Update - Lawn ruined by cattle

muirsin

If his cattle visit and eat your hedge it will concentrate his mind as that plant is poisonous if ingested. Then again.............

Rows Grower

John Hutton wrote: »

You are confused and incorrect about how bankruptcy works.

Secured creditors retain their rights in bankruptcy, unless they surrender their interest, and the official assignee seeks to get a return for unsecured creditors by liquidating assets and attaching payment orders on income. It's not the case that all secured debts have to be discharged before unsecured get anything.

It's a disaster for a farmer to go bankrupt as it messes up any payments as he would no longer own the land or, the lease for the land, or any animals, any quotas etc. Farmers are somewhat unlucky in this area as the dept have such good records, and the farmer has to supply such detailed applications and accounts, it is easy to identify assets.

It is also an automatic default on any mortgages he has, and the bank, especially BOI, tend to immediately call them in. Should the secured creditor sell the asset and there be a shortfall, this crystallises into an unsecured debt and the creditor can make a claim in the bankruptcy estate the same as any other unsecured creditor.

There is also more to be said about the expenses and professional fees you mention, I won't go into too much detail as the amount the OP is owed is too small for petition the farmer in any case, BUT in a straightforward case such as a farmer with easily identifiable assets the OAs fees are only a few grand and would be taken from the pool of money raised for unsecured creditors or indeed simply taken from unclaimed dividends, there wouldn't be additional costs on the OP.

Should the OP ever petition the farmer and he be named on the court list as such, he would have the money he is owed the next day. Before the law was changed there would be piles of applications before the court for pretty trifling sums which would invariably be struck out when the petitioner got his cash. But it was changed to 20k so that's a more difficult tactic now!

As for the sheriff, he or she will not do anything without you sitting on them. Find out when the farmer plans to send the cattle to the factory, alert the sherrif of same and your concern that the farmer is disposing of assets to avoid paying debt. Might spur him on and at the very least would let the sherrif know that you are looking at things and won't go away.

Although, it will lead to you being ostracised if it leads to assets, particularly animals, being seized.

Next time he sends a proxy to contact you tell them that you are stuck for the money and the sheriff has been on to you about seizing assets and has asked you if you have any objection to the sherrif seizing animals. Tell the proxy that you told the sherrif that you have no objection as, in your condition, you need the money but you asked the sherrif to leave it until after the Xmas season until you have a chance to discuss it with other locals/farmers re the value of the animals and how long it would take to sell them. (I.e would the sherrif be better seizing equipment and would he be able to sell that quicker and thus you get the money quicker).

Tell him that you are disgusted it came to this but you need the money and that you are aware the farmer has cash at the moment (he will have received his payments in December!) and that you are due to get back into the sherrif in the coming weeks after you discuss it with locals and would like to call the sherrif off but can only do so if you get the cash.

The farmer will be terrified of being humiliated at the Mart... This is your best bet for getting the money quick.

A few things to bear in mind when dealing with farmers:

1. They have decent piles of cash at certain times of year
2. Never as poor as they say
3. Will always chance their arm when it comes to paying ONE-OFF bills when there's nothing in it for them
4. Massively into keeping up appearances as they secretly hate neighbouring farmers and would loath to lose face in front of them
5. Farmers are emotionally invested in their business, particularly animals and their land. They will cut their nose to spite their face when it comes to these things.

So if you want the money make him afraid that others will think that he will lose his animals or land or make him afraid that this will actually happen. The former is easier!

Some handy solicitor, hah, hah.

Ginger83

John Hutton wrote: »

You are confused and incorrect about how bankruptcy works.

Secured creditors retain their rights in bankruptcy, unless they surrender their interest, and the official assignee seeks to get a return for unsecured creditors by liquidating assets and attaching payment orders on income. It's not the case that all secured debts have to be discharged before unsecured get anything.

It's a disaster for a farmer to go bankrupt as it messes up any payments as he would no longer own the land or, the lease for the land, or any animals, any quotas etc. Farmers are somewhat unlucky in this area as the dept have such good records, and the farmer has to supply such detailed applications and accounts, it is easy to identify assets.

