Can the average Mortgage holder(negitive equity) do what the big Developers have done

fliball123

Hi all first time posting but I would like a serious debate on this. I know many friends who are in the neg equity trap and was wondering what's stopping them turning to the bank and giving them the keys and then declaring bankrupcy??

I mean the big developers can do it why not the average..Does anyone know why this isnt being done already?

Nijmegen

They could, in theory, go down that route. But it's very difficult, and all of your assets will be stripped.

It's easier for an individual with wealth, because - frankly - they can put away substantial enough assets outside of the hands of the Irish system.

All of our senior disgraced bankers have fled to homes I'd bet an eye aren't in their name, yet are owned by them in the end.

fliball123

Nijmegen wrote: »

They could, in theory, go down that route. But it's very difficult, and all of your assets will be stripped.

It's easier for an individual with wealth, because - frankly - they can put away substantial enough assets outside of the hands of the Irish system.

All of our senior disgraced bankers have fled to homes I'd bet an eye aren't in their name, yet are owned by them in the end.

Cheers for the response but as stated I have circle of about 15 close friends 8 are in neg equity and out of these 5 are unemployed, which would ask the question these 5 lads whats to stop thm just chucking the keys I am bankrupt they only get the scratch and are barely living off that...The phrase blood out of a stone comes to mind

highgiant1985

fliball123 wrote: »

Cheers for the response but as stated I have circle of about 15 close friends 8 are in neg equity and out of these 5 are unemployed, which would ask the question these 5 lads whats to stop thm just chucking the keys I am bankrupt they only get the scratch and are barely living off that...The phrase blood out of a stone comes to mind

When the bank sells the house for say e.g. 400k if that doesn't cover the full mortgage your friend owes to the bank e.g. 500k then your friends will still owe the difference to the bank though I think?

jonnyfingers

fliball123 wrote: »

Cheers for the response but as stated I have circle of about 15 close friends 8 are in neg equity and out of these 5 are unemployed, which would ask the question these 5 lads whats to stop thm just chucking the keys I am bankrupt they only get the scratch and are barely living off that...The phrase blood out of a stone comes to mind

As the previous poster said, they could declare bankrupcy but all of their assets would be stripped. Where would they live? What would they drive? Their credit rating would probably be seriously affected so they might not be able to get loans or mortgages in the future.

For the average person bankrupcy is not a viable option I'm afraid.

fliball123

highgiant1985 wrote: »

The reason thats stopping your friends just chucking the keys back to the bank is that when the bank sells the house for say e.g. 400k if that doesn't cover the full mortgage your friend owes to the bank e.g. 500k then your friends will still owe the difference to the bank.

Hense the reason for declaring bankrupcy. I was reading up on it and its the same drill as a liquidation with the tax man coming in first and taking anything the individual owns ie a car or whatever and then the bank / other creditors next or am I wrong about this. but I am sure if you declare bankrupcy your obsolved from all debts only downside is there is a black mark against your name for a certain number of years not too sure what it is.

fliball123

jonnyfingers wrote: »

As the previous poster said, they could declare bankrupcy but all of their assets would be stripped. Where would they live? What would they drive? Their credit rating would probably be seriously affected so they might not be able to get loans or mortgages in the future.

For the average person bankrupcy is not a viable option I'm afraid.

Hi Johnny yeah was looking at that but the way I see it I of the lads situation he is about 1/4 of mill in neg now he has a banger sure whats the downside of him declaring I mean would he be cut off from the scratch???? But I reckon there are tonnes of people in the same boat as him

elnino35

agree with you totally on this...its a f**ckin outrage what ordinary householders have to put up with compared to that shower of b$tards who stitched us all up with their slimy backhanded deals:mad:..I'm currently paying interest only on my mortgage, and trying to manage only on the social after losing my job..only good thing is, I somehow have the deeds to my house after a feck up from the solicitor;)..they keep sending out letters requesting them back, but ain't no way I'm handing those babies over!!:D:D

fliball123

elnino35 wrote: »

agree with you totally on this...its a f**ckin outrage what ordinary householders have to put up with compared to that shower of b$tards who stitched us all up with their slimy backhanded deals:mad:..I'm currently paying interest only on my mortgage, and trying to manage only on the social after losing my job..only good thing is, I somehow have the deeds to my house after a feck up from the solicitor;)..they keep sending out letters requesting them back, but ain't no way I'm handing those babies over!!:D:D

