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
Estate Management Company - What Happens If It Fails?
Options
-
02-07-2013 3:08pm#1Hi all,
I thought I would post my concerns here and look for information before I go to my solicitor.
I am currently a landlord of a house in an estate which I planned to sell after I few years of paying off and reducing the negative equity.
I have just received a letter from the management agency, saying that all works have ceased, due to number of property owners not paying their annual fee, which is around €95 a year. The estate management agency still have not been paid along with the landscaper.
I have been told back in March by the agency that the non payers would be pursued in court for unpaid fees, but the latest letter is a cause for concern.
It have heard before that if a management company for the estate fails, I will not be able to sell my house.
Is this true?
Could those who paid over the last number of years go through the courts to try and force a sale?
Have you ever heard or read of a similar situation where a management company has ceased to exist and a property owner wanted to sell?
Would it be worth getting out now and pay off the negative equity over anumber of years without the overhang of a property that cannot be sold?
Should I seek advice from my solicitor who should be more knowledgable in this area?
Your advice would be appreciated
Many thanks
LarryB0
Comments
-
Speak to your solicitor, they are the best people to advise you.0
-
Hi all,
I thought I would post my concerns here and look for information before I go to my solicitor.
I am currently a landlord of a house in an estate which I planned to sell after I few years of paying off and reducing the negative equity.
I have just received a letter from the management agency, saying that all works have ceased, due to number of property owners not paying their annual fee, which is around €95 a year. The estate management agency still have not been paid along with the landscaper.
I have been told back in March by the agency that the non payers would be pursued in court for unpaid fees, but the latest letter is a cause for concern.
It have heard before that if a management company for the estate fails, I will not be able to sell my house.
Is this true?
Could those who paid over the last number of years go through the courts to try and force a sale?
Have you ever heard or read of a similar situation where a management company has ceased to exist and a property owner wanted to sell?
Would it be worth getting out now and pay off the negative equity over anumber of years without the overhang of a property that cannot be sold?
Should I seek advice from my solicitor who should be more knowledgable in this area?
Your advice would be appreciated
Many thanks
LarryB
If the management company fails, what do you have to sell? A lease from a person who does not exist, that's what.
No bank will give a mortgage in those circumstances.0 -
If the management company fails, what do you have to sell? A lease from a person who does not exist, that's what.
No bank will give a mortgage in those circumstances.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, the leasehold of the property is from the developer not the Management Company.0 -
valleyoftheunos wrote: »You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, the leasehold of the property is from the developer not the Management Company.
You clearly have no idea. The developer forms the management company and issues leases, then hands it over to the owners. A developer does not want to be stuck as landlords years after completing a development. Sometimes the developer and the management company join in the deed granting the lease but it is always provided that the developer will drop out of the picture at some point.0 -
You clearly have no idea. The developer forms the management company and issues leases, then hands it over to the owners. A developer does not want to be stuck as landlords years after completing a development. Sometimes the developer and the management company join in the deed granting the lease but it is always provided that the developer will drop out of the picture at some point.
The developer transfers communal areas to the management company (which is made up of all the leasehold owners) not the residuary right of the leases. Entirely different things.
Even in cases where the developer has gone bust Leases are not effected as the interest in the land ie the leasehold continues to exist. the Residuary interest ie the interest of the landlord passes to its successor in title, ie whoever acquires it.
Where the Management Company goes bust the problem lies in that there is no one liable for maintaining the common areas of the estate and for that reason mortgage lenders will not give loans.0 -
Advertisement
-
The developer forms the management company of which the lessees of the units become shareholders. The developer retains control of the common areas until the development is complete and then transfers control of the common areas to the management company. The management company has the fee simple so holds the reversionary interest in the units.
The developer walks away completely in most cases.
The developer going bust does not matter but the management company going bust does.
A lease cannot exist in a vacuum. There must be two parties. When one party ceases to exist so does the lease. The company would have to be restored to the register to revive the lease.
It is obvious you have never looked at an apartment owners lease. Who do you think sues when the management fees are not paid?
