Left Ireland for Australia, left keys in door

D3PO

DamoKen wrote: »

I bought my house summer 2001.It's been in negative equity for at least the last two years. Talked with a mate who's a estate agent last summer. House near to mine that was the same spec but newer with a larger garden sold for 80,000 less than I bought mine. My estate and those surrounding it were all built within a year of each other. There are I would say over 1000 homes in all.

So it is quite possible that the OP is in negative equity.

Its very unlikely that you would be in NE unless

a) you remotgaged
b) you were interest only

if you were paying capital there is no chance you would be in NE

whippet

given the time lines the OP is talking about it looks like he has re-mortgaged the primary residence to buy a buy-to-let and in effect does not like the fact that it has gone pear shaped and for some reason feels like it's the banks fault.

There is no way a 2001 property is in such neg equity.

strandroad

looksee wrote: »

If the house(s) has been standing empty with the key in the door for 13 years it is most likely either occupied or trashed by now.

It's 13 months actually

DamoKen

earlyevening wrote: »

No way.

If he' has been repaying capital for 14 years, there's no way you could be in neg equity - unless he remortgaged.

Some fairly dodgy numbers being thrown around here. In the highly unlikely event the OP bought January 1st 2001 the longest he could possibly repay would be 12 years, not 14.

I bought in 2001 and I've been repaying just over 11.

D3PO wrote: »

Its very unlikely that you would be in NE unless

a) you remotgaged
b) you were interest only

if you were paying capital there is no chance you would be in NE

It is quite possible without remortgaging or paying interest only. And you didn't need to buy something well beyond your means either. Quite possible on a standard 30 year mortgage as I have discovered to have paid off a third of your mortgage and to find the remainder to be paid off comes to more than your house is now worth based on recent sale prices in the area. This means from my understanding of the definition you are in negative equity.

Sorry don't want to get all pedantic but people seem a bit too eager to dismiss out of hand without examining the numbers. I did nothing unusual in my mortgage arrangements and yet I am in negative equity. Doesn't bother me as I'm well aware compared to others it's insignificant and I'm happy enough where I am. It could however present a problem if I choose to emigrate.

Don't think I'd go the route the OP has chosen though.

jmayo

KegglesMcS wrote: »

After talking to the banks a number of times in Ireland who failed to let me sell my houses I had no choice but to pack the bags and go. The company I worked for had a great offer for me in Oz and I felt I was depriving my kids of a better life by not accepting.

I have 2 properties in Ireland and I haven't paid either mortgage in 13 months. I offered to take on the negative equity as a personal loan but they refused.

When did you leave for Australia ?
Was it 13 months ago or had you stopped paying the mortgage before you left ?

You won't be arrested or extradited from Oz.
You won't be arrested if you return to Ireland.
You would need to be a garlic importer or some such for that to happen.

But if you go for a loan at some stage in Oz and you lie about your past credit history, then you may be in serious do do.
And if you don't lie, a bank will take a dim view of you and view you as high risk I would say.

murphaph wrote: »

Actually it doesn't add up. A house purchased in 2001 is highly unlikely to be in negative equity in the first place.

Now hard to see.
The OP remortgages to release equity to buy a second property.
Hell half the country seemed to do the same thing to start their "would be" property empires. :rolleyes:

WetDaddy

Here's a question (with some hypothetical insinuations thrown) or two:

1. If KegglesMcS kicks the bucket, does his other half / do the kids inherit his debts?
2. If in coming back to Ireland he runs the risk of being arrested / pursued by the banks, etc., then is he potentially jeopardising his family's future return to Ireland as well (if the answer to #1 is "Yes")?

I ask as I think it's relevant. I understand his approach of "Doing what's best for his kids" and other posters' responses of "The idle rich do it, why can't you?" and "Life is short". Simply put, there's a lot more to be said for facing up to your decisions. The "other people do it, why can't I?" attitude only makes you as bad as the same folks. Moreover, if my hypothetical scenario(s) above rings true, then it might help you reconsider.