Well then My advise is to stop paying your mortgage you have your deeds lol...I mean you could do a burner out of this country and rent there is not a damn thing they can do but you will probably be arrested on return...But the reason I started the thread is that with property only going one way there are going to be people falling into this trap every day

jonnyfingers

fliball123 wrote: »

Hi Johnny yeah was looking at that but the way I see it I of the lads situation he is about 1/4 of mill in neg now he has a banger sure whats the downside of him declaring I mean would he be cut off from the scratch???? But I reckon there are tonnes of people in the same boat as him

I wonder how old this person is? Do they earn a lot of money? Could they live the rest of their lives with a bad credit rating and get by without having to borrow money?

I think it's terrible how rich developers can declare bankrupcy and still live relatively well. There's a well known family in Waterford who own many of the main bars and clubs who have gone down this route. There were rumours of the owner keeping €150,000 in a safe and taking it out just before the administrator came in to take over the businesses. And there is already talk of this guy's next business venture.

But the way I look at it those with money tend to keep their money. Those without suffer much more.

So in an ideal world, yes we could tell the banks to stuff it "I'm bankrupt", but unless you have some money tucked away somewhere I fear it would not be a good idea.

fliball123

jonnyfingers wrote: »

I wonder how old this person is? Do they earn a lot of money? Could they live the rest of their lives with a bad credit rating and get by without having to borrow money?

I think it's terrible how rich developers can declare bankrupcy and still live relatively well. There's a well known family in Waterford who own many of the main bars and clubs who have gone down this route. There were rumours of the owner keeping €150,000 in a safe and taking it out just before the administrator came in to take over the businesses. And there is already talk of this guy's next business venture.

But the way I look at it those with money tend to keep their money. Those without suffer much more.

So in an ideal world, yes we could tell the banks to stuff it "I'm bankrupt", but unless you have some money tucked away somewhere I fear it would not be a good idea.

I believe you have a 7/10 year black mark against your name in all honesty which would be better even 20 years without getting a loan or 1/4 mil in debt and increasing all the time...I mean if every dev or builder is getting away with it why not the little guy...But as you rightly said if you had s lump sum to fall back on might not be as bad...

gurramok

fliball123 wrote: »

I believe you have a 7/10 year black mark against your name in all honesty which would be better even 20 years without getting a loan or 1/4 mil in debt and increasing all the time...I mean if every dev or builder is getting away with it why not the little guy...But as you rightly said if you had s lump sum to fall back on might not be as bad...

Its 12 years fliball. I believe there is a scheme along UK lines been mooted to help people who lost their jobs and are in negative equity.

If your friends decided to jump ship abroad, it will be the banks and eventually us the taxpayers who will be picking up the bill.

fliball123

gurramok wrote: »

Its 12 years fliball. I believe there is a scheme along UK lines been mooted to help people who lost their jobs and are in negative equity.

If your friends decided to jump ship abroad, it will be the banks and eventually us the taxpayers who will be picking up the bill.

Hi Gurramok good to hear from you. Yeah but the way he sees it is he was paying for the developers/banks **** up so now its his turn. I aint saying its right or wrong but could anyone blame him for thinking along these lines?

elnino35

jonnyfingers wrote: »

I wonder how old this person is? Do they earn a lot of money? Could they live the rest of their lives with a bad credit rating and get by without having to borrow money?

I think it's terrible how rich developers can declare bankrupcy and still live relatively well. There's a well known family in Waterford who own many of the main bars and clubs who have gone down this route. There were rumours of the owner keeping €150,000 in a safe and taking it out just before the administrator came in to take over the businesses. And there is already talk of this guy's next business venture.

