Aberdeen Lodge Repossession

PinotNero

I wonder would they be ok if somebody stayed in their B&B for years, racked up a huge bill and then didn't pay it?

PinotNero

PinotNero wrote: »

I wonder would they be ok if somebody stayed in their B&B for years, racked up a huge bill and then didn't pay it?

Isn’t the B&B their sole source of income and their means of paying the mortgage.

If they have to leave they also lose their jobs. Might aswell declare bankruptcy and have all debts wiped.

TomasMacR

Hoboo wrote: »

To be frank I don't know, I'm just stating my understanding so far. I'm not sure if they're claiming when the bank collapsed they hadn't received all the funding (normally done in stages, so they wouldn't have received the final amount until final phase), or they needed more to finish, knowing once done it would clear everything, but the bank collapsed leaving them in limbo. The bank, which was the owner of the loan, sold a 25m investment for 2m. Their choice. They didn't sell the loan, they sold the property.

All GS bought was the loan on the house which was separate and has never missed a mortgage payment. The 25m had nothing to do with them. The 25m was Guaranteed by the house, not vice versa.

If GS had bought the 25m loan they could take the house, not the other way around.

If this is the case then they really should have their case heard and have a spokesperson delivering details to the press...as you say, they should not be doing it as they just seem to be trying to pull at one's heartstrings.

There does seem to be a lack of clarity and specific details with this. Can't find anything worthwhile, so if anyone has links, please post!

TallGlass

Watched it last night. Seems like a right mess they have got themselves in. However I might have misheard but they had offered to pay the debt of the loan against the house or buy the house at there valuation? But they are saying that the other loan 25m is not against the house. But GS got an injunction from them fighting this in court.

I find it odd that bailed out banks offer loans for 30c on the Euro to the like of GS but don't do the same to the person in debt?

TomasMacR

TomasMacR wrote: »

If this is the case then they really should have their case heard and have a spokesperson delivering details to the press...as you say, they should not be doing it as they just seem to be trying to pull at one's heartstrings.

There does seem to be a lack of clarity and specific details with this. Can't find anything worthwhile, so if anyone has links, please post!

From 2012
https://amp.independent.ie/business/irish/ibrc-seeks-25-5m-over-boutique-hotel-loans-26878941.html

In 2005, 2007, and 2009, a company of which Mr Halpin and his partner Ann Keane are directors, Crossplan Investments Ltd, which is now in receivership, was loaned a total of around €23m to renovate a building called Merrion Hall on the Merrion Road in Ballsbridge by Irish Nationwide Building Society which later became part of IBRC.

The loans were personally guaranteed by Mr Halpin who along with his partner Ms Keane is also a director of another company, Elektron Ltd which owns another guesthouse/hotel, the Aberdeen Lodge, Park Avenue, Sandymount, Dublin, which is also given as a couple's address.

Ipso

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The fact that banks simply create the credit/debt from thin air, still hasn't been addressed, 'behind every bad debtor, is a bad lender'!

You mean the bad lenders that have interest rates that are too high or require 20% deposits that d’ordinary man can’t afford.

Ipso

topper75 wrote: »

Maybe you can trace this back beyond the banks.

They can only 'create debt from thin air' if that is permitted by those controlling the money supply.

There are people out there legally drinking nowadays who don't understand money supply. I'm not an Irexit guy but going into the EMU was a dumb, dumb move by Ireland. It is barely two decades in place but it destroyed our potential for slow steady growth twice already. It will do so again.

What slow steady growth?

Allinall

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

From 2012
https://amp.independent.ie/business/irish/ibrc-seeks-25-5m-over-boutique-hotel-loans-26878941.html

Game, set and match.

TomasMacR

Allinall wrote: »

Game, set and match.

Pretty much. If all that adds up and is accurate they are in the same league as those Gorse Hill O Donnell gobshįtes. I’m wondering why it is those that owe exceptionally high amounts are the most deluded. Is it that they have no real understanding of what money is because it has not been something they have ever had to worry about or earn.

Ipso

TomasMacR wrote: »

Pretty much. If all that adds up and is accurate they are in the same league as those Gorse Hill O Donnell gobshįtes. I’m wondering why it is those that owe exceptionally high amounts are the most deluded. Is it that they have no real understanding of what money is because it has not been something they have ever had to worry about or earn.

Probably hed up the ass syndrome, there was an epidemic in the early 2000’s.

