Bailiffs return seized luxury car to property developer

Head The Wall

Stupid Gung Ho idiots, how hard is it for them to find out who is the registered owner of the car? The sheriff's office look like a right bunch of fools

PROPERTY DEVELOPER Paddy Kelly was reunited yesterday with the 7 series BMW which was taken from his Donnybrook home by bailiffs on Thursday.

According to Mr Kelly, a representative for the sheriff returned the car, which belongs to his wife Maureen, early yesterday afternoon. Mr Kelly said the driver of the car apologised to Ms Kelly on behalf of the sheriff after Mr Kelly suggested it would be appropriate to do so.

On Thursday, bailiffs acting on foot of a warrant to the Dublin City Sheriff’s Office initiated by ACC seized the seven-year-old saloon car. ACCBank has a series of judgments against Mr Kelly. In April the bank obtained a judgment against Mr Kelly and his sons for €16.9 million in respect of development loans.

Both ACC and the Dublin City Sheriff declined to comment.

Mr Kelly told The Irish Times he had never owned the car and that the authorities had documents indicating this. He is taking legal advice on the matter. “ACC engaged in an isolated action which was not well-judged,” he said. “However, we don’t hold a grudge.”

When a judgment for the payment of money is obtained, the party who has been awarded the judgment can obtain an order directing the sheriff to seize whatever goods are within his bailiwick belonging to the debtor.

It is not clear whether ACCBank will obtain a further warrant.

The car was featured in an article in The Irish Times last month when Mr Kelly spent a day with journalist Fintan O’Toole travelling to developments. Mr Kelly, who owes various banks €350 million, was unapologetic in the article about the extent of his debts. He said in the piece the car was bought in 2003 for €139,000.

Lloyd Xmas

Who gives a sh1t if the cars registered in his dogs name. The whole lot should be whipped of him.
He owes EUR 350 million yet isn't the slightest bit bothered about it, as stated recently by himself.
The picture of him in the IT with the smug grin and the keys dangling on the end of his finger would make you sick. :eek:

Where is the sense of fairness, when one man owes 350 million, yet lives in luxury in D4 with the Merc and BMW sitting out front.
Contrast that to a lad who misses a few payments, due to unemployment, on a EUR 250,000 mortgage and is threatened with getting dumped out on his ear.
Or worse even, what about the 50% increase in people being jailed for not paying fines.
Astonishing stuff, or is it, in little old Ireland

amacachi

Funny how in a divorce they'd split everything while now everything's hers. :pac:

Head The Wall

Laws are there for a reason and they have to be followed regardless of how crappy they may seem. Somebody mucked up here on a basic part of their job here that's what I was highlighting.

If we were able to discard and not follow certain laws we would all choose not to pay heed to laws that would affect us.

I can see him suing the sheriffs office for their ineptitude and you know he will probably win and we the taxpayers will get to pay him money. I can also predict there will be no ramifications for whatever muppet put this plan in place

ei.sdraob

people people

dont yee know his wife is

"A woman of independent means" - Paddy Kelly


read the above article its wrong on so many levels

Lloyd Xmas

"Laws are there for a reason and they have to be followed regardless of how crappy they may seem"

Indeed, but the avenues of escape with which he uses have been around for a long time and have been exploited by many.

The facts are there for all to see; he owes a bloody fortune, hence the law needs to be changed to ensure that, regardless of assets being registered in the names of other family members; if they are being used by the guilty party as a primary residence or mode of transport or whatever the case is, the asset can and should be seized to repay the debt. Just like everyone else has to repay their debts.

Head The Wall

The issue here is the sheriff trying to get a good soundbite for himself and falling flat on his ass

AlekSmart

The issue here is the sheriff trying to get a good soundbite for himself and falling flat on his ass

The issue here is a need for the great unwashed to read up on French History (1789-1799).

Lloyd Xmas

Agreed, but "the great unwashed" should be directed by those with the knowledge and expertise of those in the know. David McWilliams et al.

People who have no alternative agenda, people who want a progressive society which is fair and cut loose from the scum that govern at present.

The last thing we need is some kind of chaotic uprising, hijacked by troublemakers to the detriment of all.

AlekSmart

The last thing we need is some kind of chaotic uprising, hijacked by troublemakers to the detriment of all.

I dont for a second think that Lloyd Xmas will will have to worry about such an event....at least for as long as the DSP can keep it`s services funded.

The ever reducing "Contributory Sector" will simply keep contributing until they finally become extinct....that`s when the sound of the Tumbril Wheels might begin to rattle across the cobbles

Lloyd Xmas

The sound of tumbril wheels is long overdue in this town.
The likes of Dempsey and his contempt of late, would be a fine example to set the ball rolling.