But the way I look at it those with money tend to keep their money. Those without suffer much more.

So in an ideal world, yes we could tell the banks to stuff it "I'm bankrupt", but unless you have some money tucked away somewhere I fear it would not be a good idea.

This is where our excuse for a government could step in and maybe draw up some new legislation that doesn't have people being blacklisted for 7-10 years, in the event of them declaring bankruptcy through losing their jobs and being in negative equity...don't think it would be too hard too implement and police properly against genuinely hard hit people...then again this is Cowens' mob were talkin about:eek:

fliball123

elnino35 wrote: »

This is where our excuse for a government could step in and maybe draw up some new legislation that doesn't have people being blacklisted for 7-10 years, in the event of them declaring bankruptcy through losing their jobs and being in negative equity...don't think it would be too hard too implement and police properly against genuinely hard hit people...then again this is Cowens' mob were talkin about:eek:

I think its 12 years as Gurramok said..well I mean I kind of agree with him that everyone else will be picking up the tab but having said that he was already picking up the developers tabs with his tax when he was working

I can see this scenario being played out before the end of the year

jonnyfingers

elnino35 wrote: »

This is where our excuse for a government could step in and maybe draw up some new legislation that doesn't have people being blacklisted for 7-10 years, in the event of them declaring bankruptcy through losing their jobs and being in negative equity...don't think it would be too hard too implement and police properly against genuinely hard hit people...then again this is Cowens' mob were talkin about:eek:

Oh I completely agree. NAMA should be used to help everyone, not just developers that made risky investments and now don't want to pay for taking those riskes.

The amount of money being pumped into Anglo Irish Bank could easily cover the mortgages of most of the country who are struggling with mortgage repayments.

I realise that we might not have the money to do it but I think looking after the honest hard-working people of this country should come first over looking after the rich. But this is what Fianna Fail do. I've never voted for them but unfortunately the majority have in the past. So we must take a bit of the blame for the mess we're in.

But back to the OPs original question about can we declare bankrupcy right now I don't think we can.

fliball123

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Oh I completely agree. NAMA should be used to help everyone, not just developers that made risky investments and now don't want to pay for taking those riskes.

The amount of money being pumped into Anglo Irish Bank could easily cover the mortgages of most of the country who are struggling with mortgage repayments.

I realise that we might not have the money to do it but I think looking after the honest hard-working people of this country should come first over looking after the rich. But this is what Fianna Fail do. I've never voted for them but unfortunately the majority have in the past. So we must take a bit of the blame for the mess we're in.

But back to the OPs original question about can we declare bankrupcy right now I don't think we can.

Individually as a person you can declare bankrupcy

jonnyfingers

fliball123 wrote: »

Individually as a person you can declare bankrupcy

Correct. What I meant was right now I, personally, don't see it as a viable option.

I would very much like to see the government setting up some sort of 'bankrupcy scheme' for those in negative equity. Something like a restructuring of the mortgage based on the current value of the house. To be honest I'd expect pigs to fly sooner than Cowen doing something like it.

gurramok

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Correct. What I meant was right now I, personally, don't see it as a viable option.

I would very much like to see the government setting up some sort of 'bankrupcy scheme' for those in negative equity. Something like a restructuring of the mortgage based on the current value of the house. To be honest I'd expect pigs to fly sooner than Cowen doing something like it.

I'd object to the negative equity been wiped out. If they did, every tom dick and harry who are not in financial trouble will be doing it and will the value be re-assessed again when the prices rise?

maninasia

fliball123 wrote: »

I think its 12 years as Gurramok said..well I mean I kind of agree with him that everyone else will be picking up the tab but having said that he was already picking up the developers tabs with his tax when he was working

I can see this scenario being played out before the end of the year

What is somebody worrying about a credit rating when they owe 1/4 million quid. They will not be able to get a loan anyway in the future so the logical option is in front of their eyes.

fliball123

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Correct. What I meant was right now I, personally, don't see it as a viable option.