It is also an automatic default on any mortgages he has, and the bank, especially BOI, tend to immediately call them in. Should the secured creditor sell the asset and there be a shortfall, this crystallises into an unsecured debt and the creditor can make a claim in the bankruptcy estate the same as any other unsecured creditor.

There is also more to be said about the expenses and professional fees you mention, I won't go into too much detail as the amount the OP is owed is too small for petition the farmer in any case, BUT in a straightforward case such as a farmer with easily identifiable assets the OAs fees are only a few grand and would be taken from the pool of money raised for unsecured creditors or indeed simply taken from unclaimed dividends, there wouldn't be additional costs on the OP.

Should the OP ever petition the farmer and he be named on the court list as such, he would have the money he is owed the next day. Before the law was changed there would be piles of applications before the court for pretty trifling sums which would invariably be struck out when the petitioner got his cash. But it was changed to 20k so that's a more difficult tactic now!

As for the sheriff, he or she will not do anything without you sitting on them. Find out when the farmer plans to send the cattle to the factory, alert the sherrif of same and your concern that the farmer is disposing of assets to avoid paying debt. Might spur him on and at the very least would let the sherrif know that you are looking at things and won't go away.

Although, it will lead to you being ostracised if it leads to assets, particularly animals, being seized.

Next time he sends a proxy to contact you tell them that you are stuck for the money and the sheriff has been on to you about seizing assets and has asked you if you have any objection to the sherrif seizing animals. Tell the proxy that you told the sherrif that you have no objection as, in your condition, you need the money but you asked the sherrif to leave it until after the Xmas season until you have a chance to discuss it with other locals/farmers re the value of the animals and how long it would take to sell them. (I.e would the sherrif be better seizing equipment and would he be able to sell that quicker and thus you get the money quicker).

Tell him that you are disgusted it came to this but you need the money and that you are aware the farmer has cash at the moment (he will have received his payments in December!) and that you are due to get back into the sherrif in the coming weeks after you discuss it with locals and would like to call the sherrif off but can only do so if you get the cash.

The farmer will be terrified of being humiliated at the Mart... This is your best bet for getting the money quick.

A few things to bear in mind when dealing with farmers:

1. They have decent piles of cash at certain times of year
2. Never as poor as they say
3. Will always chance their arm when it comes to paying ONE-OFF bills when there's nothing in it for them
4. Massively into keeping up appearances as they secretly hate neighbouring farmers and would loath to lose face in front of them
5. Farmers are emotionally invested in their business, particularly animals and their land. They will cut their nose to spite their face when it comes to these things.

So if you want the money make him afraid that others will think that he will lose his animals or land or make him afraid that this will actually happen. The former is easier!

Thank you, great advice.

older by the day

Like the Lord said "turn the other cheek". You could stay fighting with bad neighbours all your life. Stressing yourself and wasting time that could be spent better. Go away and put a few posts and a roll of barbed wire on top of the ditch and forget about. Or maybe you like the stress and arguing.

Ginger83

older by the day wrote: »

Like the Lord said "turn the other cheek". You could stay fighting with bad neighbours all your life. Stressing yourself and wasting time that could be spent better. Go away and put a few posts and a roll of barbed wire on top of the ditch and forget about. Or maybe you like the stress and arguing.

Neighbour? This guy lives miles away.

What stress, the sheriff wont be chasing me

Professor Genius

Ginger83 wrote: »

Neighbour? This guy lives miles away.

What stress, the sheriff wont be chasing me

Nothing worse than an angry Bogger after you. Worse still if the anger is caused by being out of pocket

older by the day

Professor Genius wrote: »

Nothing worse than an angry Bogger after you. Worse still if the anger is caused by being out of pocket

Sher we all know the lads that don't give a ****e. Put up the fence and forget it. Could be worse, he might be spreading pig slurry all around the bounds ditch all summer

Ginger83

Professor Genius wrote: »

Nothing worse than an angry Bogger after you. Worse still if the anger is caused by being out of pocket

I'm half dub

Up Donegal

I'm no legal expert but seeing that a lot of comments here referred to the sheriffs, I wonder if they operate in a similar way to the English sheriffs?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q1j5d

Ginger83

older by the day wrote: »

Sher we all know the lads that don't give a ****e. Put up the fence and forget it. Could be worse, he might be spreading pig slurry all around the bounds ditch all summer

Have fence up, just the bill now

Up Donegal

Bass Reeves wrote: »

That is only if you have nothing. Sheriff will collect. This is why OP has been approached but it too late. If they fail to pay sheriff he will take whatever he need to settle account. Cattle, Machinery, cars, TV's, baled silage. As well all costs to to with collection will be added to bill.