Laminations

It seems these folks are interpreting their marriage vows as follows. 'For better or worse til debt do us part'. They should take the wifes stuff unless she divorces and halves the assets

It should be as simple as if the wife wants to retain the assets, she files for divorce ending the involvement of the debtor in her share of the assets, so he stops driving the family car, moves out of the family home etc. In other words he stops reaping the benefits of those 'shared' assets because he owes money

Idbatterim

[HTML]Saturday August 07 2010
A PROPERTY developer whose wife's car was allegedly seized by a bank because of an unpaid debt was warned that failure to pay would result in more of his goods being taken.

Yesterday, developer Paddy Kelly claimed his BMW 7 series was seized by the Dublin City Sheriff this week in an attempt to "embarrass" him, and that bailiffs knew it belonged to his wife.

But the sheriff said yesterday that the seizure of goods for non-payment of debt was a last-resort measure, and suggested that Mr Kelly would previously have received a letter requesting the payment of the debt.

Refusing to comment on personal cases, a spokesman for the sheriff's office said that goods were only taken if a debtor refused to engage.

"Seizure of goods is way down the road," he said. "No doubt a judgment was issued -- if there there's no payment, then an execution order is secured.

"That's where we step in. We will write to the person and if there's no response then we seize the goods."

Mr Kelly owes various banks €350m and the car was seized on foot of a court order obtained by ACC Bank which won a judgement in April against Mr Kelly and his sons Simon and Christopher for €16.9m.

He told a newspaper that the car was seized without warning when he was not at home, and that it belonged to his wife and had been taken unlawfully.

"I don't know if it was for show or . . . trying to embarrass us or whatever. We are going to take legal advice on this," he said.

Mr Kelly said he had never owned the car, and that the sheriff's office knew it was in his wife's name. Last month, Mr Kelly revealed that he had bought the 2003-registered car in 2003 for €139,000. Similar models were on sale yesterday for €25,000.

He has also moved from his home on Dublin's Shrewsbury Road to a new address on Morehampton Road in Donnybrook.

Meanwhile, the city sheriff's office said it was dealing with an increased number of cases from credit unions where debtors were unable to pay back loans taken out for new cars and holidays. The problem was particularly acute in disadvantaged areas, the spokesman said.

"Seizures are up this year in the civil work," he said.

"There's been a big increase in credit union work.

"The loans could come from cars or holidays, and you see a lot in disadvantaged areas. In some cases, there's no goods to seize.

"It's tough times for everybody. We always given the person the opportunity to buy back their goods before we put them up for auction. We've held a number of cars over the year for people."

The sheriff is an officer of the court and is charged with recovering unpaid debt to businesses and banks, and it also works on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners.[/HTML]

Looks like another great investment by Paddy. I suppose the below bit is meant to shock people as regards to the depreciation "Mr Kelly revealed that he had bought the 2003-registered car in 2003 for €139,000. Similar models were on sale yesterday for €25,000." Well Ill shock you some more, there are 03 7 series being offered from 12k on carzone!

Head The Wall

Sure as soon as you buy a new car you are in negative equity for the next five years. This doesn't seem to bother people though

Sleepy

If they're married aren't they jointly and severably liable for any debts either of them take out?

I don't buy this 'the house is in the wife's name' nonsense.

dan_d

In Ireland,laws are there for people to find loopholes in them.
I kid you not.That's basically what a lawyers job is....

Head The Wall

Sleepy wrote: »

If they're married aren't they jointly and severably liable for any debts either of them take out?

I don't buy this 'the house is in the wife's name' nonsense.

His debts will be in company names though. I presume for anyone that gave personal guarantees those debts will be strictly limited to that person and not their wives.

P. Breathnach

If a person transfers assets to a spouse to put them out of reach of creditors, those assets can be pursued, but it involves court action. A creditor or sheriff cannot simply presume that the asset is available.

If I set up a business and it failed, leaving me heavily indebted, should property belonging to my wife, property that I did not supply or fund, be forfeit?

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If a person transfers assets to a spouse to put them out of reach of creditors, those assets can be pursued, but it involves court action. A creditor or sheriff cannot simply presume that the asset is available.

If I set up a business and it failed, leaving me heavily indebted, should property belonging to my wife, property that I did not supply or fund, be forfeit?

Yes. If you are benefitting in any way from your wifes assets then they should be fair game or you should end your involvement with those assets. In a divorce assets that have not been funded by both spouses can still be split across both spouses. For better or worse. I'm also sure these fellas wives shared in the good times with them. The Micheal Lynn case is the worst example I can think of, his wife who is obviously still in contact with him should be living in a flat, not a million euro home her husband conned off the banks.

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

Yes. If you are benefitting in any way from your wifes assets then they should be fair game or you should end your involvement with those assets....