I would very much like to see the government setting up some sort of 'bankrupcy scheme' for those in negative equity. Something like a restructuring of the mortgage based on the current value of the house. To be honest I'd expect pigs to fly sooner than Cowen doing something like it.

I wonder if the general public are aware of this option

omahaid

I'm interested in this too, although not planning to do it. If I'm on the dole and owe €400k to the banks on a house now worth €100k, what good reason is there for me to NOT declare bankruptcy?

Assume I have no other assets (car worth €500) and I can move back with my parents.

fliball123

maninasia wrote: »

What is somebody worrying about a credit rating when they owe 1/4 million quid. They will not be able to get a loan anyway in the future so the logical option is in front of their eyes.

Agree with you there

danbohan

fliball123 wrote: »

Hi all first time posting but I would like a serious debate on this. I know many friends who are in the neg equity trap and was wondering what's stopping them turning to the bank and giving them the keys and then declaring bankrupcy??

I mean the big developers can do it why not the average..Does anyone know why this isnt being done already?

it would very much depend on if your friends want continue to live in this country or to emigrate say to uk ,they could then declare bankruptcy in uk which has much more benevolent system than ours here , people declare banrupcy in USA on a regular basis and rebuild their lives and credit ratings its not looked on in same negative way as here . people are going to default on their mortgages whether we like it or not and taxpayers in ireland will have pick up that tab along with all the other tabs .

fliball123

omahaid wrote: »

I'm interested in this too, although not planning to do it. If I'm on the dole and owe €400k to the banks on a house now worth €100k, what good reason is there for me to NOT declare bankruptcy?

Assume I have no other assets (car worth €500) and I can move back with my parents.

If I was in your position I would tell mam and dad to put the tea on as you will be there for a while Good luck come back to this thread and tell us how you get on if you do it?

elnino35

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Correct. What I meant was right now I, personally, don't see it as a viable option.

I would very much like to see the government setting up some sort of 'bankrupcy scheme' for those in negative equity. Something like a restructuring of the mortgage based on the current value of the house. To be honest I'd expect pigs to fly sooner than Cowen doing something like it.

exactly, well said....The amount of money required to help out the worst hit with negative equity, would be like a drop in the ocean compared to that f**ckin Anglo bail out:mad:...but as you rightly say, hell will freeze over before Cowen & co give a damn

omahaid

fliball123 wrote: »

If I was in your position I would tell mam and dad to put the tea on as you will be there for a while Good luck come back to this thread and tell us how you get on if you do it?

Parents understand and are happy to take me back. Are my parents the only reason not to declare bankruptcy?

fliball123

omahaid wrote: »

Parents understand and are happy to take me back. Are my parents the only reason not to declare bankruptcy?

as I say I would do it if I was in your shoes

jonnyfingers

gurramok wrote: »

I'd object to the negative equity been wiped out. If they did, every tom dick and harry who are not in financial trouble will be doing it and will the value be re-assessed again when the prices rise?

True, this is why I'm an engineer and not an accountant. I'm an ideas man! I don't worry about the details!

But in all seriousness a step in the right direction from the government would be nice to help those in trouble. Yes there is a circle of blame, you could argue that certain people could not afford the houses they bought, you could argue nobody forced them to pay over the odds for houses, you could also argue that the banks should not have given out silly mortgages, especially 100% mortgages. But after all that this is peoples' lives we're talking about. I want to see the government do something to help.

omahaid

fliball123 wrote: »

as I say I would do it if I was in your shoes

That answers my question then

elnino35

fliball123 wrote: »

as I say I would do it if I was in your shoes

provided mammy and daddy aren't in the same boat!!!:eek:

NOGMaxpower

Devs have only gotten away with it because of our LTD company laws. Any assets owned by that company are up for grabs but are limited only to those registerd under the LTD company.

So Devs went about creating LTD companies with no assets but owners of say a contruction company, who in trouble times claims bankrupcy and the revenue goes cool we're gona sieze your assets dev guy goes "sure go ahead laughing" since there are no assets to claim.

