Johnny Ronan wins €820,000 rent against Medical Council

Hondo75

Wow that some return Johnny!!

Buys buildinng in 1989, for 800,000 odd and
rents it for 820,000 euro a year x 20 years

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/johnny-ronan-wins-820000-rent-case-against-medical-council-29272946.html

smash

It'll go to paying back NAMA anyway.

Gatling

The medical council should bail on the lease and shift to some where cheaper

Schnitzel Muncher

smash wrote: »

It'll go to paying back NAMA anyway.

Lets hope so anyway. Better with Nama than his back pocket.

bop1977

Hondo75 wrote: »

Wow that some return Johnny!!

Buys buildinng in 1989, for 800,000 odd and
rents it for 820,000 euro a year x 20 years

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/johnny-ronan-wins-820000-rent-case-against-medical-council-29272946.html

Yes thanks for the tabloid version. You also forgot to mention they spent €2.5 million redeveloping the building before looking to let it.

mountai

Gatling wrote: »

The medical council should bail on the lease and shift to some where cheaper

Why?. Do you consider it honorable to disregard legal contracts ?

Gatling

mountai wrote: »

Why?. Do you consider it honorable to disregard legal contracts ?

Yes when it comes to upward only rent review's I do

NoQuarter

Gatling wrote: »

Yes when it comes to upward only rent review's I do

But then he can sue for the remainder of the lease? So whats the point in bailing.

mountai

mountai wrote: »

Why?. Do you consider it honorable to disregard legal contracts ?

Mr Ronan didnt honour much of his legal contracts now in fairness and yet he still receives massive income on buildings that he borrowed to fund. He gets 5m a year for renting the Treasury building from NAMA

washman3

smash wrote: »

It'll go to paying back NAMA anyway.

Dream on bud...;)
Not a brown cent of this will go to repaying NAMA.
Remember this is the guy that flew a Miss World to Morocco in a private jet to celebrate the introduction of NAMA.
He is the ultimate Government crony who had a direct line to Bertie Ahern when Bertie was Taoiseach.

mountai

Gatling wrote: »

Yes when it comes to upward only rent review's I do

Obviously you have some sort of problem with said Mr Ronan, but are you advocating that legal agreements be ignored because the game changes ?, mind you, the "Bud " usage says a lot about you.

washman3

mountai wrote: »

Obviously you have some sort of problem with said Mr Ronan, but are you advocating that legal agreements be ignored because the game changes ?, mind you, the "Bud " usage says a lot about you.

Actually, about 3,000,000 people have a problem with 'Mr.Ronan' and his ilk.
This charleten was one of the chief architects of the destruction of the Irish economy, yet he is still allowed live the life of a oil sheikh.
He can thank his lucky stars that he does'nt live in another country where he would be serving a prison sentence by now.
The main difference between this guy and the scum that have flooded our towns and cities with drugs is that he wears a suit.:mad:

Gatling

Upward only rent review's I have a problem with,
Its crippling Irish business if the building is worth less than 400,000 there no way in hell he should be allowed ask for 800,000+ pa

NoQuarter

Gatling wrote: »

Upward only rent review's I have a problem with,
Its crippling Irish business if the building is worth less than 400,000 there no way in hell he should be allowed ask for 800,000+ pa

But hang on, there may be an upward only rent clause in the lease, and in today's market the premises might be worth half that, but the medical council and the businesses that are subject to upward only rent clauses had legal teams when they negotiated the deals and as a commercial business, should have been aware of the risks signing a lease entails, including that the rent could never fall.

This isn't a homeowner getting hit for a tax, this is commercial entities which are out to make money entering bad business deals. Should we abandon the rules of contract law because these businesses have made bad choices and signed upward only rent clauses?

Should any business be able to pull out of any contract because they dont like the terms they signed anymore?

mountai

Gatling wrote: »

Upward only rent review's I have a problem with,
Its crippling Irish business if the building is worth less than 400,000 there no way in hell he should be allowed ask for 800,000+ pa

You seem to miss the point here. He is not "Asking" for 800k , he already has a legal "Right" to this amount. As for upward only rent agreements: they were the flavor of the day at that time. Try leasing a building in present times with one in place and you would be laughed at. Many landlords today are accepting substantial rent reductions to keep tenants in place . That is fact. Also, the landlords repayments to banks may depend on the rent roll at its present level being maintained. Should rents be reduced, are you advocating that landlords should be thrown to the wolves, or should the banks be made accept cuts as well?. Address the points raised re "legality" "game changing".

Sergeant

Upward only rent reviews are a result of needless interference by the State in things they have no need to regulate.

ted1

Does upward only rent not go against free trade?

NoQuarter

ted1 wrote: »

Does upward only rent not go against free trade?

No because upward only rent clauses are not mandatory, they were clauses that were agreed between parties. I could sell my car to you for 2 euro which is a bum deal for me, but it doesnt go against free trade if I agree to it and nobody is forcing me to sell it at that price. Same went for the businesses in trouble, nobody made anyone sign the Grafton St. leases which are through the roof, they signed them to make money, its biting them in the ass now, they cant just throw their toys out of the pram and expect their shi1te negotiating to be looked past.

I see this a lot in Ireland now with people borrowing way beyond their means to get a big flash house and now that they are in trouble, pointing the finger elsewhere and not taking responsibility for their bad decision.

By the by, the 2009 Land & Conveyancing Act has done away with upward only rent clauses.

JJJJNR

Bewleys got a deal to get their rent reduced, shouldn't that open the gates for others.

BattleCorp

washman3 wrote: »

Actually, about 3,000,000 people have a problem with 'Mr.Ronan' and his ilk.
This charleten was one of the chief architects of the destruction of the Irish economy, yet he is still allowed live the life of a oil sheikh.
He can thank his lucky stars that he does'nt live in another country where he would be serving a prison sentence by now.
The main difference between this guy and the scum that have flooded our towns and cities with drugs is that he wears a suit.:mad:

Hang on a second. Why should he be jailed? His business failed because he made bad judgements. That isn't a criminal action is it?

If he should be jailed, should the owner of a corner shop that goes out of business owing money be jailed also?

Same thing, they both own money they can't pay back. Just Johnny Ronan owes more.

NoQuarter

JJJJNR wrote: »

Bewleys got a deal to get their rent reduced, shouldn't that open the gates for others.

Bewley's rent was reduced (by a court decision, not by any deal) because of the very specific wording of their rent review clause which was particular to that lease only. It doesn't open the gates for others in general because of that but I'm sure as hell every tenant sent their leases off to their solicitors to read over in light of the Bewley's decision to see if their leases could be read the same way as the Bewleys one.

I bet this case was on foot of the Bewleys case and as you can see, it didnt work this time because the lease would have been worded differently while it did work for Dunnes on Georges St this week. Depends on the lease wording basically.