If we tear up all our laws because of annoyance with some individuals, then we can kiss goodbye to society and hand everything over to the mob.

neris

Serves ACC right. Bet Rabo bank wish theyd never heard of Ireland.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If we tear up all our laws because of annoyance with some individuals, then we can kiss goodbye to society and hand everything over to the mob.

If we don't review and revise our laws that are laden with loopholes for wealthy white collar criminals then I don't see why the great unwashed should have any respect for the justice system

PS if you can explain to me the fairness in allowing families to share in the profits but be protected from losses (bar basic protection of shelter and food i.e. Welfare) then I'll agree with you. Phrased more simply, do you think it's right that Micheal Lynns wife can continue to live in a house acquired by her husbands fraud?

ei.sdraob

Its a murky area, married people benefit from tax credits etc and if it comes to divorce have to "share" out the assets and so on

It seems this guy gave out personal guarantees? hence loosing out any limited liability afforded to him by his company(ies?)
So yes his family got dragged into this now

There is a few lessons for all of us in this story

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

If we don't review and revise our laws that are laden with loopholes for wealthy white collar criminals then I don't see why the great unwashed should have any respect for the justice system

I have no objection to reviewing the law. Like you, I am offended by the creation of loopholes. I am also troubled by how slow the processes are, how the law is a procedural minefield, and how much everything costs.

I am quite angry at how remiss our legislature is in its core business of legislating.

PS if you can explain to me the fairness in allowing families to share in the profits but be protected from losses (bar basic protection of shelter and food i.e. Welfare) then I'll agree with you.

First, by using limited liability, a person can enjoy the profits of a business if it prospers, and limit the amount of the losses if it fails. That's without going as far as examining a spouse's exposure to risk.

Second, a sensible enquiry can establish the nature of a transfer of assets between spouses, and anything that exceeds a level that would be the norm could be subject to reversal of the transaction. You will understand that it would be difficult in the time I would take to compose a post in this forum to spell out a full code, but it should be possible. For example, if a wealthy person funded the purchase of a house and had a spouse's name entered of the deeds, that might be categorised as "alienation of an asset", and reversible.

Phrased more simply, do you think it's right that Micheal Lynns wife can continue to live in a house acquired by her husbands fraud?

My first thought is "no", but I have to say that I do not know the facts of the situation. Has Lynn been convicted of anything?

Head The Wall

I think anything transferred within 2 years can be looked at.

Lynn hasn't been charged with a crime that he can be extradited for, but all the evidence is there and it is damning. Therein lies the problem!!!!

P. Breathnach

Head The Wall wrote: »

I think anything transferred within 2 years can be looked at....

Two years is, in my opinion, too short a period.

Sleepy

In my opinion, and from what I understand of the marital vow of taking a 'token of all my worldly possessions', one gives up all claim to personal possessions when getting married and any assets are considered to be the equal property of both parties involved in the marriage.

If a married couple aren't considered to be a single financial entity in the law, why do we grant them tax credits?

Head The Wall

I agree, I was reading where anything within 2 years is easy enough to reclaim back out side that up to maybe 5 or 7 years needed considerable more proof but it could still be possible.

I can't find the source for this but it was a recent enough Irish article

cson

Hate the player by all means but don't forget the game is set up to be taken advantage of. I can guarantee for the most part when the affairs of these developers tart to be unravelled all you'll find is a lot of companies connected to each other [typically a limited group company followed by an unlimited controlling company followed by the trading company - in this case it all falls on the unlimited controlling company which will genrally have feck all assets. Multiply that previous scenario by a hundred and you'll have an idea of the complexity of these individuals affairs] and any tangible assets in wives and childrens names pretty much from the get go. These gentleman at the end of it all will have little or no personal assets.

stepbar

Back in the day, Paddy Kelly gave out personal guarantees like confetti. And the banks happily accepted them. More fool to them. In terms of protecting his wealth, I'll think you'll find after loosing his shirt as a Lloyd's name in the 80's, he was very careful to ensure that the wife had a few assets to her name. I doubt that any creditor could stake a claim to assets that may have been legally transferred years ago.

Sleepy

stepbar wrote: »

I doubt that any creditor could stake a claim to assets that may have been legally transferred years ago.

How is this the case though? They're a married couple, anything of hers is half his and vice versa.

I'm sure the Irish legal system disagrees with me on this point but that it does is a nonsense.

P. Breathnach

Sleepy wrote: »

...They're a married couple, anything of hers is half his and vice versa....

That suggests to me that you are not married.

The rule is "what's yours is mine, and what's mine is my own".

jmayo

Head The Wall wrote: »

His debts will be in company names though. I presume for anyone that gave personal guarantees those debts will be strictly limited to that person and not their wives.

What about when assets have been moved/transferred to wives and family over the last 5 odd years.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Two years is, in my opinion, too short a period.

