4 adults now sleeping under a bridge after not paying their mortgage

mloc123

A better headline "Man sold house, son now upset and wants to continue living in it"

jippo nolan

doc22 wrote: »

A 52,700 loan in 2007 with vulture type interest rates on equity release would be alot more than 50k in 2020

With compound interest, more like €130000. !

Cyrus

which is why they are out sleeping under a bridge, its a common ploy to get public support.

Possible scenario is that the father died and the mortgage came due but they didn't qualify for a new mortgage in their own name to pay off the original one and transfer the ownership to the next generation.

There is something missing though for sure if between them they couldn't come up with some or all of the funds.

It looks like from the second article that no repayment was required while the owner was alive, the principle and accrued interest would be repayable from the sale of the house after his death.

Oranage2

The father should have dressed his kids in school uniforms and had them sleep in a Garda station.

banie01

Deleted User wrote: »

It looks like from the second article that no repayment was required while the owner was alive, the principle and accrued interest would be repayable from the sale of the house after his death.

Whomever underwrote the original mortgage and signed off on it was mad!

Even now a house in that area would be unlikely to fetch 40k, signing off on a 52.7k loan, losing that capital and its opportunity cost and having the costs of the repossession added on too...

The lender will be lucky to see anything at all back on their loan, the may get 40k for the house.
The actual financial loss to the lender will be in the region of 150k with lost interest and costs.
Madness

The original loan was in 2007 so boom time rules applied.
I reckon the rate was 5 - 6 %.

That does raise another point - if the debt is higher than the market value, no one would give a mortgage for that and they would be mad to over pay for the house themselves.

Surrender the house to the bank, clear the grandfather's debt, then try and buy it back at a market rate.

whisky_galore

Grown "adults" unable to get their shıt together sob story.

BattleCorp

mloc123 wrote: »

A better headline "Man sold house, son now upset and wants to continue living in it"

And has been living in it since 2015 free of charge.

breezy1985

banie01 wrote: »

Oh I know, and tbh with some of those areas I can see why there maybe that type of "consolidation".
eg, Ballynanty and Kileely in particular, they aren't Moyross never have been and woe betide ya if someone says they are!
But, they are at least Moyross adjacent, Assumpta Park is in D'Island and a 2 parishes over FFS

Balla yes as they are attached but Kileely is as much if not more Mayorstone and Shelbourne Road adjacent but no one ever makes that mistake for some odd reason

gmisk

retalivity wrote: »

This story is obviously a lie.



No way is the girlfriend 36 years old.

I was like ah your being mean...

But...jesus...

Widdensushi

Those poor children

PCeeeee

One lad is wearing shorts. They are in me hole living under a bridge.

seamus

In their defence, the thread title is misleading. There's no way these people could have paid off the loan that the father got. Even assuming a bank would give them a mortgage on the property, it would never cover the €100k bill that was being demanded.

Most likely there was a lot heads simply buried in the sand - "I can't afford it, so what are you going to do?".

Some people just don't have the knowledge to deal with issues like this; or even the knowledge to find someone who does. It suggests some systemic failure; I wonder is the right to free legal aid limited in these cases? Perhaps free legal aid should be universally provided for any dispute? That the court should ensure all parties have legal aid, or if not have expressly refused it.

Any solicitor who spent an hour looking over this would have been able to make it clear that they'd need to find somewhere else to live or they'd be on the streets. They were always going to be evicted, but it never had to come down to sleeping under a bridge. Either they weren't given the support they needed to see that, or they decided to just bull on and hope for the best.

breezy1985

PCeeeee wrote: »

One lad is wearing shorts. They are in me hole living under a bridge.

If they are they picked the wrong one cause under where they are sitting is always full of p**s and s**t and I don't know why anyone with local knowledge of Limerick would pick that spot as it's not even that covered

banie01

breezy1985 wrote: »

If they are they picked the wrong one cause under where they are sitting is always full of p**s and s**t and I don't know why anyone with local knowledge of Limerick would pick that spot as it's not even that covered

You used to be able to get under the bridge by the swivel mechanism but that is well fenced off now.
Used to be a grand spot for mitching if it was raining

punisher5112

Will anyone think of the children.....