In essance they run off scot free.

If an Irish jo blogs claimis bankrupcy all their assets are open game. Cars, tvs, clothes, jewelry etc Mr Sherrif will be around to get as much out of you as you can.

The best option for anyone struggling with mortgages is to get out, rent the house out and move into a smaller property with low rent. ride out the storm and then move back in once they have a Job and the property begins to increase in value again.

Mortgages are a life long commitment, they go up they go down, sure they're going down now but they will go back up again. who knows what the future holds?

the final option is to burn your house down to the ground and receive a nice payout from your insurance company but that is very illegal and very eash to prove as arson.

fliball123

gurramok wrote: »

I'd object to the negative equity been wiped out. If they did, every tom dick and harry who are not in financial trouble will be doing it and will the value be re-assessed again when the prices rise?

Well my point would be why is it that the big developers got this and we cant...I dont agree with that at all ... I know the tax payer would be paying more but I would rather do it for the poor feck living a couple of doors up who hasnt two pennys to rub together than the developers

fliball123

elnino35 wrote: »

provided mammy and daddy aren't in the same boat!!!:eek:

Titanic springs to mind

fliball123

NOGMaxpower wrote: »

Devs have only gotten away with it because of our LTD company laws. Any assets owned by that company are up for grabs but are limited only to those registerd under the LTD company.

So Devs went about creating LTD companies with no assets but owners of say a contruction company, who in trouble times claims bankrupcy and the revenue goes cool we're gona sieze your assets dev guy goes "sure go ahead laughing" since there are no assets to claim.

In essance they run off scot free.

If an Irish jo blogs claimis bankrupcy all their assets are open game. Cars, tvs, clothes, jewelry etc Mr Sherrif will be around to get as much out of you as you can.

The best option for anyone struggling with mortgages is to get out, rent the house out and move into a smaller property with low rent. ride out the storm and then move back in once they have a Job and the property begins to increase in value again.

Mortgages are a life long commitment, they go up they go down, sure they're going down now but they will go back up again. who knows what the future holds?

the final option is to burn your house down to the ground and receive a nice payout from your insurance company but that is very illegal and very eash to prove as arson.

No I think anyone in at least 1/4mil in debt bankrupcy is the way to go look if you on the scratch and can find a place to live via say mammy and daddy as someone said here...Yeah they can only take your current assets if you have any sense sell the car, tv everything bar the clothes on your back and say hey mr bank offical/sherriff go for it...They aint going to take the clothes off your back and once the bankrupcy is done then what ever you make is yours ala what ever cash you stashed under mams bed is yours to enjoy and if you get sick of mam and dad the nice mr government is there with rent relief and other nice little bonuses ...My advise sell everything stash the cash and declare bankrupcy...Works for mr Dev

RichardAnd

They can but if you hand the banks back a hours worth 300k when you borrowed 500k then you still owe the difference. Also, you will never get another loan again.

There's really very little the average person can do. For alot of people who took out half a million for a house they will probably see a good deal of their adult life pass before they break even (paraphrasing a quote from the great depression there). Forget "NAMA for the little guy", or the "bailout for Joe Soap", these will not happen and should not happen.

fliball123

RichardAnd wrote: »

They can but if you hand the banks back a hours worth 300k when you borrowed 500k then you still owe the difference. Also, you will never get another loan again.

There's really very little the average person can do. For alot of people who took out half a million for a house they will probably see a good deal of their adult life pass before they break even (paraphrasing a quote from the great depression there). Forget "NAMA for the little guy", or the "bailout for Joe Soap", these will not happen and should not happen.

