solicitors who will help home owners in trouble

weeman2

A friend of mine had a great idea over 2 years ago which was to raffle off his house in order to repay his mortgage.

He was hampered with the fact that he had very little money as he was unemployed and thus couldnt afford to pay a solicitor.

I have heard a few times lateley on the radio that there are a few groups now willing to help such people for free on the basis that it is a landmark case.

This is in fact the only thing that stopped him doing it was a law from the 1930s or 40s that would need to be changed.

So if anybody has any ideas or can give me the names of such groups it would be a big help.

He had given up until the other day when somebody from RTE contacted him to find out what had happened and we got talking about it and now he is looking at ways to make it happen.

If he sells the house he will still owe money as it is negative equity all he wants is to be able to get rid of the house so he can start again debt free.

Our man in Havana

If he sells the house he will still owe money as it is negative equity all he wants is to be able to get rid of the house so he can start again debt free.

The problem is that the bank won't allow such a sale.

weeman2

The Bank agreed at the time he was issueing 800 tickets at €500 each which would have raised €400,000 which would have cleared his mortgage + arears as it stand now this will never happen so the bank have a better shot of getting there money this way.

His solicitor had so many enquiries about it she suggested patenting it a nd charging people 100 euros a go to use this system as she felt alot of people would turn to it.

He was plagued by people looking to buy tickets and he still is.

The law is from 1952 and he has been told it would cost around €12,000 to challenge it. So all he needs is someone that can help.

johnnyskeleton

weeman2 wrote: »

The Bank agreed at the time he was issueing 800 tickets at €500 each which would have raised €400,000 which would have cleared his mortgage + arears as it stand now this will never happen so the bank have a better shot of getting there money this way.

His solicitor had so many enquiries about it she suggested patenting it a nd charging people 100 euros a go to use this system as she felt alot of people would turn to it.

He was plagued by people looking to buy tickets and he still is.

The law is from 1952 and he has been told it would cost around €12,000 to challenge it. So all he needs is someone that can help.

He could always hold a raffle to raise the legal fees.

Seriously though, his solicitor advised him that he could patent the idea of holding a raffle and then went on to tell him that a challenge (I assume on constitutional/ECHR grounds) to a piece of legislation would only cost €12,000. Yikes.

Delancey

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

He could always hold a raffle to raise the legal fees.

Seriously though, his solicitor advised him that he could patent the idea of holding a raffle and then went on to tell him that a challenge (I assume on constitutional/ECHR grounds) to a piece of legislation would only cost €12,000. Yikes.

The Solicitor was probably Lionel Hutz ( for those of you who need reminding he's the ambulance-chasing lawyer from the Simpsons )

Jo King

A licence is needed to hold a raffle under the Gaming & Lotteries Act 1956. There were a few raffles or attempted raffles of buildings in the 1980s after which there was a clampdown. An idea cannot be patented. There is no solicitor involved here. No solicitor who knows a hole in the ground from a Boeing 747 would say a thing like that.

weeman2

Jo King

The solicitor advised him that to proceed and challenge the law in question would cost aprox €12,000 and even higher as the time involved in such a case.

With regards patenting the idea i think the petent regards the finer nuts and bolts of the idea which to be honest is quite ingeniouse.

I think the solicitor didnt want to get involved as if he lost they would not have gotten paid which is understandable.

While the bank had agreed in principal 2 years ago they may not now however seeing as the interest is piling up do they have a choice.

He got great press coverage 2 years ago when he was trying to do it RTE came and filmed an interview in hos house, he was on loads of newspapers and radios about his idea as it is very clever and unique.

Fair enough some people may think its a stupid idea but at least he is giving it a go. As all this info is second hand i wasnt in any of the meetings obviousley so some details may be a little wrong with regards what the solicitor told him.

Seeing as there seem to be much talk about solicitors and groups willing to help people in danger of loosing there homes he is trying to find some of these groups. New Begining is one group but they help people in Dublin only and he is based in Limerick.

I hope that clears it up for you JO KING seeing as you seem very sceptical

If there is anybody with a posative comment or who can offer any advice your help would be very much appreciated.

Jo King

An idea cannot be patented, no matter how ingenious.
Barney Curley raffled his house in 1984. Nothing new about raffling a house. He was charged and given a sentence.

A constitutional challenge would cost over €200,000. Where is this €12,000 coming from?

littlemac1980

It's quite obvious why a bank wouldn't want to allow such a sale/raffle.

The first 1 or 2 such houses might generate enough interest to break even, but when there are (and there would be) 100,000+ houses on the market in such a raffle, then the ticket prices would plummet, and the banks would be forced to face up to a massive write-down on their assets.

At present, they can ignore the negative equity issue, because the value of their mortgages aren't concerned with the real value of the property. Such a relationship only arises when there is a default, and they have to repossess and sell the house at market value.

If they allowed a massive lottery of houses then the true value of the decline in housing prices out there would crystallize on the bank's books and cause a further and truly catastrophic decline in house values.

Add to this the fact that once a lottery ticket is sold, technically the lottery would have to be run, so if 10,000 simultaneous type lotteries are run, and 10,001 500 euro tickets are sold, then in theory all but one person would get a house for €500. Those houses would have to be unencumbered from debt, so where would that leave the banks? They'd still be owed the same (in a practical sense) amount of money from a whole bunch of people who no longer have any house and no desire to pay. So in truth your friend, or those others who wished to carry out a similar lottery of there property would continue to owe a massive debt to the bank which has no security.

No offence intended to your friend, but its a short-sighted solution that only works from one perspective, and in highly artificial, and unequal circumstances.

As for your friend being in negative equity, wanting to sell and be debt free. They'll be grand as long as they bought their house for the right reason. i.e. that they wanted to live there. If, as is the case with most, negative equity choral performers, they bought the house as an investment and as a step to becoming a property-investing millionaire. Well, I'll hold my tongue on that one this time. :-/

johnfás

Just on the issue of groups of solicitors and barristers litigating on behalf of home owners in distress without fees. This is certainly a laudable thing for them to do. However, people who are considering engaging these services should be made accutely aware that (i) In all likelihood they will have to meet the outlay of the proceedings (that is any reports which have to be compiled by experts and the cost of bringing the case to court) and (ii) if they lose the case it is quite possible that costs will be awarded against them and these are not going to be covered by the solicitors/barristers who agreed to take on your case without a fee.

This of course shouldn't put people off engaging such services but it is something which people who are not familiar with legal proceedings should be made clearly aware of.