A 15k tractor could be taken and sold for 5-6k and it might just cover compensation for lawn and costs incurred by sheriff

I watch the BBC show 'The Sheriffs are Coming' and they say that most things are sold at auction for around 1/5 of their actual value.

mr.stonewall

Having read over the past few pages of posts and one thing that has irked me is that there is two sides to every story and this thread we have only got one. We know from your side that he's a bit of cowboy, but no one here knows what goes on in his yard. Remember there is no winners in this situation and if it drags out much longer it will be remembered in the community for a long time. There has been contact iniated via proxy. I would say that keep that line of communication open as I feel it will help sort the situation quicker now.

Just on a side note have you a road gate to your site and if coloured ponies wandered in would you have taken the same action with there owners.

Ginger83

mr.stonewall wrote: »

Having read over the past few pages of posts and one thing that has irked me is that there is two sides to every story and this thread we have only got one. We know from your side that he's a bit of cowboy, but no one here knows what goes on in his yard. Remember there is no winners in this situation and if it drags out much longer it will be remembered in the community for a long time. There has been contact iniated via proxy. I would say that keep that line of communication open as I feel it will help sort the situation quicker now.

Just on a side note have you a road gate to your site and if coloured ponies wandered in would you have taken the same action with there owners.

Well the man had every chance to dispute it in court but didn't.

Would that not be my fault for leaving gates open

Plumbthedepths

mr.stonewall wrote: »

Having read over the past few pages of posts and one thing that has irked me is that there is two sides to every story and this thread we have only got one. We know from your side that he's a bit of cowboy, but no one here knows what goes on in his yard. Remember there is no winners in this situation and if it drags out much longer it will be remembered in the community for a long time. There has been contact iniated via proxy. I would say that keep that line of communication open as I feel it will help sort the situation quicker now.

Just on a side note have you a road gate to your site and if coloured ponies wandered in would you have taken the same action with there owners.

Are you attempting to blame the OP for the situation? I read the first thread and now this one. The farmer was given multiple opportunities to remedy the damage his animals caused. He ignored his obligations, the only one at fault here is the farmer. As for the piebalds surely whataboutery?

Ginger83

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Are you attempting to blame the OP for the situation? I read the first thread and now this one. The farmer was given multiple opportunities to remedy the damage his animals caused. He ignored his obligations, the only one at fault here is the farmer. As for the piebalds surely whataboutery?

I have just checked my email.

The 14 days given to pay the court is up with no reply.

Plumbthedepths

Ginger83 wrote: »

I have just checked my email.

The 14 days given to pay the court is up with no reply.

Time to up the ante, I live in a rural area and as already suggested farmers/ rural people like to keep up a certain public appearance. I have had an issue with a person in my locality, was quickly sorted when I stated it would become public knowledge if it were not remedied. The matter was resolved quickly and importantly quietly.

Base price

Ginger83 wrote: »

I'm half dub

What do you mean by that?

Bass Reeves

mr.stonewall wrote: »

Having read over the past few pages of posts and one thing that has irked me is that there is two sides to every story and this thread we have only got one. We know from your side that he's a bit of cowboy, but no one here knows what goes on in his yard. Remember there is no winners in this situation and if it drags out much longer it will be remembered in the community for a long time. There has been contact iniated via proxy. I would say that keep that line of communication open as I feel it will help sort the situation quicker now.

Just on a side note have you a road gate to your site and if coloured ponies wandered in would you have taken the same action with there owners.

I hate this sh!the. Ya there is no witness's. OP has got a court judgement. He has been to court and won his case. The farmer had time to engage and chose not to. We have all had out fill over the years with cattle breaking in.

