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

A Solicitor whinges over 71.5 million award against him and his doctor wife

Options
«1345

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Do you have anything of substance to add or should I just move this to After Hours?


  • Options
    #3
    Paddy De Plasterer
    Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭Paddy De Plasterer


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Do you have anything of substance to add or should I just move this to After Hours?

    Why ? Is this not indicative of the way the high and the mighty carried on during tghe time of the so called Celtic Tiger. Sad thing about this is that mr. O Donnelkl and his wife are unlikely to be able to pay this, so it may well be a burden on us orinary folk, who never got involved in property, and stuck to our chosen careers however humble and ordinary they may have been.


  • Options
    #4
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    So how is this an issue for Legal Discussion? Because he is a solicitor slash property developer? Because there is judgment?

    I fail to see how it belongs here rather than some other more appropriate forum? It is mainly due to your OP - as a general rule on boards, one does not get to just post an article with a small quip without engaging in the discussion themselves.

    Sell me on why this belongs here and not AH to have a whinge?


  • Options
    #5
    Paddy De Plasterer
    Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭Paddy De Plasterer


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    So how is this an issue for Legal Discussion? Because he is a solicitor slash property developer? Because there is judgment?

    I fail to see how it belong here rather than some other more appropriate forum? It is mainly due to your OP - as a general rule on boards, one does not get to just post an article with a small quip without engaging in the discussion themselves.

    Sell me on why this belongs here and not AH to have a whinge?
    what forum would you suggest it be on ? Do you not think it is worthy of serious discussion - one of our high flying legal eagles immersing him in speculation for which you and I may have to pay for in the end- like a lot of others in NAMA etc.
    If you want to move it to some other forum let me know what you have in mind.It surely is worthy of discussion.


  • Options
    #6
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »
    what forum would you suggest it be on ? Do you not think it is worthy of serious discussion - one of our high flying legal eagles immersing him in speculation for which you and I may have to pay for in the end- like a lot of others in NAMA etc.
    If you want to move it to some other forum let me know what you have in mind.It surely is worthy of discussion.
    Then by all means start a discussion. Do not just post a thread that has a link and no worthy discussion starter.

    It may be worthy of a discussion, but how is it an issue for Legal Discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Paddy De Plasterer
    Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭Paddy De Plasterer


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Then by all means start a discussion. Do not just post a thread that has a link and no worthy discussion starter.

    It may be worthy of a discussion, but how is it an issue for Legal Discussion.

    Ok, I am not sure what sure what forum it should be on -justice, property, court judgments, celtic tiger or whatever. But I think there is a lesson here for everyone not to get carried away with following the herd in property, not believing what we read in the papers, sticking to one's chosen profession, etc. I know plenty of people in negative equity just to put a roof over their heads and they cannot walk away from it.


  • Options
    #8
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Moved.


  • Options
    #9
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    If you read the article there's more to it then that very poor topic title.

    They are complaining that the banks is not taking the best approach to allow them to reduce the debt. Basically forcing them into a fire sale, which will cost them, the bank and ultimate us the tax payers a lot more in the the long run.

    I have no idea which way is best, the fire sale or the longer view. But its does seem to be a knee jerk reaction from the bank. Considering the banks recent track record for good financial common sense or planning.

    Perhaps the couple are simple delaying the inevitable and maybe all the facts are not reported either, the standard of reporting these days being quite poor.


  • Options
    #10
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Dades wrote: »
    Moved.
    Yay!


  • Options
    #11
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Of course they'll feel hard done by if they have to pay 71.5m when you actually read the article:

    The couple repaid €9.3m earlier this year but the bank did not knock this off what they owe.

    In court, Bank of Ireland said the O'Donnells owed €71.5m but the couple dispute this figure. Mr O'Donnell has suggested they owe €63m.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Paddy De Plasterer
    Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭Paddy De Plasterer


    smash wrote: »
    Of course they'll feel hard done by if they have to pay 71.5m when you actually read the article:

    The couple repaid €9.3m earlier this year but the bank did not knock this off what they owe.

    In court, Bank of Ireland said the O'Donnells owed €71.5m but the couple dispute this figure. Mr O'Donnell has suggested they owe €63m.

    Only 63 million. A lot of money, I would not be able to borrow 63,00(0) never mind 63 million. Quite obviously he got carried away.


  • Options
    #13
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Dades wrote: »
    Moved.

    What? Do we look like a dumping ground for your reject threads?!




    Actually, don't answer that :(


  • Options
    #14
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Who is better placed to make the money to pay it off. You, me, the bank or him.


  • Options
    #15
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    And also who would you prefer pays it off, You, me, the bank or him.


  • Options
    #16
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    BostonB wrote: »
    Who is better placed to make the money to pay it off. You, me, the bank or him.

    Not him, he's already umpteen million in the hole.


