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

BostonB

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

And maybe the bank is looking to gain a €10-20mil cash windfall in the short term to make it look like they're actually doing something and not thinking longterm.

Like that never happened before! 100% mortgages anyone?

Snakeblood

smash wrote: »

I'm guessing because it was interest repayments, not capital.

Yeah, but you don't know, because the solicitor avoids explaining it when he's doing an interview to explain his problems. It's a big ole mystery to him, which suggests evasion or incompetence.

BostonB

Theres a lot of guessing going on with an absence of facts. Welcome to the modern media, where everything can be told a certain way.

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

You expected the couple to know the banks were going to fail. Very few predicted that right. Even if you did know. The getting in and out before the bank went boom, and making a quick buck wouldn't be that daft. You just don't want to be caught out when the lights come on and the music stops.



Maybe. You won't find that info in that article though. Your premise is based on the banks being right. Thats even more suspect premise than the couple being wrong. They lost millions. The bank lost billions.

My premise is based on him not telling the entire truth in his interview, which he clearly isn't. I'm not talking about the banks being worthy, I'm talking about him being unworthy because he's hiding his failures.

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

Theres a lot of guessing going on with an absence of facts. Welcome to the modern media, where everything can be told a certain way.

He's telling his story his way, the banks not saying anything, and he still seems like he's hiding things.

Edit:

I'm pretty much out of this, the main reason I got annoyed was the article is obviously telling his side of the story, and it contains what I'd see as glaring omissions. Maybe he does have a plan, maybe the bank is being ridiculous, maybe the bank didn't tell him why it wasn't giving him 9.3 mill off the bill, maybe he can turn it around. I don't get it from the way he's presented in that article, where everything is someone elses fault. Possibly I'm annoyed at the article and not him.

Frank Black

BostonB wrote: »

Like that never happened before! 100% mortgages anyone?

No thanks.

I wouldn't feel comfortable borrowing such a large sum given the possibility of market fluctuations and changes in my employment circumstances


See, it is possible.

BostonB

Snakeblood wrote: »

My premise is based on him not telling the entire truth in his interview, which he clearly isn't. I'm not talking about the banks being worthy, I'm talking about him being unworthy because he's hiding his failures.

Based on what you know, would you feel confident taking that to court. Would you bet your own money on it.

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

Based on what you know, would you feel confident taking that to court. Would you bet your own money on it.

What are you talking about?

BostonB

black francis wrote: »

No thanks.

I wouldn't feel comfortable borrowing such a large sum given the possibility of market fluctuations and changes in my employment circumstances


See, it is possible.

Lots of people do every well by taking big risks. Obviously some fail.

Its like people who die mountain climbing. I forget where I read it, but it something like, the people who are most like to be bloody minded enough to get to the top of a mountain are the same people who will get into trouble pushing it too far.

BostonB

Snakeblood wrote: »

What are you talking about?

I would be wary of trusting what I read about solicitors, banks, in the media, and making statements of fact about same. TBH when I read the paper I check the date against the calendar, that how much I trust them to be accurate or unbiased.

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

I would be wary of trusting what I read about solicitors, banks, in the media, and making statements of fact about same. TBH when I read the paper I check the date against the calendar, that how much I trust them to be accurate or unbiased.

What are you talking about going to court for?

I've pointed out it's not unbiased. It's entirely from the solicitors point of view, and again, it still manages to avoid mentioning anywhere exactly why the 9.3million is not counted, except by supposition, which to me is ludicrous and unbelievable that a solicitor wouldn't know. Which to me says that his position, which looks weak, is in fact a lot weaker than it is.

BostonB

Its just an indication of how sure you are. Also hes a solicitor.

Well thats what the paper reported, if thats 100% accurate and isn't missing any information.

The Jaw

I am very sorry, but since when has Ireland become a Socialist/Communist paradise? I just cannot understand why so many of you are getting a smug sense of satisfaction that this man is in such trouble.