Lads are on about covenants as well. Generally Covenants are not part of the deeds. They only cover the first buyer if the site and even at that the person who signs the covenant. After that onus again rests back with the farmer/stock owner. How expensive is it to put a row of stakes with a single strand of electrical fence wire around a site.

OP has right on his side he has proven his case in court. The farmer has a choice pay up or let the sheriff collect. He made his bed he can lie on it

maidhc

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Lads are on about covenants as well. Generally Covenants are not part of the deeds. They only cover the first buyer if the site and even at that the person who signs the covenant.

That's not correct. A covenant runs with the land. Don't make stuff up.

To the poster above who said I don't understand backruptcy law I think his response actually mirrored my own post, ie that it is not a runner and a idea to be confined to the dustbin. But I dont practice in bankruptcy law, and you will note my post didnt elaborate on it. A secured creditor will trump the unsecured creditors though...


On a practical level if a person is owed money by a farmer and has an order often the most elegant and quickest way is to get a garnishee order directed to the coop and dept. You are directing payment of the milk cheque and/or bps. This is what most contractors, oil companies and even the frs ultimately do.

Anyway I'm done here. I think the OP should get legal advice ultimately.

Rows Grower

maidhc wrote: »

That's not correct. A covenant runs with the land. Don't make stuff up.

To the poster above who said I don't understand backruptcy law I think his response actually mirrored my own post, ie that it is not a runner and a idea to be confined to the dustbin. But I dont practice in bankruptcy law, and you will note my post didnt elaborate on it. A secured creditor will trump the unsecured creditors though...


On a practical level if a person is owed money by a farmer and has an order often the most elegant and quickest way is to get a garnishee order directed to the coop and dept. You are directing payment of the milk cheque and/or bps. This is what most contractors, oil companies and even the frs ultimately do.

Anyway I'm done here. I think the OP should get legal advice ultimately.

You mean along the lines of "In this country if you don't want to pay you don't really have to" and "I am a solicitor"?

That kind of made up stuff?

maidhc

Rows Grower wrote: »

You mean along the lines of "In this country if you don't want to pay you don't really have to" and "I am a solicitor"?

That kind of made up stuff?

*yawn*

Ginger83

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I hate this sh!the. Ya there is no witness's. OP has got a court judgement. He has been to court and won his case. The farmer had time to engage and chose not to. We have all had out fill over the years with cattle breaking in.

Lads are on about covenants as well. Generally Covenants are not part of the deeds. They only cover the first buyer if the site and even at that the person who signs the covenant. After that onus again rests back with the farmer/stock owner. How expensive is it to put a row of stakes with a single strand of electrical fence wire around a site.

OP has right on his side he has proven his case in court. The farmer has a choice pay up or let the sheriff collect. He made his bed he can lie on it

I also have the whole lot on CCTV.

Emmersonn

maidhc wrote: »

*yawn*

Yawn again. Thought you were done

Ginger83

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Time to up the ante, I live in a rural area and as already suggested farmers/ rural people like to keep up a certain public appearance. I have had an issue with a person in my locality, was quickly sorted when I stated it would become public knowledge if it were not remedied. The matter was resolved quickly and importantly quietly.

Yes we were thinking of making the matter public knowledge and asking the local parish priest if we could do a collection outside mass to help the farmer to pay his bill.

endacl

_Brian wrote: »

That must be recent change.
Wasn’t it the Cavan or Longford Sherriff that was shot a few years back collecting a debt ??

Any word on the deputy?

John Hutton

maidhc wrote: »

That's not correct. A covenant runs with the land. Don't make stuff up.

To the poster above who said I don't understand backruptcy law I think his response actually mirrored my own post, ie that it is not a runner and a idea to be confined to the dustbin. But I dont practice in bankruptcy law, and you will note my post didnt elaborate on it. A secured creditor will trump the unsecured creditors though...


On a practical level if a person is owed money by a farmer and has an order often the most elegant and quickest way is to get a garnishee order directed to the coop and dept. You are directing payment of the milk cheque and/or bps. This is what most contractors, oil companies and even the frs ultimately do.