Wanderer78

Ipso wrote:

You mean the bad lenders that have interest rates that are too high or require 20% deposits that d’ordinary man can’t afford.

No, not necessarily, we have given the financial sector too much power and control over our monetary systems, money creation and banking should be a public utility, operated under democratic control and governance

Ipso

Wanderer78 wrote: »

No, not necessarily, we have given the financial sector too much power and control over our monetary systems, money creation and banking should be a public utility, operated under democratic control and governance

Well the government doors such a great job with thevhealth care system for example, and weren’t they responsible for hing to inflate the bubble in the first place?

Wanderer78

Ipso wrote:

Well the government doors such a great job with thevhealth care system for example, and weren’t they responsible for hing to inflate the bubble in the first place?

Part of the problem of course, but it's amazing the amount of people that don't realise the major role the private sector played in the bubble, in particular the largely privately 'owned' banking sector, dramatically increasing the money supply in the form of cheap credit, it was actually the rapid rise of this credit, which in turn become our private debts, that caused the crash.

Ipso

Yes, but people are now complaining about high interest rates now, fespite them probably being almost half what they were in the late 90’s.
Don’t forget FF got returned to power because people wanted more of the gravy train.

rafatoni

Looking for public support now according to the indo

punisher5112

rafatoni wrote: »

Looking for public support now according to the indo

I'll show support in as much as get them out....

Living the high life on us tax paying fools

padd b1975

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Isn’t the B&B their sole source of income and their means of paying the mortgage.

If they have to leave they also lose their jobs. Might aswell declare bankruptcy and have all debts wiped.

Or they could seek alternative employment like what most people do when they lose their jobs.

Their lifestyle as they know it is now over. The sooner they accept that basic fact the better.

NewbridgeIR

TallGlass wrote: »

I find it odd that bailed out banks offer loans for 30c on the Euro to the like of GS but don't do the same to the person in debt?

Because it's unfair on people who are making full repayments and sets a precedent if you start treating some customers differently.

STB.

Who was left to pay their 25 million euro gamble that went arseways ?


The taxpayer no doubt through IBRC.


And they want sympathy. Deluded. That they had wanted to buy their own debt back on the house at a discount is even more deluded.

NewbridgeIR

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

Because it's unfair on people who are making full repayments and sets a precedent if you start treating some customers differently.

Not talking about this couple but I guess there were thousands of people who were up to date with their Irish Nationwide mortgages and continued to be paying when their mortgages swapped to Anglo Irish and then IBRC. They were not allowed to enter into negotiations into buying their loans at a cheaper rate. I always thought that liquidatiors had to recoup as much money as possible so selling to a company for 30c in the euro when someone else could offer 50c or more seems wrong.

STB.

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I always thought that liquidatiors had to recoup as much money as possible so selling to a company for 30c in the euro when someone else could offer 50c or more seems wrong.

IBRC/Nama were fire sales.


There is an awful lot of property etc out there that was sold for a fraction of their total worth/debt. Mostly to vulture funds. Some of them were bought back by the companies that had run up the debt itself. Taxpayer was left with the shortfall.

Much land and properties that could have been ringfenced for social housing needs went this way. And you had the Councils trying to compete then with the eventual retailers/new owners. You simply could not make up the ineptitude of those left to manage all this.

NewbridgeIR

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Not talking about this couple but I guess there were thousands of people who were up to date with their Irish Nationwide mortgages and continued to be paying when their mortgages swapped to Anglo Irish and then IBRC. They were not allowed to enter into negotiations into buying their loans at a cheaper rate. I always thought that liquidatiors had to recoup as much money as possible so selling to a company for 30c in the euro when someone else could offer 50c or more seems wrong.

If people are up to date with their payments then they're not deemed to be financially struggling. Why should they get a discount just because their lender has collapsed (or left the state)? That would cause huge resentment. There has to be fairness.

noodler

TallGlass wrote: »

Watched it last night. Seems like a right mess they have got themselves in. However I might have misheard but they had offered to pay the debt of the loan against the house or buy the house at there valuation? But they are saying that the other loan 25m is not against the house. But GS got an injunction from them fighting this in court.

I find it odd that bailed out banks offer loans for 30c on the Euro to the like of GS but don't do the same to the person in debt?

????

If the coupld had 1/3 of the 25m to pay then it wouldn't be a bad debt requiring to be sold.

Signore Fancy Pants

"We have nowhere else to go".

"Need to put food on the table and clothes on the kids backs".