This famous case shows that the lease is from the management company not the developer.
http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/36b3ebdf059a5be1802578380040fdb5?OpenDocument0 -
Hi all,
I thought I would post my concerns here and look for information before I go to my solicitor.
I am currently a landlord of a house in an estate which I planned to sell after I few years of paying off and reducing the negative equity.
I have just received a letter from the management agency, saying that all works have ceased, due to number of property owners not paying their annual fee, which is around €95 a year. The estate management agency still have not been paid along with the landscaper.
I have been told back in March by the agency that the non payers would be pursued in court for unpaid fees, but the latest letter is a cause for concern.
It have heard before that if a management company for the estate fails, I will not be able to sell my house.
Is this true?
Could those who paid over the last number of years go through the courts to try and force a sale?
Have you ever heard or read of a similar situation where a management company has ceased to exist and a property owner wanted to sell?
Would it be worth getting out now and pay off the negative equity over anumber of years without the overhang of a property that cannot be sold?
Should I seek advice from my solicitor who should be more knowledgable in this area?
Your advice would be appreciated
Many thanks
LarryB
Inability to sell a property comes about in several ways. One is a judgement against the company which can prevent it from engaging in any conveyancing until the matter is resolved. This happened to a very large development in Dublin and was recently featured on the consumer show which you can probably still get on rte player.
The other is that the company directors either all resign and no directors are appointed (which is not permissable under company law and/or they fail to submit company accounts as required. The CRO will move to strike off a company if these matters are not resolved after a time period (in the case of annual accounts a substantial fine could be built up in the interim.)
A company which is not 'normal' and has no directors will be unable to engage in the conveyancing process or undertake any prequal conveyancing documents which solicitors request the company directors to undertake.
The buyers solicitor would simply advise any buyer to walk away if the company was in poor shape like this and legally no lease document can be signed which makes exchanging contracts quite the challenge as the OMC must sign off on the lease.
The developer issue mentioned by some is confusing things. In the developer phase the developers may well be also directors of the company but this is two distinct companies. If the developer resigns from the OMC and no one takes over the developer cannot operate the company or sign off on leases as builder XyZ as there is no legal relationship.
I would find out why the agent has not pursued these fees. In a system where you can opt out without consequence there is little incentive to pay.
From a selfish point of view if the last accounts werre submitted last month then you have year to sell up and run. If they are due in a month and there are problems not being addressed by the directors you need to get in there and do what you can. A property that cannot be bought or sold has an effective value of zero.
In the hyper bad scenario the company is struck off the MUD act allows for quick restoration through the high court but this can cost 6-10k and its unlikley your fellow residents will rush out to help you if they dont like the idea of 95 per year.0 -
Inability to sell a property comes about in several ways. One is a judgement against the company which can prevent it from engaging in any conveyancing until the matter is resolved. This happened to a very large development in Dublin and was recently featured on the consumer show which you can probably still get on rte player.
The other is that the company directors either all resign and no directors are appointed (which is not permissable under company law and/or they fail to submit company accounts as required. The CRO will move to strike off a company if these matters are not resolved after a time period (in the case of annual accounts a substantial fine could be built up in the interim.)
A company which is not 'normal' and has no directors will be unable to engage in the conveyancing process or undertake any prequal conveyancing documents which solicitors request the company directors to undertake.
The buyers solicitor would simply advise any buyer to walk away if the company was in poor shape like this and legally no lease document can be signed which makes exchanging contracts quite the challenge as the OMC must sign off on the lease.
The developer issue mentioned by some is confusing things. In the developer phase the developers may well be also directors of the company but this is two distinct companies. If the developer resigns from the OMC and no one takes over the developer cannot operate the company or sign off on leases as builder XyZ as there is no legal relationship.
I would find out why the agent has not pursued these fees. In a system where you can opt out without consequence there is little incentive to pay.
From a selfish point of view if the last accounts werre submitted last month then you have year to sell up and run. If they are due in a month and there are problems not being addressed by the directors you need to get in there and do what you can. A property that cannot be bought or sold has an effective value of zero.