Rasmus

D3PO wrote: »

Its very unlikely that you would be in NE unless

a) you remotgaged
b) you were interest only

if you were paying capital there is no chance you would be in NE

Well, it is possible but unlikely. I bought a house in Dublin city in 2002 for 209k. Now, houses in that neighbourhood are selling between 100 and 200. It really depends on where the house is located.

Peregrinus

WetDaddy wrote: »

1. If KegglesMcS kicks the bucket, does his other half / do the kids inherit his debts?

No. They'll inherit nothing, since his estate will be liable for his debts, and his debts will presumably swallow his entire estate. But his kids won't be personally liable for what the estate can't pay.

WetDaddy wrote: »

2. If in coming back to Ireland he runs the risk of being arrested / pursued by the banks, etc., then is he potentially jeopardising his family's future return to Ireland as well (if the answer to #1 is "Yes")?

There's no risk of arrest, as previously stated. Imprisonment for debt was abolished more than a century ago.

By walking away from his debts, he's not necessarily doing the best thing for his kids, financially. The debts continue to accumulate and, the longer this problem festers, the more likely it is that on his death they will consume his entire estate. His legal personal representatives - his widow or his kids, in all likelihood - will be faced with the dilemma of paying the estate to those entitled, or paying it to themselves, which would put them at risk of very serious sanctions for breach of their legal duties as personal representatives.

This is Keggles's debt. He incurred it. He needs to sort it out, one way or the other, rather than leave the problem to his wife and kids. Whoever may be at fault here, it's not them.

faceman

An Irish court judgement for default of a personal debt cannot be enforced in Australia. It can be enforced in other parts of the EU

It's not uncommon for companies to hire Australian debt collectors to chase debtors living down under but they have no real power to do anything. That being said I know of people who had stringent conditions set by power companies down under when opening an account for electricity after getting wind of a default in another country

Generally speaking you can't be arrested for failure to pay a personal debt, even if you fail to turn up in court. (Unless fraud is involved. Then its a criminal matter) Credits can technically apply for a committal order, but no one does.

Ando's Saggy Bottom

KegglesMcS wrote: »

Have I not done that?

Clearly you haven't done your research fully if you're on here appearing to be completely unaware of the consequences of actions you have already taken.

WetDaddy

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. They'll inherit nothing, since his estate will be liable for his debts, and his debts will presumably swallow his entire estate. But his kids won't be personally liable for what the estate can't pay.


There's no risk of arrest, as previously stated. Imprisonment for debt was abolished more than a century ago.

By walking away from his debts, he's not necessarily doing the best thing for his kids, financially. The debts continue to accumulate and, the longer this problem festers, the more likely it is that on his death they will consume his entire estate. His legal personal representatives - his widow or his kids, in all likelihood - will be faced with the dilemma of paying the estate to those entitled, or paying it to themselves, which would put them at risk of very serious sanctions for breach of their legal duties as personal representatives.

This is Keggles's debt. He incurred it. He needs to sort it out, one way or the other, rather than leave the problem to his wife and kids. Whoever may be at fault here, it's not them.

Thanks for the clarification - yes, your final two paragraphs were what I was getting at: Doing the best for his family in the long run is what (I think) he should consider!

Peregrinus

faceman wrote: »

An Irish court judgement for default of a personal debt cannot be enforced in Australia. It can be enforced in other parts of the EU.

Indeed it can, under the usual common law principles regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments. Enforcement is not as straightforward as it would be under the EU arrangements, but it is certainly possible, if the bank is determined.

Riskymove

Rasmus wrote: »

Well, it is possible but unlikely. I bought a house in Dublin city in 2002 for 209k. Now, houses in that neighbourhood are selling between 100 and 200. It really depends on where the house is located.

I suppose the point is that if you haid paid your mortgage for 12 years on such a house it would be down to 100k and therefore no negative equity

(based on 20 year mortgage anyway)

Rasmus

Riskymove wrote: »

I suppose the point is that if you haid paid your mortgage for 12 years on such a house it would be down to 100k and therefore no negative equity

(based on 20 year mortgage anyway)

Correct

earlyevening

DamoKen wrote: »

Some fairly dodgy numbers being thrown around here. In the highly unlikely event the OP bought January 1st 2001 the longest he could possibly repay would be 12 years, not 14.