"We have offered to pay €1.25 Million".

They have a solution to their problem, €1.25 Million will get them a nice house with enough left over to live on.

They are not in "the same" situation as others.

LillySV

The Irish Indo has an article on them today, trying to portray them as nice poeple/victims.... always treats their d4 friends with great respect... then think nothing of rest of country... hence why I no longer buy it

Potential-Monke

Just read an article today. They got a loan and used the lodge as security. The project fell apart and for 7 years GS have been trying to get the lodge, which they're 100% legally entitled to. I'm in full support of turfing these chancers out and let them fend for themselves. One rule for one...

And no, I don't care they're paying the mortgage on the lodge, it was collateral for the loan and it's time to pay. Well, it was time to pay 7 years ago, so it's beyond the time to pay. Turf 'em out, let them figure it out themselves.

Actually, I lolled when I read the Irish Times article, after telling the sheriff/whoever to leave as they're not leaving, her hand was shaking while she was spooning the tea leaves into the cup. Tea leaves! Too posh for a bag yeah? These people have got used to the rich lifestyle and are petrified of being brought back down to reality. F'ck 'em. I've a 20k debt hanging over me from an unaffordable mortgage. They have a loan that is 1250 times higher than mine, and they seem to think they don't have to pay it. What a world we live in.

And before anyone points out anything else to try and defend these people, I don't care. Facts are facts. Lodge was used as collateral, they no longer have a right to it. Fairly straight forward.

padd b1975

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Just read an article today. They got a loan and used the lodge as security. The project fell apart and for 7 years GS have been trying to get the lodge, which they're 100% legally entitled to. I'm in full support of turfing these chancers out and let them fend for themselves. One rule for one...

And no, I don't care they're paying the mortgage on the lodge, it was collateral for the loan and it's time to pay. Well, it was time to pay 7 years ago, so it's beyond the time to pay. Turf 'em out, let them figure it out themselves.

Actually, I lolled when I read the Irish Times article, after telling the sheriff/whoever to leave as they're not leaving, her hand was shaking while she was spooning the tea leaves into the cup. Tea leaves! Too posh for a bag yeah? These people have got used to the rich lifestyle and are petrified of being brought back down to reality. F'ck 'em. I've a 20k debt hanging over me from an unaffordable mortgage. They have a loan that is 1250 times higher than mine, and they seem to think they don't have to pay it. What a world we live in.

And before anyone points out anything else to try and defend these people, I don't care. Facts are facts. Lodge was used as collateral, they no longer have a right to it. Fairly straight forward.

Borrowing terms and conditions are for plebs.

TomasMacR

If they owe 25 million how do they have 1.25 million (at least) at their disposal. Shouldn't that go straight into the debt if they've declared they have it. As mentioned, we're paying to service that 25 million.

Patrick2010

He is 68 and she is 47, maybe they should not have had such young kids when they took on that big a debt?

ohnonotgmail

TomasMacR wrote: »

If they owe 25 million how do they have 1.25 million (at least) at their disposal. Shouldn't that go straight into the debt if they've declared they have it. As mentioned, we're paying to service that 25 million.

Because only the house was used as collateral. The bank has no claim over anything else

tipptom

Didn't think Irish nationwide were still fling money of that magnitude around in 2009?

4ensic15

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Not talking about this couple but I guess there were thousands of people who were up to date with their Irish Nationwide mortgages and continued to be paying when their mortgages swapped to Anglo Irish and then IBRC. They were not allowed to enter into negotiations into buying their loans at a cheaper rate. I always thought that liquidatiors had to recoup as much money as possible so selling to a company for 30c in the euro when someone else could offer 50c or more seems wrong.

The loans were sold in blocks. Very few people could have redeemed their loans without borrowing and certainly couldn't have bought a block of loans.

4ensic15

Dale Doback wrote: »

"We have nowhere else to go".

"Need to put food on the table and clothes on the kids backs".

"We have offered to pay €1.25 Million".

They have a solution to their problem, €1.25 Million will get them a nice house with enough left over to live on.

They are not in "the same" situation as others.

The €1.25m is sourced from a loan to be charged on the house. They do not have 1.25m in a biscuit tin.

Beechwoodspark

What the hell did they do with the 26 MILLION?

rafatoni

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

What the hell did they do with the 26 MILLION?

thats a lot of fry ups.

