is after.

    Never heard that one lived all my life in Dublin.
    Wouldn't consider Crumlin or Drimnagh posh at all.

    The point I was making was that her 1,800 mortgage may not necessarily be some big house. At the height of the boom it wouldn't have gotten you that much in Dublin.


  • #46
    readyletsgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,276 ✭✭✭readyletsgo


    Ok so my idea is crap, ah well, lets be glad it was a bum plan so!

    I'll never post anything like this again as most of this has kinda gone over my head lol


  • #47
    UrbanSea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,335 ✭✭✭✭UrbanSea


    OisinT wrote: »
    féck all use to students in Dublin to rent a house in Sligo.

    Aw ya because that's what my suggestion was.


  • #48
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Fitzcaraldo wrote: »
    That would be my suspicion. Funnily enough, in the area of shareholder protection for company directors, there can be a contract which forces beneficiaries to sell shares in the company to surviving directors despite the fact that they were never party to the agreement.
    That stems from the concept that only one person should be legally entitled to particular shares and is contained in Model Reg29. That is, it is contained in the articles of association of the company.


  • #49
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    greetings wrote: »
    Aw ya because that's what my suggestion was.
    I'm just teasing. My point was really that why is it so ridiculous that property costs different amounts in different areas?
    Clearly supply and demand is weighted differently in Dublin than in different areas of the country. Rental income has higher potential thus property investment at higher value is also more abundant.


  • #50
    Banned Account
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    OisinT wrote: »
    That stems from the concept that only one person should be legally entitled to particular shares and is contained in Model Reg29. That is, it is contained in the articles of association of the company.

    It is still a bit of an anomally though. If a director dies leaving only a spouse, these put and call agreements can force her to sell the shares to the surviving director despite the fact that she was never party to the agreement and may wish to keep the shareholding. I presume that the articles of association would have little to do with this?


  • #51
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    readyletsgo wrote: »
    Ok so my idea is crap, ah well, lets be glad it was a bum plan so!

    I'll never post anything like this again as most of this has kinda gone over my head lol

    Not a bad idea. Can see something like this happening actually.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Fitzcaraldo wrote: »
    It is still a bit of an anomally though. If a director dies leaving only a spouse, these put and call agreements can force her to sell the shares to the surviving director despite the fact that she was never party to the agreement and may wish to keep the shareholding. I presume that the articles of association would have little to do with this?
    It's usually that this agreement is in place in the articles of association - that is that the shares would never be left to the spouse, the intention would always be that the estate would sell these shares to the other shareholders to benefit the spouse.
    I'm pretty sure there are other scenarios for this too, (joint shareholders etc) just cannot think of them off the top of my head.


  • #53
    RATM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭RATM


    OisinT wrote: »
    The banks are not being bailed out. The government is purchasing the derivatives portfolio of each of the major banks and funding recapitalisation through purchase of equity in the banks. This means that NAMA is a shareholder in the banks and the government (read:we) are shareholders in NAMA and enjoy the rights that go along with that.

    PS: this scheme was previously successful in the 90s in Sweden

    You've been sold some FF propaganda there buddy. There was indeed a good bank-bad bank scheme in Sweden that was largely successful in the 1990's. However NAMA is not nor will it ever be a replica of that system. For one Sweden did deals with the bond-holders- they were told they'd have to take either some of the hit or sit back and take all of it. We didn't and we're still subsidising their dodgy gambles right now.

    Secondly Sweden had their bad bank open and closed all in the space of 18 months, as per their plan. Our plan is more, shall we say, open ended with a decade being the minimum time scale being mooted by the parties. You just know well that 10 years is going to turn into 15 or even 20 the way things are going.

    So no, we don't have a scheme like the successful Swedish one, the very idea that we ever did was more FF lies to persuade the masses that NAMA was a good idea.


  • #54
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    RATM wrote: »
    You've been sold some FF propaganda there buddy. There was indeed a good bank-bad bank scheme in Sweden that was largely successful in the 1990's. However NAMA is not nor will it ever be a replica of that system. For one Sweden did deals with the bond-holders- they were told they'd have to take either some of the hit or sit back and take all of it. We didn't and we're still subsidising their dodgy gambles right now.

    Secondly Sweden had their bad bank open and closed all in the space of 18 months, as per their plan. Our plan is more, shall we say, open ended with a decade being the minimum time scale being mooted by the parties. You just know well that 10 years is going to turn into 15 or even 20 the way things are going.

    So no, we don't have a scheme like the successful Swedish one, the very idea that we ever did was more FF lies to persuade the masses that NAMA was a good idea.
    Don't know anything about FF propaganda or otherwise. Not a member or a believer in any of the parties.

    This system works and unfortunately the majority of the population are woefully unaware of what it means. Most people think we're just giving money to the banks for nothing.


  • #55
    UrbanSea
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,335 ✭✭✭✭UrbanSea


    OisinT wrote: »
    I'm just teasing. My point was really that why is it so ridiculous that property costs different amounts in different areas?
    Clearly supply and demand is weighted differently in Dublin than in different areas of the country. Rental income has higher potential thus property investment at higher value is also more abundant.

    But at the same time people should have looked around and realised the price differences in areas were becoming ridiculous,after all,it wasn't just Dublin that was growing,but prices reflected that.
    I bet most of those rental houses are now recieving less rent than the mortgage is due to competition from other rental properties now. Puts things into perspective as to how stupid people were.


Advertisement