Maths fail on my part. Meant 12 years.

JustLen

murphaph wrote: »

Actually it doesn't add up. A house purchased in 2001 is highly unlikely to be in negative equity in the first place.

Lots of presumptions being made here by lots of posters.

However unlikely it is still resonably possible

D3PO

JustLen wrote: »

Lots of presumptions being made here by lots of posters.

However unlikely it is still resonably possible

Possible.

Then add in that the bank wouldnt allow sell at best to have a small personal loan with the OP, or that the OP wouldnt rent the houses out to meet at least some of the mortgage payments due.

Really doesnt add up.

Regardless, the debt wont dissapear the OP would be far better advised entering the MARP process then bury their head in the sand.

RATM

faceman wrote: »

An Irish court judgement for default of a personal debt cannot be enforced in Australia. It can be enforced in other parts of the EU

It's not uncommon for companies to hire Australian debt collectors to chase debtors living down under but they have no real power to do anything. That being said I know of people who had stringent conditions set by power companies down under when opening an account for electricity after getting wind of a default in another country

Generally speaking you can't be arrested for failure to pay a personal debt, even if you fail to turn up in court. (Unless fraud is involved. Then its a criminal matter) Credits can technically apply for a committal order, but no one does.

Just wondering what is the basis for this ? I thought that as Australia is a common law jurisdiction (like ourselves and other former British colonies) then a judgement would be enforceable, no ? What about after his death, could the banks have a claim on his estate ?

Keggies isnt the only one who have done this, anecdotally at least there are quite a few strategic defaulters out there and Canada/Oz seems to be the counties of choice. Personally I would have thought somewhere like Brazil would have been a better option for this stunt but getting a working visa there obviously isn't as easy.

Anyway there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not a judgement mortgage would be enforceable in another jurisdiction- I have heard before that it would be from a friend in the legal game, he reckoned that especially as it is a common law jurisdiction it would make it all the easier. Though that was off the top of his head, not from experience of an actual case.

From the banks perspective the CEO & Board are legally obliged to secure shareholders the best profits that are possible, if there is lots of Keggies out there (and I suspect there are) and it is legally possible to enforce it then the CEO and the board of directors are duty bound by company law to do so. That aside, the banks aren't exactly awash with money so it is very possible that they will pursue these cases as a matter of course.

murphaph

Indeed, don't be surprised if Irish banks club together and set up their own little enforcement office in Australia. Would make a lot of sense for them I reckon to to pursue the "new found fortunes" of people who've tried to dump their debts on the rest of us taxpayers.

Marcusm

faceman wrote: »

An Irish court judgement for default of a personal debt cannot be enforced in Australia. It can be enforced in other parts of the EU

It's not uncommon for companies to hire Australian debt collectors to chase debtors living down under but they have no real power to do anything. That being said I know of people who had stringent conditions set by power companies down under when opening an account for electricity after getting wind of a default in another country

Generally speaking you can't be arrested for failure to pay a personal debt, even if you fail to turn up in court. (Unless fraud is involved. Then its a criminal matter) Credits can technically apply for a committal order, but no one does.

Clayton Utz (whose size and competence I can attest from personal experience) would seriously disagree with you. Follow this link for a discussion of various routes for enforcement of foreign court money judgements. No treaty required!

http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/29_march_2012/20120329/enforcing_foreign_judgments_in_australia_a_case_study.page

Godge

RATM wrote: »

Just wondering what is the basis for this ? I thought that as Australia is a common law jurisdiction (like ourselves and other former British colonies) then a judgement would be enforceable, no ? What about after his death, could the banks have a claim on his estate ?

Keggies isnt the only one who have done this, anecdotally at least there are quite a few strategic defaulters out there and Canada/Oz seems to be the counties of choice. Personally I would have thought somewhere like Brazil would have been a better option for this stunt but getting a working visa there obviously isn't as easy.

Anyway there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not a judgement mortgage would be enforceable in another jurisdiction- I have heard before that it would be from a friend in the legal game, he reckoned that especially as it is a common law jurisdiction it would make it all the easier. Though that was off the top of his head, not from experience of an actual case.