In the hyper bad scenario the company is struck off the MUD act allows for quick restoration through the high court but this can cost 6-10k and its unlikley your fellow residents will rush out to help you if they dont like the idea of 95 per year.
The agent has resigned according to the o/p. The agent has not pursued fees due to non payment of itself. The reality is that if the situation is allowed to drift the management company will be struck off as there is now no agent and presumably no work is being done.
If the company is struck off there will be extreme difficulty selling a unit.0 -
If there is no money on the sinking fund the place will fall apart fast0
-
The agent has resigned according to the o/p. The agent has not pursued fees due to non payment of itself. The reality is that if the situation is allowed to drift the management company will be struck off as there is now no agent and presumably no work is being done.
If the company is struck off there will be extreme difficulty selling a unit.
OP does not state that agent has resigned just that works have ceased. Presumably the agent wants people to pay their way as its how they make money as well.
The rest is what I said......0 -
Advertisement
-
-
As a prospective purchaser of an apartment during the last year, I withdrew from 5 purchases and in most cases it was due to the management company not being in a sound financial position.
I also came across a number of complexes that had apartments advertised as for sale but when contacting the EA, was told that there was a problem with the management company and no sale could proceed.
As a buyer of a property in a complex, you want to be sure that the management company has sufficient cash in bank for the day to day running of the complex and that there is a decent sinking fund in place to cover non annual repairs which are not estimated for in the cash in bank balance.0 -
The charge is pretty small; and thus there should be a practical workaround. The likelihood is that the communal work is not very significant and certainly likely to be no more burdensome than that undertaken unofficially bu residents associaiton around the country. If, however, there are enclosed communal spaces or lifts meaning that the OP's management charge is not representative fo the estate as a whole, then different advice would be given.
OP: If you are in a housing estate without apartments, duplexes etc, my advice would be to try and find a group of like minded residents to shoulder the administrative burden with you. In such developments, the largest costs are likely to be the common areas insurance and the fees of the managers themselves. If you can call an AGM, have a group of you appointed as directors and self manage the estate from now on, you will at least be able to keep the ship moving forward somewhat. As part of this process, I would insist that the outgoing managing agent be asked (nay insist) to reduce any outstanding fees to reflect their inability to recover in the past. It would be disappointing if you were not able to take over the estate and manage it without significant prior liabilities.
Canvass among the neighbours (appreciate that you don't live there yourself), get a committee together with a variety of skills, some practical people to arrange the gardening, a solicitor if there is one, an accountant/bookkeeper and someone who is happy to do paper work. Next, find the most bolshy of your female neighbours and appoint her to collect the dues.
I know a number of people who have had to do this in the UK for apartment blocks and there have generally been larger sums at issue there. It is, however, in everyone's interest to ensure that there are no legal impediments to selling or remortgaging if necessary.0 -
The developer forms the management company of which the lessees of the units become shareholders. The developer retains control of the common areas until the development is complete and then transfers control of the common areas to the management company. The management company has the fee simple so holds the reversionary interest in the units.
The developer walks away completely in most cases.
The developer going bust does not matter but the management company going bust does.
A lease cannot exist in a vacuum. There must be two parties. When one party ceases to exist so does the lease. The company would have to be restored to the register to revive the lease.
It is obvious you have never looked at an apartment owners lease. Who do you think sues when the management fees are not paid?
This famous case shows that the lease is from the management company not the developer.
http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/36b3ebdf059a5be1802578380040fdb5?OpenDocument
I've dealt with many leases both commercial and residential, short and long. You however fail to understand even the most basic principles of property law. If the grantor of a lease ceases to exist eg is struck off, merges with another company or in the case of an individual, dies, the lease does not cease to exist or die with them, the reversionary interest simply passes to their successor in title.
Given that you don't understand that fundamental element I sincerely hope you are not attempting to advise anyone on such matters.0 -
Good morning all,
Many thanks for your input. Although there is some conflict amongst some of your replies the same conclusion is reached, sell up now whilst the company is still functional.