Anyway I'm done here. I think the OP should get legal advice ultimately.

You mean corrected, not mirrored. You were incorrect I'm a stickler on this as you portrayed yourself as informed (professionally!) on these matters so it is important to correct you... Ordinarily I wouldn't bother.

If you are going to put yourself out there as an expert solicitor perhaps you should stick to the areas you practice in? One would hope that these are also the areas you understand.

liosnagceann75

Ginger83 wrote: »

Yes we were thinking of making the matter public knowledge and asking the local parish priest if we could do a collection outside mass to help the farmer to pay his bill.

Are you taking the piss?

whelan2

Ginger83 wrote: »

Yes we were thinking of making the matter public knowledge and asking the local parish priest if we could do a collection outside mass to help the farmer to pay his bill.

Is it not public on here? I would be very surprised if the farmer isn't aware of this thread somehow. It's a very small world

Bass Reeves

maidhc wrote: »

That's not correct. A covenant runs with the land. Don't make stuff up.
.

Not always true. Unless the convenient is specifically attached to the deeds it is only between the two individuals. Generally it an agreement between two people. It has to be attached to the deeds and burden further owners of the site. As well unless again it is stipulated the covenant has to pass on to indemnify future owners of the farm land. And even after all that as a relative of mine was advised by his solicitor it might still be easier to keep it stock proof yourself.

It is not just the site owner but if cattle exit through the site it is the cattle owner that is in trouble.

endacl

older by the day wrote: »

Like the Lord said "turn the other cheek". You could stay fighting with bad neighbours all your life. Stressing yourself and wasting time that could be spent better. Go away and put a few posts and a roll of barbed wire on top of the ditch and forget about. Or maybe you like the stress and arguing.

What happens when you run out of cheeks?

Ginger83

liosnagceann75 wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?

No, why?

Ginger83

whelan2 wrote: »

Is it not public on here? I would be very surprised if the farmer isn't aware of this thread somehow. It's a very small world

He's more than welcome to come on here to tell his side

SEPT 23 1989

If I was terminally ill I wouldn't be wasting my limited time on trivial cr@p like this

patsy_mccabe

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If I was terminally ill I wouldn't be wasting my limited time on trivial cr@p like this

My thoughts exactly.

Ginger83

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If I was terminally ill I wouldn't be wasting my limited time on trivial cr@p like this

I shouldn't have to

Plumbthedepths

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If I was terminally ill I wouldn't be wasting my limited time on trivial cr@p like this

If the farmer had any decency they wouldn't put a terminally ill individual through this cr@p to begin with. They would just have sorted the damage caused by their lifestock and saved themselves and the OP needless aggro.

Ginger83

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

If the farmer had any decency they wouldn't put a terminally ill individual through this cr@p to begin with. They would just have sorted the damage caused by their lifestock and saved themselves and the OP needless aggro.

Yes and how will they look if it goes public

banie01

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If I was terminally ill I wouldn't be wasting my limited time on trivial cr@p like this

One would be surprised at how important small wins are when one is losing the battle for life.

mickdw

Some of the attitude here is crazy. I can only suggest some must be farmers that like to keep more than a few wandering animals.
The op was in the right, had their property damaged, won in court and is now seeking payment by whatever means.
The farmer in this case is an asshole. The ops health shouldnt come into this however if you do consider health, the farmers come out of this looking much worse.
If he had any decency, he would pay the bill asap.

Ginger83

banie01 wrote: »

One would be surprised at how important small wins are when one is losing the battle for life.

Well its more a case of I enjoy using the lawn and hope to use it this summer as it could be my last

US2

Any pictures of the lawn after they destroyed it? Missed the old thread I know its overgrown now.

Fair play Ginger, good to see someone stand up for themselves and not give up.

maidhc

John Hutton wrote: »

You mean corrected, not mirrored. You were incorrect I'm a stickler on this as you portrayed yourself as informed (professionally!) on these matters so it is important to correct you... Ordinarily I wouldn't bother.

If you are going to put yourself out there as an expert solicitor perhaps you should stick to the areas you practice in? One would hope that these are also the areas you understand.

