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

Parents may lose family home after son fails to repay loans

  • 04-12-2009 5:25am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Folks, always get independent advice.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1204/1224260044281.html
    Parents may lose family home after son fails to repay loans
    MARY CAROLAN

    A MOTHER of four may lose her Co Dublin home after she transferred it to her son “out of love and affection” in order to raise funds for the family building firm, which later collapsed.

    The Educational Building Society (EBS) has sought possession of the house at Bancroft Crescent in Tallaght of Rosaleen Rogers (62) and her husband Patrick over their son’s failure to repay more than €225,000 in loans secured on the house, the High Court heard yesterday.

    ACC Bank may also seek to register judgment orders for some €440,000 – obtained against Paul Rogers and his father over debts of their building company, Barnroe Ltd – against the house

    Ms Rogers claims she and her husband transferred the family home to Paul in 2002, when it was valued at €350,000, on the basis that it would be returned to them a year later, but that never happened.

    In evidence yesterday, Ms Rogers said she was reluctant to put her home “on the line” as it “was all we had” but felt pressurised by her son and husband to agree to the transfer.

    Ms Rogers said she later told solicitor Fiona Murray during a 20- minute meeting at her home in May 2002 that she wanted something in writing saying she would get her home back within 12 months. Ms Murray had said that was “a good idea” and had written up a document to that effect, which Ms Rogers said she understood Paul was to sign.

    Ms Rogers described as “lies” assertions by Ms Murray that she advised Ms Rogers and her husband against the transfer and to seek independent legal advice.

    Paul told her a year later he knew nothing about any document concerning return of the house, Ms Rogers said. She later learned he had failed to make repayments of loans and she had said to him: “Where am I now? I’ve no home.” She later ceased talking to him because there was “no point” – he didn’t want to know and was unwell with bipolar disorder. A house where he lives was the subject of a repossession order, she added.

    In proceedings that opened yesterday before Mr Justice Michael Hanna, Ms Rogers was suing her son Paul; Ms Murray, practising as Fiona Murray solicitors, Donore Avenue, South Circular Road, Dublin; and the EBS. She wants either to have the house transferred back to her and her husband or, alternatively, damages.

    Paul Rogers has entered no appearance in the case. Ms Murray, who is alleged to have acted for Paul Rogers, his parents and the EBS in matters relating to the house, denies all the claims against her.

    Denying any liability, the EBS pleads it, acting in good faith, lent Paul Rogers €190,000 secured on the house after being told he had purchased it for €220,000.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Heard about this on the radio yesterday, really fail to see why it merits national coverage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    amacachi wrote: »
    Heard about this on the radio yesterday, really fail to see why it merits national coverage.

    I have to say I agree.

    Look it's a bad thing that anyone is going to loose a home but unfortunately it's warranted in this case. The mother has only herself to blame as she is responsible for her own actions.

    You'd hope that at the least the media attention would cause a few people considering such a decision to wise up. People have short memories though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,788 ✭✭✭ztoical


    amacachi wrote: »
    Heard about this on the radio yesterday, really fail to see why it merits national coverage.

    + 1 sorry they are going to lose their home but it's their own fault. Honestly reads like the mother is looking for a loop hole to keep the house after the gamble of using it to help the business failed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭Fozzie Bear


    I can understand to a point where the mother is coming from but like others its seems a fairly straight forward case to me. She legally signed away her home and should/will unfortunately loose it as a result. The bank are well within their rights to take it.

    If it were any of us and we went to our mother for help she would give us the clothes off her back being a typical mother. I feel angry with her son (and the husband too) as they seem to have taken advantage of the mother. It's harsh that she is going to end up without a home at this stage of her life and all because she just wanted to help her child and undoubtedly did not fully realise what the outcome could be. To be in her 60's and now potentially homeless must be nothing short of an absolute nightmare.

    I'd also have massive doubts about the solicitor and what she advised the mother to do. It looks like the solicitor was acting more for the son then the mother and she may have, "forgotten" shall we say, the exact events and advise she gave the mother.......


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    I hope she loses the house and get damages from the son and solicitor.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    ztoical wrote: »
    + 1 sorry they are going to lose their home but it's their own fault. Honestly reads like the mother is looking for a loop hole to keep the house after the gamble of using it to help the business failed.

    I feel sorry for anybody in a similar situation but also can't see how she can argue about the loss. I think it will be hard to think that a lawyer didn't warn her or that she was as naive not to think of the possible outcome in the case of non-repayment of any loan by her son while he legally owned the house.


  • Registered Users Posts: 384 ✭✭terenc


    Hard to know what shes at up to, it was a family business and surly the family weren't that thick not to know that their home was not at risk if the loan wasn't paid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,426 ✭✭✭ressem


    terenc wrote: »
    Hard to know what shes at up to, it was a family business and surly the family weren't that thick not to know that their home was not at risk if the loan wasn't paid.

    You'd be surprised. The banks are looking for personal guarantees from directors, in addition to the claims on clubs assets, who are trying to get even small loans for GAA /amateur soccer & rugby clubs. And not all directors are savvy enough to tell the banks to get stuffed.

    They just look at the optimistic view, just like all the parents who acted as guarantor for their kids homes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 460 ✭✭twanda


    I cannot see why this is even being entertained in the courts?? More taxpayers money being wasted. :mad:
    OP, the parents already lost the family home when they signed on the dotted line......


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    What a great son!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,800 ✭✭✭Senna


    A lot more cases like this will be in the courts soon, parents going guarantor for their kids apartments etc. There will be plenty of parents losing their home place.