The Management Agency still exists, but the Management Company of the estate is under threat of becoming dissolved. Due to lack of funds. I have gone back on an email to the agency asking them if they have taken legal action against those that have not paid, and I was told in a previous email from them that this would take place in March 2013
The last letter that all homeowners received was that the directors (residents) of the company have stood down due to lack of cooperation from the non payers - but this is where the agency should be stepping in and chasing these guys for payment.
For those of you that queried, this is a housing estate, there are no apartment complexes. It is also an unfinished estate. When I lived there I was a member of the residents committee, and we a had a group of like minded individuals looking out for the best interests of the estate. When we came up against the non payers, they offered no solutions. Even solutions I suggested they would still not cooperate with a reduced annual bill, or help out with grass cutting should we have taken it on ourselves. I personally contacted councillors in the hope that the council would take over the estate, but they would not touch it in its unfinished state. I also looked at taking over the running of the company ourselves, but no one was willing to take on the legal, or accountancy side of things. During all of this time I insisted that the developers did not remove themselves as directors of the company, but they successfully managed to do this after I had left the estate and two residents were nominated, who have now stood down
Another point made earlier, if a management company goes bust, the house cannot be sold. If a house cannot be sold then the value is zero. I would love to know if this problem is more widespread, where the company is on the verge of disolving, and with the major push for reposessions looming, surely the banks and goverment do not want to be left with a bunch of unsellable houses due to a failed management company, something has got to give.
Many thanks again to those that replied. I have requested more information from the agency and I will also speak to my solicitor for advice. I'm not looking forward to repaying the €100000 negative equity for nothing if I decide to sell. It's a performing loan so why would the bank give us a break.0 -
Good morning all,
Many thanks for your input. Although there is some conflict amongst some of your replies the same conclusion is reached, sell up now whilst the company is still functional.
The Management Agency still exists, but the Management Company of the estate is under threat of becoming dissolved. Due to lack of funds. I have gone back on an email to the agency asking them if they have taken legal action against those that have not paid, and I was told in a previous email from them that this would take place in March 2013
The last letter that all homeowners received was that the directors (residents) of the company have stood down due to lack of cooperation from the non payers - but this is where the agency should be stepping in and chasing these guys for payment.
For those of you that queried, this is a housing estate, there are no apartment complexes. It is also an unfinished estate. When I lived there I was a member of the residents committee, and we a had a group of like minded individuals looking out for the best interests of the estate. When we came up against the non payers, they offered no solutions. Even solutions I suggested they would still not cooperate with a reduced annual bill, or help out with grass cutting should we have taken it on ourselves. I personally contacted councillors in the hope that the council would take over the estate, but they would not touch it in its unfinished state. I also looked at taking over the running of the company ourselves, but no one was willing to take on the legal, or accountancy side of things. During all of this time I insisted that the developers did not remove themselves as directors of the company, but they successfully managed to do this after I had left the estate and two residents were nominated, who have now stood down
Another point made earlier, if a management company goes bust, the house cannot be sold. If a house cannot be sold then the value is zero. I would love to know if this problem is more widespread, where the company is on the verge of disolving, and with the major push for reposessions looming, surely the banks and goverment do not want to be left with a bunch of unsellable houses due to a failed management company, something has got to give.
Many thanks again to those that replied. I have requested more information from the agency and I will also speak to my solicitor for advice. I'm not looking forward to repaying the €100000 negative equity for nothing if I decide to sell. It's a performing loan so why would the bank give us a break.
If the directors have already officially resigned and there are no directors listed with the CRO then you already have a big problem. When it comes time to sell the directos have to complete a MUD act prequal and answer various questions for the buyer as to the status of the company and its accounts. They also need to arrange any outstanding fees and sign the lease.
Once the buyers solicitor discovers there are no directors they will abort any attempt to purchase. This will become abundantly clear as the CRO will change the company status. Check with the CRO to see if a director resignation form has been submitted.
Estates that are managed MUST have an operating company to make them viable. Your best bet is to hold a meeting and get people appointed as directors ASAP and help put together a strategy for moving forward. Maybe the folks in the estate dont realise this as most people are oblivious to the powers of the company until its too late.
