Folks, always get independent advice.
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.
+ 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 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.......
I hope she loses the house and get damages from the son and solicitor.
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.
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.
I cannot see why this is even being entertained in the courts?? More taxpayers money being wasted.
OP, the parents already lost the family home when they signed on the dotted line......
What a great son!
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.
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.