No if you declare bankrupcy the bank is now a creditor who gets whats left of your assets...This is essentially a Nama for the little guy and a 12 year hold on getting a loan as already pointed out if your in a shed load of neg equity no one will touch you with a barge pole

danbohan

gurramok wrote: »

I'd object to the negative equity been wiped out. If they did, every tom dick and harry who are not in financial trouble will be doing it and will the value be re-assessed again when the prices rise?

agree totally , unfortunately with the type of goverment we have or will have we may get something along those lines , feed the baby that crys loudest , taxpayers in this country will be screwed and screwed

gurramok

fliball123 wrote: »

Well my point would be why is it that the big developers got this and we cant...I dont agree with that at all ... I know the tax payer would be paying more but I would rather do it for the poor feck living a couple of doors up who hasnt two pennys to rub together than the developers

Yes, to elaborate what NOGMaxpower said. If the developer loans went under without a Nama style bailout, the banking system would collapse.
If there was mass default by mortgage holders, we'll be back to square one on the banks and they will need another bailout, unthinkable consequences for the solvency of the state. Also most of those people who default will claim additional welfare for somewhere to live as well and that adds further pressure to the 20bn+ exchequer deficit.

As i said, they are looking into a scheme to help people in trouble, maybe reduce their mortgage payments until they get back on their feet jobwise so they will still have a roof over their heads.

fliball123

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, to elaborate what NOGMaxpower said. If the developer loans went under without a Nama style bailout, the banking system would collapse.
If there was mass default by mortgage holders, we'll be back to square one on the banks and they will need another bailout, unthinkable consequences for the solvency of the state. Also most of those people who default will claim additional welfare for somewhere to live as well and that adds further pressure to the 20bn+ exchequer deficit.

As i said, they are looking into a scheme to help people in trouble, maybe reduce their mortgage payments until they get back on their feet jobwise so they will still have a roof over their heads.

Hey I never said it was right or wrong but in the current climate who could blame a person for doing what I said...I know for certain I wouldnt give a **** who pays for it as I have seen my taxes which I have paid for over the last 20years being used to pay for banks/builders bailout..

RichardAnd

fliball123 wrote: »

No if you declare bankrupcy the bank is now a creditor who gets whats left of your assets...This is essentially a Nama for the little guy and a 12 year hold on getting a loan as already pointed out if your in a shed load of neg equity no one will touch you with a barge pole

Ah ok. But essentially, if you did that you'd be completely wiped out so even with a clean slate, you'd have nothing to start over with right?

fliball123

RichardAnd wrote: »

Ah ok. But essentially, if you did that you'd be completely wiped out financially so you'd be left with nothing and still in the s**t right?

How would you be in the ****e...as I said before if you had a bit of cop you would sell the car sell the plasma and anything else give the cash to a mate and with just the clothes on you back and the house thats 1/4mil in neg equity say I am bankrupt do your worse..Once all the bankrupcy is declared I beleive creditors have time to investigate where your funds check a/cs etc..Once this period is over they cant touch you...You are out of debt the bank now has a gaff worth 1/4 of mill less and good enough for them they decided to give the 110% loan for it

Banned Account

To quote the oft-used definition, “Bankruptcy is a law for the benefit and the relief of creditors and their debtors, in cases in which the latter are unable and unwilling to pay their debts.”

Either a debtor or a creditor may petition the High Court to have the debtor adjudicated
bankrupt. A primary pre-requisite to bringing the petition is that there is liquidated debt of more than €2,000 owing. Bankruptcy law is said to act for the benefit and relief of debtors because, for an admittedly heavy price, it frees debtors of the burden of excessive debt and of vindictive creditors and allows the debtors eventually to make a fresh start.

Bankruptcy
law is said to act for the benefit and relief of creditors because it secures some equality of distribution of the bankrupt’s assets and property among the creditors and, of course, punishes fraudulent debtors.

A bankrupt is somebody who has been adjudicated bankrupt by an order of the High Court. Once a debtor is adjudicated bankrupt, bankruptcy law requires the mandatory vesting of all of the bankrupt’s assets and property (including his family home, all of his stocks and shares and all assets and property acquired by the bankrupt after being adjudicated bankrupt) in the person of an Official Assignee (or sometimes in the person of a private trustee).