Best of luck.0 -
Thank you Lantus.
A challanging time awaits me. I'll post up as much information as I can for others regardless of the outcome.
Cheers
LarryB0 -
Are you going to make the prospective purchasers aware of the trouble the MC is in Larry?0
-
If they have good solicitors they will find out in time.
In the meantime, I will do what I can to get out of the situation. If you read my first post, it was my intentions to rent out, pay the mortgage, reduce the negative equity and sell, and not to hold onto the house. The issue with the management company has bene forced on me and other wishing to sell up (There's another house in the estate that just went up for sale yesterday)
The majority of people who live in the estate are locals who have grown up in the area. One of the arguements of the non payers is that they have no intention to sell. Also, when I was arranging a local letting agency to look after the rent, they told that they get numerous queries from potential local buyers looking for property in the estate. Basically those locals that do not want to pay don't care if the management company dissolves
It's a selfish act I know, but I have spent my life giving to everyone, I believe I should be looking out for my own interests in this situation.0 -
`valleyoftheunos wrote: »I've dealt with many leases both commercial and residential, short and long.
Given your posts in this thread I doubt you did any more than staple documents together.
`valleyoftheunos wrote: »ou however fail to understand even the most basic principles of property law. If the grantor of a lease ceases to exist eg is struck off, merges with another company or in the case of an individual, dies, the lease does not cease to exist or die with them, the reversionary interest simply passes to their successor in title.
A company does not have a successor. When it is dissolved the assets pass to the state as the ultimate intestate successor. The Minister for Finance receives the legal title but is not obliged to have any dealings with it. When this happens there is no-one to assent to assignments of leases or enforce covenants.valleyoftheunos wrote: »Given that you don't understand that fundamental element I sincerely hope you are not attempting to advise anyone on such matters.
I think you should repeat that looking into a mirror.0 -
Advertisement
-
`
Given your posts in this thread I doubt you did any more than staple documents together.
`
A company does not have a successor. When it is dissolved the assets pass to the state as the ultimate intestate successor. The Minister for Finance receives the legal title but is not obliged to have any dealings with it. When this happens there is no-one to assent to assignments of leases or enforce covenants.
I think you should repeat that looking into a mirror.
The mind boggles, Companies can be neither testate nor intestate so the minister receives nothing from a company "as the ultimate intestate successor". where are you getting this stuff from?l
that there is no party apparent to assent to assignments or otherwise does not mean that the lease ceases to exist only that it will be impossible to assign or "sell" as it were.0 -
Are you going to make the prospective purchasers aware of the trouble the MC is in Larry?
he wont have to, the buyers sol will do a lot of the investigation and they would have to be scrapping the bottom of the barrel to miss omething like an OMC or problems with it. Theres a pretty standard form that goes out re MUD act compliance that company directors fill out prior to any sale. No directors, no reply.
My advice is always to educate people on the importance of an OMC and the +ve's it can deliver in tmers f a well kept estate and stable property values.
When someones says they will never move all they are really saying is that they dont understand. Unless they are 96 and very ill then its very likley that one day they will move or will want or need to.0 -
Cut the narkiness.
Moderator0 -
Good morning all,
Many thanks for your input. Although there is some conflict amongst some of your replies the same conclusion is reached, sell up now whilst the company is still functional.
The Management Agency still exists, but the Management Company of the estate is under threat of becoming dissolved. Due to lack of funds. I have gone back on an email to the agency asking them if they have taken legal action against those that have not paid, and I was told in a previous email from them that this would take place in March 2013
The last letter that all homeowners received was that the directors (residents) of the company have stood down due to lack of cooperation from the non payers - but this is where the agency should be stepping in and chasing these guys for payment.