They're so young and one couldn't in their right mind expect them kids to be working or contributing to society or anything good.....

Anyone in that area can go down and check on the ppoor mites and maybe tusla should get involved, no child should be sleeping under a bridge, how has this nor made headline news....


I don't know how you all sleep at night.....

Quin_Dub

seamus wrote: »

In their defence, the thread title is misleading. There's no way these people could have paid off the loan that the father got. Even assuming a bank would give them a mortgage on the property, it would never cover the €100k bill that was being demanded.

Most likely there was a lot heads simply buried in the sand - "I can't afford it, so what are you going to do?".

Some people just don't have the knowledge to deal with issues like this; or even the knowledge to find someone who does. It suggests some systemic failure; I wonder is the right to free legal aid limited in these cases? Perhaps free legal aid should be universally provided for any dispute? That the court should ensure all parties have legal aid, or if not have expressly refused it.

Any solicitor who spent an hour looking over this would have been able to make it clear that they'd need to find somewhere else to live or they'd be on the streets. They were always going to be evicted, but it never had to come down to sleeping under a bridge. Either they weren't given the support they needed to see that, or they decided to just bull on and hope for the best.

The lack of knowledge/information is definitely a huge issue in a lot of these cases.

You'd have thought that a simple fix would be to obligate the lending Institutions to ensure that the other side has engaged with someone to assist them - Or at least offered it to them and had an explicit refusal.

The banks etc. should be forced to provide details on Services like MABS etc. and to have asked the customer if they have engaged those services repeatedly throughout the process.

You can't force someone to engage a solicitor or one of the free services , but at the very least you can make sure that no one misses out on their use because they didn't know that they were there.

Spanish Eyes

Where are the myriad of Homeless Charities when you need them eh?

super_furry

Cyrus wrote: »

which is why they are out sleeping under a bridge, its a common ploy to get public support.

There's other benefits too. Legally they get to eat any goats that try to cross it.

dzsfah2xoynme9

When I read the article I had to double check that their surnames weren't Cash...

suicide_circus

jippo nolan

jippo nolan wrote: »

With compound interest, more like €130000. !

Can you imagine what the house is worth. Whoever signed off on the loan must have been totally clueless. They'd be well lucky to get the €52k back.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Grown "adults" unable to get their shıt together sob story.

Grown adults growing up in a forever home* - thinking 'no way they paying for accommodation.'



*whoops - although the father seems to have had the foresight to buy out the house under some scheme. He might have been a bit of a dick, but he ran rings around the financial institution.

Godeatsboogers

That dude lives under a bridge and hes wearing short pants

Pkiernan

super_furry wrote: »

There's other benefits too. Legally they get to eat any goats that try to cross it.

Wow. Not much sympathy here!

Idbatterim

One night under a bridge or in a garda station. Enough for rte to fight your case and get you a 4eva home nearly i stantly. 500k house, no mortgage, lpt, property tax, maintenance. Nice million euro plus there over a lifetime, after tax, lol!

sbsquarepants

5 grown adults were only allowed to live in house they didn't own for 5 years.
Boo fúcking hoo.

Idbatterim

Sage Square Kettledrum wrote: »

When I read the article I had to double check that their surnames weren't Cash...

10/10! The ca$h's prefer garda stations though... maybe throwing a lifetime of endless welfare might not be the best outcome for these oeople, the tax payer or society, a mental notion I know...

seamus

Quin_Dub wrote: »

You'd have thought that a simple fix would be to obligate the lending Institutions to ensure that the other side has engaged with someone to assist them - Or at least offered it to them and had an explicit refusal.

The banks etc. should be forced to provide details on Services like MABS etc. and to have asked the customer if they have engaged those services repeatedly throughout the process.

I think it's simpler than that tbh. The court should just refuse to allow a case to proceed if the defendent is not represented. So they appoint a free legal aid solicitor whose job it is to advise the defendent, or to stand before the court and declare that the defendent has been made aware of the details of the case and has officially refused representation.

This would apply whether the bank is taking your house, or your neighbour is suing because your tree fell over onto his roof.