Under the supervision of the Court, the Official Assignee will realise the bankrupt’s assets and distribute the assets rateably among the creditors. The Court will take account of the bankrupt’s family responsibilities and of his personal situation. The Court may, for example, delay the sale by the Official Assignee of the debtor’s family home.

The bankruptcy process does not have many attractions for either the bankrupt or his
creditors. For the bankrupt, there is the unfortunate stigma attached to being declared
bankrupt. If a person is adjudicated bankrupt, a notice of the adjudication must be published in Iris Oifigiuil (i.e. an official publication in Ireland) and in one national and one local newspaper. The specific legal effects of bankruptcy are described below. For the creditor perhaps the most noticeable pitfall in the bankruptcy system is the fact that the petitioning creditor gains no priority over other creditors in relation to the payment of his debt if he makes the debtor bankrupt. The petitioner, whether debtor or creditor, must also indemnify the Official Assignee as to his costs, fees and expenses.

When a debtor is adjudicated bankrupt, the most notable effects on his personal situation are as follows:

(a) All the debtor’s assets and property vest automatically in the Official Assignee. It will be of little comfort to the bankrupt to know that the Bankruptcy Act 1986 allows the bankrupt to retain “such articles of clothing, household furniture, bedding, tools or
equipment of his trade or occupation or other necessaries for himself, his wife,
children and dependent relatives residing with him, as he may select, not exceeding
in value [€3,175] or such further amount as the Court on an application by the
bankrupt may allow”.

(b) The bankrupt must disclose to the Official Assignee any property acquired after
being adjudicated bankrupt.

(c) Any payment or any transfer of property by the bankrupt to a creditor in preference
over other creditors that took place in the six-month period prior to being adjudicated
bankrupt shall be deemed to have been fraudulently done and may be undone or
otherwise dealt with by the Court (subject to certain exceptions for bona fide
recipients or transferees).

(d) Any sale of property at an under value that the bankrupt carried out in the threemonth period prior to being adjudicated bankrupt may be avoided and undone by the Official Assignee (subject to certain exceptions for sales to bona fide purchasers).

(e) Any person who is known or suspected to have in his possession or control any
property of the bankrupt or to have disposed of any property of the bankrupt or who
is supposed to have indebtedness to the bankrupt or any person who is capable of
giving information relating to the trade, dealings, affairs or property of the bankrupt
may be summonsed by a Court.

(f) The bankrupt’s salary is likely to be attached in favour of the Official Assignee.

(g) The Court may make to the bankrupt out of “his” assets (those that now vest in the
Official Assignee) such allowances as the Court thinks proper in any special
circumstances brought to its attention.

(h) Certain of the bankrupt’s post may be re-directed to the Official Assignee.

(i) It is an offence for the bankrupt to act as an officer of or directly or indirectly take
part or be concerned in the promotion, formation or management of any Irish
company or even of any foreign company which has an established place of
business in Ireland.

(j) The bankrupt cannot obtain credit over €630 without disclosing his status as a
bankrupt.

(k) After twelve years the bankruptcy may be discharged.

The bankrupt commits an offence if he does not disclose all his property to the Court or conceals any part of his estate or if he obtains by false representation any property or credit. Offences carry the penalty on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding €630 or up to twelve months prison or both and on indictment of a fine not exceeding €1,000 or up to five
year prison or both.

The costs of the bankruptcy rank in priority to all other claims. After that, the priority of claims is very similar to that which applies in the case of a company’s liquidation. Priority is next given to preferential claims such as those relating to local rates due from the bankrupt and all property and income tax assessed on him. These preferential claims, which also include wages and salaries that the bankrupt owes, rank equally between themselves.

Thereafter,non-preferential claims rank equally as between themselves also.

Part IV of the Bankruptcy Act, 1988 prescribes the Irish process for entering into settlement arrangements with creditors while being under the supervision and protection of the Court. It is a court-controlled process and necessarily requires a number of court hearings. This all takes time and money. The IVA process in the UK gives more control of the settlement process to the debtor and, more particularly, to
the insolvency practitioner that the debtor retains. This allows the courts to adopt a more hands-off and less intrusive approach.