For those of you that queried, this is a housing estate, there are no apartment complexes. It is also an unfinished estate. When I lived there I was a member of the residents committee, and we a had a group of like minded individuals looking out for the best interests of the estate. When we came up against the non payers, they offered no solutions. Even solutions I suggested they would still not cooperate with a reduced annual bill, or help out with grass cutting should we have taken it on ourselves. I personally contacted councillors in the hope that the council would take over the estate, but they would not touch it in its unfinished state. I also looked at taking over the running of the company ourselves, but no one was willing to take on the legal, or accountancy side of things. During all of this time I insisted that the developers did not remove themselves as directors of the company, but they successfully managed to do this after I had left the estate and two residents were nominated, who have now stood down
Another point made earlier, if a management company goes bust, the house cannot be sold. If a house cannot be sold then the value is zero. I would love to know if this problem is more widespread, where the company is on the verge of disolving, and with the major push for reposessions looming, surely the banks and goverment do not want to be left with a bunch of unsellable houses due to a failed management company, something has got to give.
Many thanks again to those that replied. I have requested more information from the agency and I will also speak to my solicitor for advice. I'm not looking forward to repaying the €100000 negative equity for nothing if I decide to sell. It's a performing loan so why would the bank give us a break.
Hi OP,
Just thought i'd give the proverbial 2 cents ; Leaving aside the freehold and lease legalities as that seems to be irrelevant and breathing contentiousness on this thread.
The difficulty as some have pointed out is that a possible purchasers sol. will look at the management company current status & recent history as part of there due diligence to the purchase. I know some don't ask for past statements of accounts for the management company - but some do. I'm not in the legal end of things so it has puzzled me why this is asked for by solicitors in some cases i'm involved in? Possibly its some solicitors choice to be extra diligent and in light of the fact that most management co.'s are under funded at present in half finished estates or receiver type sales etc.
So that review will moot the sale as the other posters have mentioned.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact you will have a poorly maintained estate which is going to make selling a difficult prospect from the outset - if it looks run down when your agent is showing the property, your unlikely to get many takers that will even get to the stage of an offer & their solicitor reviewing the status of the management company & then in turn advising the potential buyer to walk away.
I think your own legal advice relevant to the situation at hand is one avenue you have to take. I'm not sure why some of the semi legal advice is allowed on threads like this? - it seems very similar to me trying to give you structural advice in the public forum, which isn't allowed.
I'd say the second step is you and the interested owners are going to have to meet and hash out some workable solutions to the 'on the ground problems' at the estate.
Micro management and some out of the box thinking will be required to at least tread water while the situation of the company structure and officers / directors etc. is sorted for the management company.
I am party to some similar situations for developments that are in a worse off position than yours by the sound of it. And some of the things that have to be dealt with including the non fee payers , really boggles the mind.
Meeting up with the other owners whether an EGM / AGM ( not likely if there's no one to call it!) or an informal meeting at very least gets a head count of who cares, who doesn't & allows some free discussion of the matter that you as a collective of owners are faced with dealing with.
mike f :pac:0 -
Solicitors should always check the financial status of a Management Company in a sale like this, it would be negligent not to. There are a number of reasons for this but essentially it would be bad advice to advise a client to go ahead with such a purchase if the Man Co was insolvent or about to be struck off.
Its a somewhat academic point however as any Bank or lender is going to insist on such due diligence being done in order to make sure that its investment is secure, safe and worth what they are lending.
OP if things are as you describe them you will experience great difficulty in selling. An EGM of the Management Company should be called if it has not already and legal advice sought by the Company.0 -
STATE PROPERTY ACT, 1954valleyoftheunos wrote: »The mind boggles, Companies can be neither testate nor intestate so the minister receives nothing from a company "as the ultimate intestate successor". where are you getting this stuff from?l
28.—(1) In this section "body corporate" does not include a body corporate dissolved by an enactment wherein it is provided that the property of that body corporate shall, on such dissolution, vest in some other person.
(2) Where a body corporate is dissolved, either before, on or after the operative date, the following provisions shall apply and have effect and, in the case of a body corporate dissolved before the operative date, be deemed to have applied and to have had effect as from such dissolution, that is to say:—
( a ) all land which was vested in or held in trust for such body corporate immediately before its dissolution (other than land held by such body corporate upon trust for another person) shall, immediately upon such dissolution, become and be the property of the State, subject however to any incumbrances or charges affecting the land immediately before such dissolution,
( b ) all personal property (excluding chattels real but including choses-in-action) which is vested in or held in trust for such body corporate immediately before its dissolution (other than personal property held by such body corporate upon trust for another person) shall, immediately upon such dissolution become and be State property.