He got off his a** and got himself a qualification. He worked himself up to the top of a big law firm. I know for a fact that this requires at least 14 hour days every day for many many year’s as well as some intelligence. His wife, being a Doctor presumably did the same in her field.

He then took charge of his own life and set up on as a Solicitor on his own, employing a number of people. He purchased a number of properties in Ireland and continues to live here and presumably he has paid income tax, stamp duty, VAT etc etc, and thus committing many millions to the Government coffers.

He would have approached Banks with a business proposal, to purchase many different properties over time. You can be sure that they loved the sight of him then and they should have put his through the ringer in terms of investigating his credit worthiness and ability to repay. If they did their job properly and factor in some of the various disasters that have befallen the economy, they would have refused him money. The Bank Managers were too anxious to get their lending bonus and didn’t do their job properly. I own a house in negative equity. The Bank did not do their job properly with me either.

Now he is putting a plan together to pay the money back. The Bank Manager now gets a bonus for re-couping bad loans, even if it is a percentage of the amount borrowed. All the Bank cares about is screwing him and getting something, anything back asap. Remember the properties are still in his possession. If he makes repayments for a few years, soon enough the property will come into positive equity again. The Bank are being selfish and also playing the PR game. Their attitude in this case and many more is just short sighted and ridiculous. It is the inverse of their attitude in the Celtic tiger days.

I do not know Mr. O’Donnell or his wife. I have never met him nor even seen him ( other then this article) but without guys taking the bull by the horns in life, we would never ever develop as a society. To laugh at his misfortune is just petty.

PS/ He did not have to go to Court because it was a summary application. He also never claimed that the story was unbiased. He gave his side of the story. The Bank can reply if they want to

Ste.phen

More context here: http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25418 - long and old thread

Irish times article has more details than the one in the OP too:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/1213/1224308999896.html

The judge, who called the O’Donnells twice in court, said he was satisfied the O’Donnell side was aware of the proceedings.

He was also satisfied that the settlement had been breached and the bank was entitled to judgment.

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

Its just an indication of how sure you are. Also hes a solicitor.

Well thats what the paper reported, if thats 100% accurate and isn't missing any information.

It's a vague allusion of not much then. Right.

Well, their source was the property developer, who certainly wouldn't have a vested interest in making himself seem hard done by.

Snakeblood

The Jaw wrote: »

I am very sorry, but since when has Ireland become a Socialist/Communist paradise? I just cannot understand why so many of you are getting a smug sense of satisfaction that this man is in such trouble.

He got off his a** and got himself a qualification. He worked himself up to the top of a big law firm. I know for a fact that this requires at least 14 hour days every day for many many year’s as well as some intelligence. His wife, being a Doctor presumably did the same in her field.

He then took charge of his own life and set up on as a Solicitor on his own, employing a number of people. He purchased a number of properties in Ireland and continues to live here and presumably he has paid income tax, stamp duty, VAT etc etc, and thus committing many millions to the Government coffers.

He would have approached Banks with a business proposal, to purchase many different properties over time. You can be sure that they loved the sight of him then and they should have put his through the ringer in terms of investigating his credit worthiness and ability to repay. If they did their job properly and factor in some of the various disasters that have befallen the economy, they would have refused him money. The Bank Managers were too anxious to get their lending bonus and didn’t do their job properly. I own a house in negative equity. The Bank did not do their job properly with me either.

Now he is putting a plan together to pay the money back. The Bank Manager now gets a bonus for re-couping bad loans, even if it is a percentage of the amount borrowed. All the Bank cares about is screwing him and getting something, anything back asap. Remember the properties are still in his possession. If he makes repayments for a few years, soon enough the property will come into positive equity again. The Bank are being selfish and also playing the PR game. Their attitude in this case and many more is just short sighted and ridiculous. It is the inverse of their attitude in the Celtic tiger days.