From the banks perspective the CEO & Board are legally obliged to secure shareholders the best profits that are possible, if there is lots of Keggies out there (and I suspect there are) and it is legally possible to enforce it then the CEO and the board of directors are duty bound by company law to do so. That aside, the banks aren't exactly awash with money so it is very possible that they will pursue these cases as a matter of course.

The best bet for the banks is to "rediscover" him just after he dies and claim any outstanding money from his estate.

Say his outstanding mortgages are 300k with the properties now worth 200k. Bank repossesses and sells for that amount (if they are lucky) leaving an outstanding deby of 100k plus interest against Keggles.

In the meantime he buys a property and takes out a mortgage in Australia. He dies and as wife and kids go to claim life insurance, bank steps in and takes Australian property leaving wife and kids in poverty. He did the best thing, all right.

It also looks like he lost the chance to go bankrupt here is he is gone for more than a year.

Anynama143

KegglesMcS wrote: »

After talking to the banks a number of times in Ireland who failed to let me sell my houses I had no choice but to pack the bags and go. The company I worked for had a great offer for me in Oz and I felt I was depriving my kids of a better life by not accepting.

I have 2 properties in Ireland and I haven't paid either mortgage in 13 months. I offered to take on the negative equity as a personal loan but they refused.

My question is when living in Australia, can the banks/law force me to come home at any point?

My only concern is if I were home for christmas for example could I be arrested or am I being stupid?

Two points:

1. I hope your debt is with one of the foreign banks. If it's not, you are about to rob the Irish taxpayer of hundreds of thousands of euros that I would rather see go to hospitals, schools and the like. Thanks for that - we will all pay extra so you can walk away from your mistakes.

2. This is another example of the moral hazard we were and are assured is not a problem - the amount of strategic defaults is getting ridiculous.

Anyone who doubts this - consider: the rate of unemployment of those in mortgage arrears is HALF the national average. So all these people in arrears are not - as the story has been spun - those who have lost their jobs in the recession. They are stashing money away to buy cheap houses in the future, and dumping the losses on the rest of us.

Thanks guys.

RATM

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed, don't be surprised if Irish banks club together and set up their own little enforcement office in Australia. Would make a lot of sense for them I reckon to to pursue the "new found fortunes" of people who've tried to dump their debts on the rest of us taxpayers.

That is very much a distinct possibility. I would also think that Australian & Canadian banks who are in the mortgage market will be very aware of the situation of strategic defaulters from Ireland and as such will likely do very rigorous credit checks on any Irish immigrants so they can flush out those who are less than honest on their mortgage applications.

Bankruptcy seems like a much better option for the OP that the route he has taken. That said the banks are not entirely innocent in this debacle either.

jmayo

Anynama143 wrote: »

Two points:

2. This is another example of the moral hazard we were and are assured is not a problem - the amount of strategic defaults is getting ridiculous.

Anyone who doubts this - consider: the rate of unemployment of those in mortgage arrears is HALF the national average. So all these people in arrears are not - as the story has been spun - those who have lost their jobs in the recession. They are stashing money away to buy cheap houses in the future, and dumping the losses on the rest of us.

Thanks guys.

That is why I question some posters asertion that neighbours will stand together if one is threatened with eviction for non payment of debts.
Some eejits will always believe that it is the system and fair fooks if someone can get one over it, but others I believe, or at least hope, will soon start seeing through the bullsh**.

Neighbours will pretty quickly cop on if their neighbour being chased is probably as well off or even better off than them, if that neighbour led the highlife blowing wads of cash during the boom, or unlike themselves the neighbour hasn't bothered trying to repay their debts.

The Irish may stand together at times, but if they feel they are been taken they will be damm quick to turn their back.
This could be where the Irish so called begrudgery actually does us some good.

cookie1977

jmayo wrote: »

That is why I question some posters asertion that neighbours will stand together if one is threatened with eviction for non payment of debts.
Some eejits will always believe that it is the system and fair fooks if someone can get one over it, but others I believe, or at least hope, will soon start seeing through the bullsh**.