(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall have effect subject and without prejudice to any order made by a court under section 223 or subsection (6) of section 242 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908.valleyoftheunos wrote: »that there is no party apparent to assent to assignments or otherwise does not mean that the lease ceases to exist only that it will be impossible to assign or "sell" as it were.
It only exists because the minister has title to the fee simple. Since he won't do anything in connection with it, the lease is useless until the company is restored or the minister parts with possession to another entity who will deal with it.0 -
STATE PROPERTY ACT, 1954
28.—(1) In this section "body corporate" does not include a body corporate dissolved by an enactment wherein it is provided that the property of that body corporate shall, on such dissolution, vest in some other person.
(2) Where a body corporate is dissolved, either before, on or after the operative date, the following provisions shall apply and have effect and, in the case of a body corporate dissolved before the operative date, be deemed to have applied and to have had effect as from such dissolution, that is to say:—
( a ) all land which was vested in or held in trust for such body corporate immediately before its dissolution (other than land held by such body corporate upon trust for another person) shall, immediately upon such dissolution, become and be the property of the State, subject however to any incumbrances or charges affecting the land immediately before such dissolution,
( b ) all personal property (excluding chattels real but including choses-in-action) which is vested in or held in trust for such body corporate immediately before its dissolution (other than personal property held by such body corporate upon trust for another person) shall, immediately upon such dissolution become and be State property.
(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall have effect subject and without prejudice to any order made by a court under section 223 or subsection (6) of section 242 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908.
It only exists because the minister has title to the fee simple. Since he won't do anything in connection with it, the lease is useless until the company is restored or the minister parts with possession to another entity who will deal with it.
Based on legal advice I have recently obtained this cannot happen. i.e. the dept of environment takes hold of the title which does happen in some cases for estates and their respective green areas (although this occurs where there is no OMC and/or where the builder is the sole owner.) The reason for this is that both the owners and the company have a beneficial interest in the lease and therefore it cannot simply revert to the state. In other words there are multiple parties involved as I understand it.0 -
Based on legal advice I have recently obtained this cannot happen. i.e. the dept of environment takes hold of the title which does happen in some cases for estates and their respective green areas (although this occurs where there is no OMC and/or where the builder is the sole owner.) The reason for this is that both the owners and the company have a beneficial interest in the lease and therefore it cannot simply revert to the state. In other words there are multiple parties involved as I understand it.
It sounds you are talking about taking in charge. That is a different thing entirely and has no effect on title per se.
When an attempt is made to restore any company the consent of the minister for finance is sought.0 -
Based on legal advice I have recently obtained this cannot happen. i.e. the dept of environment takes hold of the title which does happen in some cases for estates and their respective green areas (although this occurs where there is no OMC and/or where the builder is the sole owner.) The reason for this is that both the owners and the company have a beneficial interest in the lease and therefore it cannot simply revert to the state. In other words there are multiple parties involved as I understand it.
You are talking about situations where there is no OMC. This is a thread about a situation where there is an OMC and it is struck off. You are confusing things utterly.0 -
Advertisement
-
AN ACT TO MAKE PROVISION FOR THE VESTING AND MANAGEMENT OF, AND TO CONTROL THE ALIENATION OF, CERTAIN LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE STATE AND TO MAKE PROVISION FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO STATE PROPERTY AND STATE AUTHORITIES.
I wonder if you have all suddenly taken leave of your collective senses. An outbreak of Anticipatory Heatwave Madness aka AHEM?
Multi-unit developments on private land and State land or property - what's the connection? Surely the MUD Act 2011 and the Campanies Act 1963 are the relevant bits of legislation for this discussion? IANAL
OP, did you take any active part in the OMC prior to its entry into corporate limbo?0
Advertisement