Signore Fancy Pants

4ensic15 wrote: »

The €1.25m is sourced from a loan to be charged on the house. They do not have 1.25m in a biscuit tin.

Ah oakey dokey.

So, how have they obtained a loan secured on the property if the property is already secured against the €26 Million?

Snakes.

Is it their position that the property was not subject to the original €26 Million? I think I heard them say that.

In any case, the High Court does not agree with them.

Out ye feckers!

SeaFields

Have they been asked where the 25 million went? Surely that was used to purchase some assets in the course of the failed project that could be realised against the debt?! Or did they just go all coke and hookers with it?!

rafatoni

SeaFields wrote: »

Have they been asked where the 25 million went? Surely that was used to purchase some assets in the course of the failed project that could be realised against the debt?! Or did they just go all coke and hookers with it?!

they be saying next.. "sure didnt we all party"

4ensic15

Dale Doback wrote: »

Ah oakey dokey.

So, how have they obtained a loan secured on the property if the property is already secured against the €26 Million?

!

They have an offer of a loan. if the original loan is redeemed.

My heart bleeds

"A family threatened with homelessness over €25m debts insist: "We need the Irish public to support us in this fight."

They live in a multi-million-euro property, the Aberdeen Lodge B&B in leafy Sandymount, Dublin 4, and face a colossal level of debt.

But Patrick Halpin and wife Ann Keane don't see themselves as different to other families struggling against the spectre of homelessness.

Mother-of-two Ms Keane (47) broke down describing how the family had been unable to take a holiday for five years due to the "constant knocks at the door" as they faced the threat of legal action. When asked why the public should have sympathy for them with the huge figures involved, Mr Halpin (68) stated the €25m borrowed to finance a failed "boutique" hotel was an "unsecured" company loan and should not have been held against their home.

"I understand some people might think we are living on Park Avenue in Sandymount and that we are having coffee and going to the beach every morning," Ms Keane said.

"But that's not the case. This is our business and family home. We work damn hard to make it work and that means getting up early, doing laundry, baking, cooking, looking after guests, and fitting in the school run, while also being afraid that at any moment, there could be a knock at the door from someone trying to force us out of our home."

US bank Goldman Sachs is trying to take possession of the property. The couple have been in a long-running legal fight with the major global financial institution after falling behind on repayments.

A receiver appointed by the US multinational attempted to carry out a repossession order earlier this week.

Mr Halpin said: "We just don't know what's going to happen next. We need the Irish public to support us against this vulture fund because they shouldn't be allowed to throw families out onto the street and that is where we are going if they're allowed to repossess the house and our business.

"We literally have nowhere else to go. And we will join all the other homeless families.

"It doesn't make sense because we are paying €5,000 a month from what we earn as a business, so why throw us out on the street?" The debts in this case are over €25m and the property, worth at least €3m, was pledged as security for those debts, a statement from Goldman Sachs said.

"We have extensive experience in working with borrowers in a range of circumstances and every effort has been made over a number of years to find a resolution to this matter. We review these matters carefully and have robust processes to ensure our action is appropriate to the circumstances in each individual case," it added.

The couple have offered to pay €1.25m in debt secured on the property but claim Goldman Sachs had refused to deal with them. "We've worked very hard," Ms Keane added. "Patrick wanted to open a boutique hotel but he ended up losing 15 years of his life over it.""
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/we-need-the-public-to-support-us-family-in-home-battle-over-25m-debt-37965878.html

twowheelsonly

Hoboo wrote: »

To be frank I don't know, I'm just stating my understanding so far. I'm not sure if they're claiming when the bank collapsed they hadn't received all the funding (normally done in stages, so they wouldn't have received the final amount until final phase), or they needed more to finish, knowing once done it would clear everything, but the bank collapsed leaving them in limbo. The bank, which was the owner of the loan, sold a 25m investment for 2m. Their choice. They didn't sell the loan, they sold the property.

All GS bought was the loan on the house which was separate and has never missed a mortgage payment. The 25m had nothing to do with them. The 25m was Guaranteed by the house, not vice versa.

If GS had bought the 25m loan they could take the house, not the other way around.

That's my understanding of it as well. If GS only bought the house portion of the loan then why are they using the €26m claim to further their case for repossession in the courts ? Did somebody else buy the €26m loan ? Were the couple servicing that loan up to the time of that sale? If not then how badly in debt was it?
Personally I think if the original bank sold the main asset (the proposed hotel) for €2m then they're effectively taking back their investment and selling it cheaply by their own volition.
Having said that there's not enough detail in what we've heard so far and this has gone all the way to the Supreme Court who have all ruled against them.