I do not know Mr. O’Donnell or his wife. I have never met him nor even seen him ( other then this article) but without guys taking the bull by the horns in life, we would never ever develop as a society. To laugh at his misfortune is just petty.

PS/ He did not have to go to Court because it was a summary application. He also never claimed that the story was unbiased. He gave his side of the story. The Bank can reply if they want to

I TOO ENJOY ENLARGED FONTS

The Jaw

Sorry, dont know how the enlarged fonts got on there. I hope this has notruined it for you snakeblood!

Paddy De Plasterer

The Jaw wrote: »

I am very sorry, but since when has Ireland become a Socialist/Communist paradise? I just cannot understand why so many of you are getting a smug sense of satisfaction that this man is in such trouble.

He got off his a** and got himself a qualification. He worked himself up to the top of a big law firm. I know for a fact that this requires at least 14 hour days every day for many many year’s as well as some intelligence. His wife, being a Doctor presumably did the same in her field.

He then took charge of his own life and set up on as a Solicitor on his own, employing a number of people. He purchased a number of properties in Ireland and continues to live here and presumably he has paid income tax, stamp duty, VAT etc etc, and thus committing many millions to the Government coffers.

He would have approached Banks with a business proposal, to purchase many different properties over time. You can be sure that they loved the sight of him then and they should have put his through the ringer in terms of investigating his credit worthiness and ability to repay. If they did their job properly and factor in some of the various disasters that have befallen the economy, they would have refused him money. The Bank Managers were too anxious to get their lending bonus and didn’t do their job properly. I own a house in negative equity. The Bank did not do their job properly with me either.

Now he is putting a plan together to pay the money back. The Bank Manager now gets a bonus for re-couping bad loans, even if it is a percentage of the amount borrowed. All the Bank cares about is screwing him and getting something, anything back asap. Remember the properties are still in his possession. If he makes repayments for a few years, soon enough the property will come into positive equity again. The Bank are being selfish and also playing the PR game. Their attitude in this case and many more is just short sighted and ridiculous. It is the inverse of their attitude in the Celtic tiger days.

I do not know Mr. O’Donnell or his wife. I have never met him nor even seen him ( other then this article) but without guys taking the bull by the horns in life, we would never ever develop as a society. To laugh at his misfortune is just petty.

PS/ He did not have to go to Court because it was a summary application. He also never claimed that the story was unbiased. He gave his side of the story. The Bank can reply if they want to

Strange behaviour for a high flying Solicitor ? The judge had to call out his name twice before judgement !

Snakeblood

The Jaw wrote: »

Sorry, dont know how the enlarged fonts got on there. I hope this has notruined it for you snakeblood!

I'm good, just funning!

The Jaw

The thing is, that it is not that strange not to attend. I was not there, but often times the substantive points being raised in the Court are pre-ordained.
What I mean by that is- The Bank will have issued a summons accussing Mr. O'Donnell of X, Y and Z ( basically owing 70 odd million). In the normal course of events he will have sent in replies and/or a Defence to the claim. As he said in the newspaper, he owes the money, so lodging a Defence which by its nature will have to say " no I dont owe the money", will be an impossibility.
The Bank's application in Court will be just to formalise the allegations made in their original summons and they will thus be taken as proven once the Judge rules on it.
Mr. O'Donnell has no Defence, so there is no point in him showing up. Due to the amount of money at stake I think Judge Kelly will see if Mr. O'Donnell was there. It is just a formality to state that they have been served properly. It might be a bit rude, but not rare at all. ( There is an obvious question as to his claim that he he owed 63 million rather then 71.5 million.Once Judgement is given it is up to the Bank to draft the actual Judgement papers for the Court to sign. I would think 1 of 2 things will happen.By agreement the Bank will include the 63 million figure in the Judgement rather then the 71.5 million. Judge Kelly would not be best pleased with this but it can happen OR O'Donnell is just saying bugger it, " I will never be able to pay off that amount so it does not really matter is it is 60 or 70 million)

Ray Palmer

I think the guy has a point that the bank are not acting in a proffessional manner nor the best way to recoup the money.