There has been much speculation of late that the number of bankruptcy petitions in Ireland will increase considerably over the next few months and years. It is a pity that we do not have the legal systems and processes in place to assist debtors in coming to arrangements with their creditors and thereby giving those debtors a chance to avoid being adjudicated bankrupt.

Too cumbersome here, too many consequences - 12 years is a long time if you have family. Best try to get IVA's introduced.

[/FONT]

ZYX

Bankruptcy is not a simple solution anwhere, but in Ireland it is barely a solution at all. It is not simply a matter of not being able to buy another house for 12 years, it can seriously mess up your life.

Some info here:
http://www.debtadvice.ie/pages/Bankruptcy-in-Ireland.html

maninasia

RichardAnd wrote: »

They can but if you hand the banks back a hours worth 300k when you borrowed 500k then you still owe the difference. Also, you will never get another loan again.

There's really very little the average person can do. For alot of people who took out half a million for a house they will probably see a good deal of their adult life pass before they break even (paraphrasing a quote from the great depression there). Forget "NAMA for the little guy", or the "bailout for Joe Soap", these will not happen and should not happen.

What do you think bankruptcy means? :rolleyes:

Also having negative equity of 1/4 million and no job will seriously mess up your life. Even the 1/4 million and a job will still seriously mess up your life.

I don't see the problem about declaring bankruptcy to be honest, most people wouldn't have much to be taken away at that stage. They won't be opening companies or looking for loans which as I mentioned they will not get ANYWAY with huge debts or bad credit payment history or poor employment or income prospects. I'm not an advocate for walking away from loans but I can see how it could be an option, a very attractive option, especially the 12 year rule. Some strange comments here about being afraid of people's opinions if you declared bankruptcy, nobody cares and it's nobody's business but your own. Too addicted to the notion of credit.

ZYX

fliball123 wrote: »

Hey I never said it was right or wrong but in the current climate who could blame a person for doing what I said...I know for certain I wouldnt give a **** who pays for it as I have seen my taxes which I have paid for over the last 20years being used to pay for banks/builders bailout..

But now your taxes would pay for banks/builders and bankrupts bailouts

cson

You'll have to show you're resident in the UK to avail of their Bankruptcy laws. Irish Bankruptcy laws are quite archaic and declaring bankruptcy will have long term reprecussions for you.

You can pretty much kiss goodbye to everyday things people take for granted like bank accounts/mobile phones/credit cards/utilities/television subs/broadband subs. Anything involving a bank account basically.

Scarab80

maninasia wrote: »

What do you think bankruptcy means? :rolleyes:

Less of the rollseyes, read the link that ZYX gave, bankruptcy isn't that simple. Once adjudicated to be bankrupt you remain bankrupt until certain conditions are met as outlined in the link. It's not as simple as i'm bankrupt, cya later.

In the case you responded to the person could probably exit bankruptcy as he would have paid his creditors 50% (once the property actually realised that value). Some other posters indicated a 400k mortgage and a 100k value, in this case creditors could have access to the bankrupts salary for a period of up to 12 years or until 50% has been paid to creditors.

maninasia

RichardAnd wrote: »

Ah ok. But essentially, if you did that you'd be completely wiped out so even with a clean slate, you'd have nothing to start over with right?

A genius at work

maninasia

cson wrote: »

You'll have to show you're resident in the UK to avail of their Bankruptcy laws. Irish Bankruptcy laws are quite archaic and declaring bankruptcy will have long term reprecussions for you.

You can pretty much kiss goodbye to everyday things people take for granted like bank accounts/mobile phones/credit cards/utilities/television subs/broadband subs. Anything involving a bank account basically.

I'd say the only one that would be problematic would be credit cards and bank accounts. Even then there's a workaround I'm sure.

rickymaccullum

Cool Debate. The most of thing Happened because of The Poor Law and laziness of Government. Anyway that is really informative debate...Keep posting reply and provide useful information.

---

Debt