Statute of Limitation

curlylou23

Apologies if this question was answered already but I couldn't find anything close enough to it.

My husband and I bought a house in January 2005. We handed over all
monies requested by our solicitor. In August 2012 we received a letter
stating the solicitor we dealt with in 2005 is no longer working for
the firm and could we contact the firm to arrange a meeting to update
our file in general. We did this and met on August 30th when we were
informed that the deeds were never transferred into our names and are
listed in the previous owners names. We were also told that other
files dealt with by the solicitor were in a far worst state then ours
and we were one of the lucky ones.
This is when they told us it would cost €533 to transfer the deeds
into our name and our total bill would be €1700 because we were not
issued a bill in 2005.
I was very shocked to hear that the deeds were not in our name and on
top of that we are facing a very unexpected bill of €1700 as any money
requested was handed over.

As we moved into our home in Jan 2005 I am wondering if the statute of
limitations apply in our case?

dats_right

You say that 'any money requested was handed over', but you don't say whether you actually paid this firm any fees or not. If you paid fees at the time, clearly you should not have to pay for the same service twice. If you didn't pay any fees then you are contractually obliged to do so.

You raise the point about the possible application of the Statute of Limitations. Generally for matters of contract a claim becomes statute barred after six years, so there is a possibility that you may have a good defence at law if this firm tried to sue you to recover its fees. However, even if the claim were to be statute barred it does not mean that they cannot look to recover the money from you, all it means is that they cannot successfully sue you for it. For example, the firm might be entitled to exercise a lien over your title deeds for unpaid fees. In other words, they could potentially keep your deeds until you pay their fees, which would mean you would be unable to sell your property or remortgage it, etc.

From your own point of view, you should want to get this matter resolved and get the property transferred into your names. In my view you should try and reach an agreement with the firm to resolve matters at this stage. I would think that in the circumstances there would be enormous scope to do a deal over the fees given from what you say this firm hasn't exactly covered itself in glory in its handling of the matter.

NoQuarter

dats_right wrote: »

Generally for matters of contract a claim becomes statute barred after six years, so there is a possibility that you may have a good defence at law if this firm tried to sue you to recover its fees.

You are assuming that the breach occurred the day they moved into their house? I'm curious as to why you think the clock would start to run from that date.

Other than that, nice legal advice.

dats_right

NoQuarter wrote: »

You are assuming that the breach occurred the day they moved into their house? I'm curious as to why you think the clock would start to run from that date.

Other than that, nice legal advice.

Well, I didn't really take a view on that, save that I noted the mere possibility that the statute might offer a good defence to the OP if this firm tried to sue them to recover its fees.

But thinking about it a bit more, if a Bill of Costs had been furnished to the OP then I would probably view the date of the bill as the date that the clock starts to tick (provided the Bill followed within a reasonable period after the sale closed). In the event that no Bill ever issued it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty when the clock started to tick. Practically speaking though it would however be normal conveyancing practice for a solicitor to raise his Bill on or before closing. I note in any event that the purchase completed in January 2005, so this would mean at this stage that 7 1/2 years have elapsed. On this basis alone I would imagine, even if the date of closing is not the date from which to start the clock running, that there is at the very least a possibility that the statute would become an issue. In any evemt, even if any such claim was not statute barred based on the information furnished it might also be open to the OP to defend any claim on the merits for breach of contract.

Milk & Honey

The o/p can look for a statement of account. The o/p can also seek to have the file transferred to another solicitor. There may well be misconduct by the partners in allowing this situation to develop. I am surprised that they did not fix it up for free.
The statute may be of assistance to the firm in a breach of contract action by the o/p for failure to complete the work undertaken.
The o/p does not say if any undertakings were given to a bank. These would still be active and the o/p could notify the bank that title had not been registered. that would force the firm to fix things up quickly if it were to be the case.
The figure of €1700 is also quite high. I am sure lower estimates could be obtained.

McCrack

If the €1700 is inclusive of VAT and outlay (land registry fees) I would think it reasonable.

Very good points have been made above. I dont think myself its clear cut as to say the Bill is statute barred for recovery.

seb65

I'm curious. A solicitor on behalf of a firm breaches his fiduciary and contractual duty to transfer deed title.

The firm finally alerts the client after 7 years.

Why is everyone acting as if its perfectly reasonable for the firm to charge this client fees? Why is no one even suggesting that the OP should look into suing this firm for its breach?

I am actually wondering. Is it acceptable in Ireland for law firms to behave this way?

Also - are solicitors or barristers required to take an ethics course at Blackhall/Kings?

Marcusm

That's one serious brass neck on whichever solicitor spoke to you; their failure to complete the work according to the undertakings they have given to you and others (especially the serious ones provided to the mortgage lender). In the circumstances, I might see myself willing to pay such costs as might now need to be incurred but I would see no circumstances in which I would be willing to pay the fees for work undertaken 7.5 years ago. If the firm did not see fit to issue the bill on a timely basis, they clearly have no use for the funds. As regards the law firm potentially having a lien on the deeds, is this a negative equity case? If so, that lien would be of no practical effect for you.

I fully favour paying all bills due; however, in the circumstances (negligence and delay) I would not see any reason to pay.

Marcusm

seb65 wrote: »

I'm curious. A solicitor on behalf of a firm breaches his fiduciary and contractual duty to transfer deed title.

The firm finally alerts the client after 7 years.

Why is everyone acting as if its perfectly reasonable for the firm to charge this client fees? Why is no one even suggesting that the OP should look into suing this firm for its breach?

I am actually wondering. Is it acceptable in Ireland for law firms to behave this way?

Also - are solicitors or barristers required to take an ethics course at Blackhall/Kings?

I suspect that the OP would find it hard to prove they have suffered loss. The mortgage lender, however, if it as securitised the loan may hae a stronger case as it will likely be required to remove the loan from the pool at par.

Milk & Honey

McCrack wrote: »

If the €1700 is inclusive of VAT and outlay (land registry fees) I would think it reasonable.

.

€1700 is ridiculous because it includes a charge for the work already done. Aside from the statute of limitations, there is a fundamental breach of contract . The whole thing sounds stupid beyond belief. The o/p could make life very difficult for the partners in that firm. The o/p would have little difficulty convincing the law society that there was a breach of professional standards. The law society can direct that no fee be charged in the circumstances. There is also the effect on their PI premium if they have to declare it.

NoQuarter

seb65 wrote: »

Why is no one even suggesting that the OP should look into suing this firm for its breach?

Because, as I hinted at in my first post, we cant give legal advice!

seb65

NoQuarter wrote: »

Because, as I hinted at in my first post, we cant give legal advice!

I do understand that. However, I am a little surprised to see no inclination towards outrage, as this situation is, completely outrageous!

The client is one of the lucky ones because her file is less of a mess than the others?!

Tom Young

12 year limitation in re. Land. See 1957 Act.

The is an undertaking and specific performance matter.

Sofar as the Charter here is concerned, I think we are finished.

OP: Seek legal advice from an independent solicitor.