Paddy De Plasterer

This man also to be blaming the bank for taking the action against him - to put pressure on others. He is using any excuse-lehmans, , Banks etc, everybody's fault except his own !

Paddy De Plasterer

O'Donnell's pad in Killiney must be some mansion judging by report in today's Indo.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/its-9000sq-ft-has-six-bedrooms-a-swimming-pool-tennis-court-stables-gym-and-sauna-2964949.html

Ellis Dee

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

O'Donnell's pad in Killiney must be some mansion judging by report in today's Indo.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/its-9000sq-ft-has-six-bedrooms-a-swimming-pool-tennis-court-stables-gym-and-sauna-2964949.html

There are very few people in the world who can afford such a lavish lifestyle.:)

And, unfortunately for those of us who will have to fork out to clean up his mess, O'Donnell was never one of them. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

It's rather sickening reading about the numerous multimillionaires who owe tens of millions to the banks being given so much coverage in national newspapers. Seems that each week another of them crawls out from his hole and expects us to feel sorry for him when the banks insist that he pay back the 100 million euro loan. Normal hard working people are struggling to put food on the table yet were supposed to feel sumpathy for a millionaire with a house worth millions is being pursued by the banks to pay back what he owes.

Paddy De Plasterer

Deleted User wrote: »

It's rather sickening reading about the numerous multimillionaires who owe tens of millions to the banks being given so much coverage in national newspapers. Seems that each week another of them crawls out from his hole and expects us to feel sorry for him when the banks insist that he pay back the 100 million euro loan. Normal hard working people are struggling to put food on the table yet were supposed to feel sumpathy for a millionaire with a house worth millions is being pursued by the banks to pay back what he owes.

And it would amaze you the number of people who feel sorry for him almost, as if we depend on the likes of him, instead of the other way round. And some other people fear high flying lawmen- that they may come after you if you raise any questions.

later12

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems that each week another of them crawls out from his hole and expects us to feel sorry for him when the banks insist that he pay back the 100 million euro loan.

It's already been said that he doesn't have a problem with paying back the loan (although he argues some of the bank's charges), his problem is with what he considers the unreasonable behaviour of Bank of Ireland.

Having worked for some banks in Ireland previously, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that BoI might actually be behaving in a grievous manner toward this man. I'm not quite sure why so many posters seem to think that so unlikely.

Is it because this man either is, or used to be, wealthy?

Paddy De Plasterer

later10 wrote: »

It's already been said that he doesn't have a problem with paying back the loan (although he argues some of the bank's charges), his problem is with what he considers the unreasonable behaviour of Bank of Ireland.

Having worked for some banks in Ireland previously, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that BoI might actually be behaving in a grievous manner toward this man. I'm not quite sure why so many posters seem to think that so unlikely.

Is it because this man either is, or used to be, wealthy?

any chance you think he overstretched himself ?

later12

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

any chance you think he overstretched himself ?

You could probably say that about most people who bought into any sort of property after 2004.

Making a mistake is not a crime, even when making a mistake in business.

This man is not asking for his debts to be wiped out. He's saying he is not being treated in a reasonable manner by his bank.

Do you think there's any chance he's right?

Paddy De Plasterer

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

This man also to be blaming the bank for taking the action against him - to put pressure on others. He is using any excuse-lehmans, , Banks etc, everybody's fault except his own !

They're very valid excuses.. I'm sick of people who don't know shlt automatically hating anyone who did well for themselves. We should hate him because he's a businessman?

Every dickhead in Ireland forgets that the whole world went through the shlt, not just Ireland. The banking system of the whole world tumbled, he's trying to sort out his debts and the bank isn't handling this the right way.. But what do you care ya begrudging know it all. We're supposed to feel sorry for homeowners and cry out for debt relief but once the person was once rich, fuk them.?