So by the time NAMA gets around to chasing these guys it will 5 or more years since the assets were transferred so what happens then ?

Did anybody read paddy kelly's little sprog simon's article in yesterdays Sunday Tribune, where he makes fun of daddy's little predictment ?

http://www.tribune.ie/business/article/2010/aug/08/back-to-business-simon-kelly-bank-customers-unite-/

The Car that Wasn't...

It's hard not to finish off this week without talking about the car. And what a car. Everybody seems to want it.

I am not talking about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang here, although this one seems to have similar powers and qualities. Sales of the BMW 7 series must be soaring on the back of the demand that clearly exists for the black one that Paddy drives. Fintan clearly loves it, everybody at the MacGill summer school loves it and ACC certainly seems to want it. The funny thing is they forgot to check who owned it first. Anyway, it will be great for those long journeys surveying ACC's land assets around Ireland. It would even be good for a nice cruise across England and on the ferry back to headquarters in Holland. I suspect there are a lot of trips back to HQ at the moment for a bollicking from Rabo bosses. How do you say "Where is all the money" in Dutch?

There are plenty of surplus cars knocking around at the moment so I can arrange one for ACC. I know a guy who knows a guy, if you know what I mean. If I were ACC, I would go for a newer model with lower mileage. The one that Paddy drives is still going well but the maintenance is getting more expensive as the mileage gets higher. She is now over the ton which is not good for the value. Try the 2006 model, ACC. It's a real improvement and you won't regret going for the lower mileage.

simon himself owes millions as failed property develoepr yet he is given an article in sunday paper to mouth his sh**e.
Why the hell is a failed developer hired to write a column on business ?
I think it is getting time for stretching a few necks in this country.

Yesterday was the last day I will buy the tribune.
I am not paying good money to be laughed at by sh**heads like that gimp.
I suggest other people do likewise.

It now looks like one of the few papers that doesn't cowtow to our establishment is the Irish Mail on Sunday.

For some other gems from the spanner simon...

It’s a national phenomenon (the financial crisis) caused by the actions of hundreds of thousands of people, each in their own way causing a boom, and now a bust.

Everybody had skin in the game so stop looking for scapegoats as a way to hide personal guilt.

So I say to Charlie Bird and the like; get off David’s lawn and get out of Sean’s front drive. They have lost everything but they still have to live. The bank failed because we all failed.

If you want to know what caused the crash and the failure of Anglo, have a look in the mirror. We all built the boom and we all caused the bust.

cson

Ha! Not content with socialisation of losses, he wants socialisation of blame too. The cheek of some :pac:

Laminations

Ha from that fellas article

Everybody had skin in the game so stop looking for scapegoats as a way to hide personal guilt.

So I say to Charlie Bird and the like; get off David’s lawn and get out of Sean’s front drive. They have lost everything but they still have to live. The bank failed because we all failed.

Yes they still have to live but honestly, they have lost everything?? Daivid (Drumm) obviously hasn't lost his fvcking lawn or the mansion it leads up to? Seanie hasn't lost his driveway or the cars it holds, nor has he lost his lawn nor his mansion....

For people like this to be lecturing about personal responsibility...... :mad:

dermot_sheehan

Head The Wall wrote: »

Laws are there for a reason and they have to be followed regardless of how crappy they may seem. Somebody mucked up here on a basic part of their job here that's what I was highlighting.

If we were able to discard and not follow certain laws we would all choose not to pay heed to laws that would affect us.

I can see him suing the sheriffs office for their ineptitude and you know he will probably win and we the taxpayers will get to pay him money. I can also predict there will be no ramifications for whatever muppet put this plan in place

Laws are indeed there for a reason.
section 13 Enforcement of Courts Orders Act 1926
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1926/en/act/pub/0018/sec0013.html#sec13

13.—(1) No action shall lie against any under-sheriff for or on account of his having taken in execution under any execution order, any goods, animals, or other chattels found in the house or tenement of which the debtor is the occupier either alone or jointly with another or others or on the lands, of the debtor and claimed or alleged (whether such claim or allegation does or does not prove to have been well-founded), to be the property of the wife or husband of the debtor, or to be the property of any parent or child of the debtor for the time being residing in the house or tenement of which the debtor is the occupier either alone or jointly with another or others, and, in lieu of such action against the under-sheriff, the person to whom such goods, animals, or other chattels so taken in execution in fact belonged shall (if such goods, animals, or other chattels, should prove not to have been the property of the debtor) be entitled to recover from the debtor by action the value of such goods, animals, and other chattels, together with such damages as such person shall have suffered by reason of such goods, animals, or other chattels having been so taken in execution.
(2) The foregoing sub-section shall not operate to make it obligatory on any under-sheriff to take in execution under any execution order any such goods, animals or other chattels as are referred to in that sub-section.