Repossession

Hitchens

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/breaking-solicitor-barricades-himself-into-palatial-home-31033240.html

I wonder does this course of action come under 'contempt of court', similar to the water protesters?

nokia69

But this morning, Brian O’Donnell – aided by the Land League – stayed in the house.

the land league LOL

I doubt that this is what Davitt had in mind

Brussels Sprout

Any chance they could fire in some tear gas and smoke grenades and pull them out by the ankles?

SEPT 23 1989

If they have nothing left i can understand this but im sure there is a few quid tucked away somewhere

seamus

A solicitor of course he knows that getting some hired goons in to block the bank's receivers means that some other poor idiot gets done for contempt.

Short answer is no, this is not contempt until the bank gets a court order requiring the land league people to get out of their way. At that stage, the Gardai can arrest anyone in violation of this order.

As said in the article, this is just a delaying tactic while he puts in an appeal rather than any great protest or fightback.

This time next week, O'Donnell would happily be on the other side arguing in support of a bank to go in and repossess someone else's house.

Menas

Do some people have no shame?

BoJack Horseman

Is this mob an offshoot of Freeman/Ben Gilroy boll*xology?

obriendj

How can they argue that their children have legal entitlement to something that they never fully owned?

bjork

They'll get away with it too

Send in the SWAT team

seamus

obriendj wrote: »

How can they argue that their children have legal entitlement to something that they never fully owned?

The argument is more likely that his children have a right to roof over their heads, and their family home to remain unviolated until they have grown up.

It's an argument typically used successfully in divorce and bankruptcy cases, but courts are seeing through it more often now, where people are occupying houses because they can't/won't pay the mortgage even though they have more then enough money to afford to live somewhere else.

fryup

another posh eviction, good enough for them these people with their moneyed arrogance think they're above the law

after all a mortgage isn't a charity handout, they have to abide by the rules like the rest of us

Dickerty

seamus wrote: »

The argument is more likely that his children have a right to roof over their heads.

Yes, they do, like everyone else. I am sure there is some nice social housing in Shankill or Ballybrack for them...

thebaz

he owes the bank 75 million - doesn't want to pay , but wants to keep his palatial home on the Vico road - the heart bleeds - pay up or **** off to less prestigious abode , that most people would love but probably beneath the O'Donnells .
Stop wasting tax payers money with snobbery and greed.

Chucken

As far as I know he was making his payments to BOI but they changed the payment terms and basically wanted it all paid back in a lump sum.

bigroad

They owe 70million to boi .Thats another 70 mil the taxpayer will have to stump up.

Polo_Mint

Lord and Lady O’Donnell ordering their peasants behind their castle wall

* Pull up the drawbridge *

vandriver

seamus wrote: »

The argument is more likely that his children have a right to roof over their heads, and their family home to remain unviolated until they have grown up.

It's an argument typically used successfully in divorce and bankruptcy cases, but courts are seeing through it more often now, where people are occupying houses because they can't/won't pay the mortgage even though they have more then enough money to afford to live somewhere else.

All the children are adults.

RecordStraight

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If they have nothing left i can understand this but im sure there is a few quid tucked away somewhere

They are bankrupt owing tens of millions. Why should they still live in a Killiney mansion that ordinary people who don't owe millions can only dream of?

Mousewar

From Wiki: "The Irish National Land League (Irish: Conradh na Talún) was an Irish political organisation of the late 19th century which sought to help poor tenant farmers. Its primary aim was to abolish landlordism in Ireland and enable tenant farmers to own the land they worked on."

Good to see this new incarnation carrying on the principles of its ancestor. Looking after the little people getting kicked out of their mansion.

fryup

they could rent a house off the kellys remember them....the other deluded couple

RecordStraight

seamus wrote: »

The argument is more likely that his children have a right to roof over their heads, and their family home to remain unviolated until they have grown up.

It's an argument typically used successfully in divorce and bankruptcy cases, but courts are seeing through it more often now, where people are occupying houses because they can't/won't pay the mortgage even though they have more then enough money to afford to live somewhere else.

The 'children' are all adults.

RecordStraight

Chucken wrote: »

As far as I know he was making his payments to BOI but they changed the payment terms and basically wanted it all paid back in a lump sum.

They can't change the terms unilaterally if he stuck to the original contract.

bjork

Not too long ago they were trying to claim their main residence was in England

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/solicitor-brian-o-donnell-and-wife-mary-lose-supreme-court-bankruptcy-appeal-1.2116944
A five-judge court on Wednesday unanimously dismissed the O’Donnell’s claim the High Court was wrong in finding their centre of main business interest was Ireland rather than England at the time of their bankruptcy

RoboRat

seamus wrote: »

The argument is more likely that his children have a right to roof over their heads, and their family home to remain unviolated until they have grown up.

It's an argument typically used successfully in divorce and bankruptcy cases, but courts are seeing through it more often now, where people are occupying houses because they can't/won't pay the mortgage even though they have more then enough money to afford to live somewhere else.