  • Options
    #17
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »
    Only 63 million. A lot of money, I would not be able to borrow 63,00(0) never mind 63 million. Quite obviously he got carried away.
    My point is they paid €9.3m this year and the bank did not deduct it from their loans. Who cares about the figure? If you have a loan of 10k and paid off 3 and the bank said no you still owe 10, would you be pissed off?


  • Options
    #18
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    smash wrote: »
    My point is they paid €9.3m this year and the bank did not deduct it from their loans. Who cares about the figure? If you have a loan of 10k and paid off 3 and the bank said no you still owe 10, would you be pissed off?

    That would suggest to me that they broke the terms of the loan, though. Which would have two things attached: 1, they aren't paying as they should and 2, they refuse to acknowledge there's a problem that they broke the terms of the loan.


  • Options
    #19
    Paddy De Plasterer
    Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭Paddy De Plasterer


    smash wrote: »
    Of course they'll feel hard done by if they have to pay 71.5m when you actually read the article:

    The couple repaid €9.3m earlier this year but the bank did not knock this off what they owe.

    In court, Bank of Ireland said the O'Donnells owed €71.5m but the couple dispute this figure. Mr O'Donnell has suggested they owe €63m.

    Are you sure oif that ? Justice Peter Kelly is a good judge and if that was true I am sure he would have acted on it. I think from reading the papers O Donnell did not turn up to the court hearing, or was not represented, hardly a wise thing to do especially high flying solcitor !


  • Options
    #20
    Schism
    Registered Users Posts: 2,919 ✭✭✭Schism


    I kind of agree it it harsh actually.

    They are both working people, making what can only be a very tidy income. If the bank opened negotiations with them again, they'd have them tied up in repayments for the rest of their lives. (or at least until bankruptcy)

    Then again I guess BoI want's money now and sees this pair as a likely route of payment.


  • Options
    #21
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    Not him, he's already umpteen million in the hole.

    Yes but hes has a track record of making big money. He has the potential to be able to do it again, much better than someone who doesn't. The alternative is the tax payer will pick up the tab.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    AntiVirus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭AntiVirus


    smash wrote: »
    My point is they paid €9.3m this year and the bank did not deduct it from their loans. Who cares about the figure? If you have a loan of 10k and paid off 3 and the bank said no you still owe 10, would you be pissed off?

    The figure to be paid was not €9.3m, the figue to be paid by the end of last month was €20 million that was already agree in the March settlement. I don't even think they bothered to trun up in court. :confused:


  • Options
    #23
    AntiVirus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭AntiVirus


    Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »
    Are you sure oif that ? Justice Peter Kelly is a good judge and if that was true I am sure he would have acted on it. I think from reading the papers O Donnell did not turn up to the court hearing, or was not represented, hardly a wise thing to do especially high flying solcitor !

    He's not sure. I don't think he actually knows what the court hearing was for?


  • Options
    #24
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    What in the name of god was the bank doing lending any two private individuals tens of millions. You wouldn't do that for an A-listed actor. I'd love to know where it went though, someone has that money now. There's plenty of tiger cash still out there.


  • Options
    #25
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    BostonB wrote: »
    Yes but hes has a track record of making big money. He has the potential to be able to do it again, much better than someone who doesn't. The alternative is the tax payer will pick up the tab.

    He's got a track record of losing money, except when there was a ludicrous property bubble.


  • Options
    #26
    Paddy De Plasterer
    Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭Paddy De Plasterer


    AntiVirus wrote: »
    The figure to be paid was not €9.3m, the figue to be paid by the end of last month was €20 million that was already agree in the March settlement. I don't even think they bothered to trun up in court. :confused:

    You are correct, what a way to treat the court, and Justice Peter Kelly is a very fair man.


  • Options
    #27
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,994 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    BostonB wrote: »
    And also who would you prefer pays it off, You, me, the bank or him.

    We had a quick vote on it.


  • Options
    #28
    Paddy De Plasterer
    Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭Paddy De Plasterer


    i am amazed at all those who defend O Donnell, if he was just an ordinary chap in ne from buying a house, would there be so many rallying to the cause. Irish touching the forelock again ?


  • Options
    #29
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »
    and stuck to our chosen careers however humble and ordinary they may have been.
    Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »
    sticking to one's chosen profession, etc.

    Well Paddy De Plasterer, what is this bee in your bonnet you have about sticking to your chosen Profession ? Did you miss your chance to cash in on the celtic tiger or something ? Stuck to plastering whilst these blow in solicitor types came in made buckets of cash and then brought the whole thing crashing down around you ? Now poor Paddy has nothing to plaster ?

    Is this your justification for us all to have to pick a career at 21 and do nothing else ?


  • Options
    #30
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    At the end of the day I'm just sick of people getting high and mighty about others misfortune. No matter how much they owe, it's pretty pathetic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    He's got a track record of losing money, except when there was a ludicrous property bubble.

    Its a bit more complicated than that isn't it. Property all over the world, much of it leased to good tenants as long term investment, but the mistake was they consolidated all loans to the Irish bank, so once the bank got into trouble they pulled the rug from under him.


Advertisement