    In this case, does it sound like the son hasn't made payments since 2002? A lot of these cases up in court now (more so repossessions) are relating to non-payment since well before the bubble burst.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Diarmuid wrote: »
    What a great son!
    If you read the article, he is unwell.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭Victor




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 385 ✭✭emty


    Victor wrote: »
    If you read the article, he is unwell.

    If you read the article the mother said he is unwell.That does not mean it is true.
    And if it is true,it begs the question of why the mother would have signed the house over in the first place.

    Having said all that,I do feel sorry for all concerned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1 cocochennelz


    I cannot believe this story, why are these people wasting taxpayers money on their own stupidity, looks like they set this up so as to have a few scape goats, their own flesh and blood has ripped them off and they are after the EBS and the solicitor ?? They willingly signed their home to their son whom they trust, why so is it everyone elses fault! and not their own! Ridiculous waste of tax payer funds and time and I never thought I'd say this the lawyer is in a scary place with firebombs and safety issues and I have to say I feel sorry for her cause her client is a double dealing low life to do what he did to his parents and not honour HIS agreements.
    Victor wrote: »


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭ Grant Loose Yolk


    We've bailed out the banks, so no way should a 62 year old woman be put out on the street.

    But something has to give. If you have your house as a gurantee on loans and it couldn't be reposessed if you defaulted, all out mayhem would ensue.

    My simple steps to riches would then be:

    1. Set-up a company
    2. Let the company borrow as much money as possible using my house as a personal gurantee.
    3. Extract out the money and hide it off-shore in a personal account.
    4. Let the company collapse and tell the bank to F off as they can't re-possess my house.
    5. I have a few hundred grand hidden away! :D

    EDIT: I do feel sorry for the woman in some ways, it's a tough situation to be in at her age, but it's not the bank's fault, whoever's fault it is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,421 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    This case could have happened mid boom as well, it's recession/property cycle unrelated.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Cannot believe we are still seeing Solicitors that are willing to rip people off. This Solicitor acted for both parties, you may bet she took the fees from both parties..... She tried to hood-wink the Bank and the parents knowing this was a commerical transaction and that the Business had 13 legal cases pending against it, how did she know this???? Because she was representing the Company as well!!! And presumably taking the fees for that as well. Make you sick.
    We've bailed out the banks, so no way should a 62 year old woman be put out on the street.

    So it's all the solicitors fault ?
    I am no fan of solicitors but FFS if the lady wants someone to blame why not look closer to home :rolleyes:
    Should the bank bailout now be an excuse for everyone that made bad decisions to get a bailout ?
    Give us a break.

    Please read supersonic's post as it sums it up perfectly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,764 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    I believe, from reading the court reports, that the plaintiff is said to have received undertakings in relation to the transfer (that the house would be transferred back to her) and is said not to have received independent legal advice in regard to the transfer. This could be a big problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The solicitor seems to have acknowledged some wrong in it and that she should have washed her hands of it when she knew the bank were being lied to, but she may have been under pressure from her client and was somewhat "locked in" with the other engagements she was involved in for that client.

    I don't see any major fault on the solicitor's part though - with or without her involvement this would have gone through. There are only three people to blame in this case, and they're all related. The son sounds like a nasty piece of work.
    I believe, from reading the court reports, that the plaintiff is said to have received undertakings in relation to the transfer (that the house would be transferred back to her) and is said not to have received independent legal advice in regard to the transfer. This could be a big problem.
    For who? Do you think the solicitor should have insisted that an independent advisor talk to the parents (i.e. let someone else draw up the "unenforceable" agreement)?

    The EBS are obviously out of the loop on this one. Interesting that ACC are also looking for judgement - the debts secured on the house seem to be 3-4 times the actual value (in today's terms) of the house. I suspect we'll see a lot more of this kind of stuff, where banks were happy to secure large business loans on a family property which wasn't worth as much as the total of the loans.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,764 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Obviously the case is before the courts.

    In general, yes, you would expect the solicitor to tell the person to seek independent legal advice. In general, solicitors are not supposed to allow a situation develop whereby they are beholden or locked in to the client.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 460 ✭✭twanda


    So the case has been settled out of court and the solicitor has to cough up the legal costs. I wonder does this mean she also has to pay compo?

    The womans whole case against the solicitor was that she did not ''sufficiently'' warn her that the transaction would put her home at risk.

    What a pile of w*nk. If you are signing your home over to someone else, then common sense would tell you that there is risk involved - especially when you know that the person you are signing it over to is unwell....


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,764 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    The law is not just about right and wrong. It's also about (and maybe mostly about) following the procedure. And from what we heard of what happened in court, it looks like the procedure might not have been followed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1 Ellie Mc Kenzie


    :DSee the Solicitor got all costs awarded against her= says it all really.... Noted from previous post, this was a pre-recession case, i.e Banks could have asked for your Granny's prayerbook and would have given money against it- doesn't make it right :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,854 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    "People legally bound to honour legal agreements they entered into" shocker.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    twanda wrote: »
    So the case has been settled out of court and the solicitor has to cough up the legal costs. I wonder does this mean she also has to pay compo?
    Is there any link to this?
    I can't imagine the solicitor is paying too much money personally. Likely the legal insurance company agreed to this would be my understanding.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,906 ✭✭✭J-blk


    Kipperhell wrote: »
    Is there any link to this?

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1208/rogersr.html

    Doesn't go into much detail though, it just mentions the case was settled and the judge was asked to make an order against the solicitor for the legal costs.


Advertisement