Another question that doesn't seem to answered is where are the current mortgage payments going to ? €5,000 per month was mentioned and if this has been going on for seven years that's a lot of money to have paid over for nothing.

I can 'kinda' see both sides of the cases. IMO, the banks jumped too quickly in selling off loans at the time. Of course they did that because they were in trouble themselves but in doing so they dragged down a lot of businesses with them.

Kermit.de.frog

Anyone with debt overdue should be held accountable by their institution and the courts.

No different with this couple or any others.

They owe, they can't pay and so the assets should be taken.

Ultimately the rest of us pay in our mortgages and interest rates if these issues are not sorted.

I understand how difficult this would be for them but my opinion on this is simple : slim down, declare yourself bankrupt, surrender your assets and rebuild your life from there.

It's the easiest way. Delaying the inevitable and living in denial and stress and all that goes with it is the worst option.

evolving_doors

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Anyone with debt overdue should be held accountable by their institution and the courts.

No different with this couple or any others.

They owe, they can't pay and so the assets should be taken.

Ultimately the rest of us pay in our mortgages and interest rates if these issues are not sorted.

But they can repay the loan the same as we can repay our mortgages!
From what i can gather is the bank want to call in the full whack rather than let them pay according to the terms of the loan.

So it would be the same as if we were paying out or mortgage but the bank called in the whole amount.

Is that what's happening?

Underground

Nobody gives out "unsecured" €25m loans, they are taking the public for mugs.

Research has been done on this act of strategic defaulting in Ireland (I think the guy from askaboutmoney.ie did a report on it) and it has been found that borrowers such as this couple cost the average "good" borrower about €250 a month. In other words, because of cases such as this one, you pay roughly an extra €3,000 per year in mortgage repayments than you otherwise would in say Germany.

AndrewJRenko

Underground wrote: »

Nobody gives out "unsecured" €25m loans, they are taking the public for mugs.

Research has been done on this act of strategic defaulting in Ireland (I think the guy from askaboutmoney.ie did a report on it) and it has been found that borrowers such as this couple cost the average "good" borrower about €250 a month. In other words, because of cases such as this one, you pay roughly an extra €3,000 per year in mortgage repayments than you otherwise would in say Germany.

It's a negotiating tactic. They see that GS paid €300k for their €1m debt, and they want a slice of that discount.



I must try that the next time I go to the pub. Hey Mr Barman, you got that pint from Guinness for just €2.50, so I'm not going to pay a fiver for it.

evolving_doors

evolving_doors wrote: »

But they can repay the loan the same as we can repay our mortgages!
From what i can gather is the bank want to call in the full whack rather than let them pay according to the terms of the loan.

So it would be the same as if we were paying out or mortgage but the bank called in the whole amount.

Is that what's happening?

They’re not paying nor have they paid. At €5,000 a month it’d take 400 years to repay the loan, not to mention the interest. What became of the €25,000,000?

seligehgit

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Because only the house was used as collateral. The bank has no claim over anything else

Indeed but if they have that scale of liquidity it should be used to make even the smallest indent into 25 million loan.

The repossession should be proceed and that monthly 5,000 euro payment should continue or increase if they have more liquidity.

seligehgit

evolving_doors wrote: »

But they can repay the loan the same as we can repay our mortgages!
From what i can gather is the bank want to call in the full whack rather than let them pay according to the terms of the loan.

So it would be the same as if we were paying out or mortgage but the bank called in the whole amount.

Is that what's happening?

According to that article it's not the family home but an asset of the business that was used as collateral on the loan.

So it can be called in.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They’re not paying nor have they paid. At €5,000 a month it’d take 400 years to repay the loan, not to mention the interest. What became of the €25,000,000?

It’s very confusing. Crossplan investments ltd took out the €20 odd million loan for the new hotel venture. Pat Halpin is a director of that. Elektron ltd own and took on the mortgage and other loans for Aberdeen House. They are both (ithink) directors of that company. She is anyway.

How both debts have amalgamated into one, I’m not so sure. Have Goldman Sachs taking action against the companies or the individuals?

TomasMacR

What is crystal clear about this whole charade is that they are both exceptionally shįt business people.

There’s a big echo in here without any answer of WHAT IN SWEET F*CKING JESUS HAPPENED TO THE €25 mill?!?!?!