Neighbours will pretty quickly cop on if their neighbour being chased is probably as well off or even better off than them, if that neighbour led the highlife blowing wads of cash during the boom, or unlike themselves the neighbour hasn't bothered trying to repay their debts.

The Irish may stand together at times, but if they feel they are been taken they will be damm quick to turn their back.
This could be where the Irish so called begrudgery actually does us some good.

Would you agree though that not everyone employed but in arrears is doing so for strategic default or to maintain a high quality lifestyle?

I mean I don't want a strategic defaulter neighbour getting and easy ride while I do all I can to pay my way but I would feel sorry for those in employment but arrears because they are doing all they can to survive and cannot meet their mortgage or whose bank has refused to effectively help them enough.

Mikros

faceman wrote: »

An Irish court judgement for default of a personal debt cannot be enforced in Australia. It can be enforced in other parts of the EU

I think it has been said already, but the common law rules around enforcing foreign law judgement have been knocking about for 200 years or so precisely to deal with the case of an "absconding debtor". Australia is a common law jurisdiction and those rules would apply equally there. The bank would have to begin fresh proceedings in Australia using the evidence of the Irish judgement as the basis of the claim - it is not straightforward - but is very much possible.

The main factor is the effort / money involved in tracing a person and the cost of a second set of complicated legal proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. For smaller amounts of debt historically they are just written off. Who knows how that might develop in future? It is a risk you take on.

68Murph68

Mikros wrote: »

I think it has been said already, but the common law rules around enforcing foreign law judgement have been knocking about for 200 years or so precisely to deal with the case of an "absconding debtor". Australia is a common law jurisdiction and those rules would apply equally there. The bank would have to begin fresh proceedings in Australia using the evidence of the Irish judgement as the basis of the claim - it is not straightforward - but is very much possible.

The main factor is the effort / money involved in tracing a person and the cost of a second set of complicated legal proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. For smaller amounts of debt historically they are just written off. Who knows how that might develop in future? It is a risk you take on.

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed, don't be surprised if Irish banks club together and set up their own little enforcement office in Australia. Would make a lot of sense for them I reckon to to pursue the "new found fortunes" of people who've tried to dump their debts on the rest of us taxpayers.

The thing is that historically the number doing this would have been miniscule

It would only take a very small increase in numbers doing this via heading to OZ/Canada to make it economically worthwhile for the banks to pursue this.

There's also the possibility that the Australians could very easily sign a bilateral agreement with Ireland overnight in relation to recovering debts in each others counties which would pull the rug out from under any individuals who went down this route. If it was agreed at State level to make judgments in an Irish court directly enforceable in Australia once they had been reviewed as legit by an Australian judicial panel with all costs of the judicial panel being met by a contribution by the Irish banks and vice-versa, anyone who had gone down this route could end up in an even worse situation than they were previously.

Given the numbers of Irish in Oz currently you'd imagine that it would be the number one priority item from the Irish side in terms of discussions between the two countries at diplomatic level, given the banks are owned by the Irish state. From the Australian side of things they really don't want people who have run out on their debts previously emigrating to their country, as the risk of these individuals repeating this behaviour would be far higher than someone who hasn't.

I doubt there would be too many legal obstacles in the way of the banks providing a list of individuals who have defaulted on their mortgages and who they believe have fled the country to the Australian emigration authorities/the Australian financial authorities.

This is something that I could see happening in a very short time period and making life very difficult for anyone who had gone down the flee to Oz route.

the groutch

this is one of the few times I'm rooting for the bank.

ted1

DamoKen wrote: »

I bought my house summer 2001.It's been in negative equity for at least the last two years. Talked with a mate who's a estate agent last summer. House near to mine that was the same spec but newer with a larger garden sold for 80,000 less than I bought mine. My estate and those surrounding it were all built within a year of each other. There are I would say over 1000 homes in all.

So it is quite possible that the OP is in negative equity.

But you'll have paid off more than 80k of the capital so your not in negative equity

jam_mac_jam

How are you in negative equity if you bought in 2001, that's a lie.