I keep getting drawn in... I think the only observation I made on bankruptcy was that it would be a high risk strategy, the secured creditors would get paid first and there was no guarantee the Op would get anything. I also observed that the OP would be potentially incurring an open ended bill for legal costs. I didn't make this up, but would refer to order 76 of the RSC, in particular that a bankruptcy petition must contain:

"an indemnity on the part of the petitioner, indemnifying the Official Assignee as to the Official Assignee's costs, fees and expenses allowed by the Court up to and including the statutory sitting and as to such further costs, fees and expenses of the Official Assignee as the Court may upon the application of the Official Assignee direct,..."

So while I do not practice bankruptcy law, I do have a reasonable idea of what it entails. This is also not a forum for legal discussion, so I think it is fair to take a certain amount of latitude in describing certain legal principles.


Now for the covenants,

Bass Reeves wrote:

Unless the convenient is specifically attached to the deeds it is only between the two individuals.

The common understanding of the concept of a covenant is something that attaches to the property, or as you say, the deeds. The alternative (i.e. a right that does not pass) is a contract. This is not negotiable, and a fact.

Plumbthedepths

maidhc wrote: »

I keep getting drawn in... I think the only observation I made on bankruptcy was that it would be a high risk strategy, the secured creditors would get paid first and there was no guarantee the Op would get anything. I also observed that the OP would be potentially incurring an open ended bill for legal costs. I didn't make this up, but would refer to order 76 of the RSC, in particular that a bankruptcy petition must contain:

"an indemnity on the part of the petitioner, indemnifying the Official Assignee as to the Official Assignee's costs, fees and expenses allowed by the Court up to and including the statutory sitting and as to such further costs, fees and expenses of the Official Assignee as the Court may upon the application of the Official Assignee direct,..."

So while I do not practice bankruptcy law, I do have a reasonable idea of what it entails. This is also not a forum for legal discussion, so I think it is fair to take a certain amount of latitude in describing certain legal principles.


Now for the covenants,



The common understanding of the concept of a covenant is something that attaches to the property, or as you say, the deeds. The alternative (i.e. a right that does not pass) is a contract. This is not negotiable, and a fact.

Back again eh? Eventhough you said you were out. Not sure how you were forced to respond.

Ginger83

US2 wrote: »

Any pictures of the lawn after they destroyed it? Missed the old thread I know its overgrown now.

Fair play Ginger, good to see someone stand up for themselves and not give up.

Sure.....

cows1.jpg

cows2.jpg

imow.jpg

pic 8 cattle.jpg

pic 7 cattle.jpg

Rowley Birkin QC

muirsin wrote: »

If his cattle visit and eat your hedge it will concentrate his mind as that plant is poisonous if ingested. Then again.............

What the hell is going on in this thread?

Poisoning cattle over a trampled lawn???

Rows Grower

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

What the hell is going on in this thread?

Poisoning cattle over a trampled lawn???

Is it yourself?

https://youtu.be/HkuBvL0rCSA?t=83

Ginger83

Rowley Birkin QC wrote: »

What the hell is going on in this thread?

Poisoning cattle over a trampled lawn???

You can't blame an animal for being hungry

Ard_MC

Ginger83 wrote: »

I shouldn't have to

If your terminally ill, I am sorry for your troubles and what that eejit is at.

At the end of the day tho, if your terminally ill would you not be better to live the life you have left as what's the point.

pablo128

Ard_MC wrote: »

If your terminally ill, I am sorry for your troubles and what that eejit is at.

At the end of the day tho, if your terminally ill would you not be better to live the life you have left as what's the point.

He wants to enjoy sitting out in the sun on his manicured landscaped lawn which he paid a lot of money for, and which he previously had repaired at his own expense due to a similar situation with the same farmer, if I'm not mistaken.

Something which he can't do now. He can't even have the grass cut ffs.

Ginger83

Ard_MC wrote: »

If your terminally ill, I am sorry for your troubles and what that eejit is at.

At the end of the day tho, if your terminally ill would you not be better to live the life you have left as what's the point.

Yes i'm trying to enjoy my time left in my garden hence spending 3k on a robot