Its not an unpaid mortgage issue, its to do with the fact that he borrowed over €70 million and can't or won't pay it back. They were subsequently declared bankrupt and all assets were then moved upon, and rightly so.

bjork

The couple, who had extensive property interests in Ireland and overseas, opposed BofI’s application on grounds including Ireland is not their main centre of interests.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/o-donnells-in-fresh-bid-to-overthrow-bankruptcy-1.2030527

KevIRL

Are the usual suspects outside protesting the injustice of this?

Magico Gonzalez

Shameless gowls.

The kids, if they had a single shred of decency and pride would tell their parents to cop on and stop using them as an excuse to cling to their vanity.

RecordStraight

KevIRL wrote: »

Are the usual suspects outside protesting the injustice of this?

Jerry Beades and the Lol League are there, but the whereabouts of Ben Gilroy™ are unknown at this time.

Chucken

RecordStraight wrote: »

They can't change the terms unilaterally if he stuck to the original contract.

I don't now the ins and outs of it, but that's the news here (from family)..(his, not mine)

Muff Richardson

fryup wrote: »

they could rent a house off the kellys remember them....the other deluded couple

size of that fat lad in the first picture

Fishyfreak

Jerry Beades, a despicable man. I once lived in an apartment complex that he owned. He half built it and then charged an extortionate managment fee to the residents (€1,660 per year), he conveniently enough was the management company.

The state of the place, looked like an apartment block in eastern europe. Every time i see his name, i'll never forget the cash i've given to him for those 3 years, sickening.

Guy:Incognito

Chucken wrote: »

I don't now the ins and outs of it, but that's the news here (from family)..(his, not mine)

The court are happy that its all legal and above board, so I'd be inclined to believe them.
As usual anyway, what will happen is, in a few days when these idiots have moved on, the house will be repossessed.

seamus

vandriver wrote: »

All the children are adults.

Ah, well then they're just stalling for time. Possibly doing their best to strip down the property as much as they can before the bank inevitably gets in.

Though it has been successfully argued in the past that someone should keep their house if it's befitting of their profession - e.g. if a consultant doctor has to suffer the indignity of living in a 3-bed semi D in Dundrum, their profession would be injured, so they get to keep their five bed in Killiney.

BoJack Horseman

RecordStraight wrote: »

Jerry Beades and the Lol League are there, but the whereabouts of Ben Gilroy™ are unknown at this time.

Ben Gilroy™ is monitoring from his space fortress awaiting orbital deployment of his gobsh*te squad





Crash down imminent.

blacklilly

I've been following this case and was not one bit surprised when I read today that the house has not been left vacant.

At the end of the day, no one wants to end up in the situation that this family are in, however, this case has gone to the highest court in the land who have ruled in favour of the banks.

I'm sure it must be very upsetting to loose your family home but it is hardly comparable to the hundreds (possibly thousands) of other family who literally have nothing, zero, zilch left, when their homes have been repossessed.

It's becoming somewhat farcical and if this man and family had any good business sense they'd do what they have been ordered to by the court and try and move on with their lives.

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

Ah, well then they're just stalling for time. Possibly doing their best to strip down the property as much as they can before the bank inevitably gets in.

Though it has been successfully argued in the past that someone should keep their house if it's befitting of their profession - e.g. if a consultant doctor has to suffer the indignity of living in a 3-bed semi D in Dundrum, their profession would be injured, so they get to keep their five bed in Killiney.

What a ridiculous country. A cousin of mine was tossed out of her rental house a few weeks before Christmas complete with family of 4. Landlord said he was moving in but just put it up for sale.

Land league didn't turn up.

nokia69

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What a ridiculous country. A cousin of mine was tossed out of her rental house a few weeks before Christmas complete with family of 4. Landlord said he was moving in but just put it up for sale.

Land league didn't turn up.

of course not, most these clowns claiming to be the land league are landlords and property investors

stevedublin

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What a ridiculous country. A cousin of mine was tossed out of her rental house a few weeks before Christmas complete with family of 4. Landlord said he was moving in but just put it up for sale.

Land league didn't turn up.

Selling a property is as legitimate a reason to end a lease as moving in.

cerastes

nokia69 wrote: »

the land league LOL

I doubt that this is what Davitt had in mind

Muff Richardson wrote: »

size of that fat lad in the first picture

The fat lad?
never mind him, how can a Garda Sergeant wear her cap like she's a lollipop lady??

seamus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What a ridiculous country. A cousin of mine was tossed out of her rental house a few weeks before Christmas complete with family of 4. Landlord said he was moving in but just put it up for sale.

Land league didn't turn up.

"Tossed out"?

She is aware that if the landlord doesn't provide the legal minimum notice and in the legally required format, she can force her way back into the property? Probably a bit late now though.

Eugene Norman

stevedublin wrote: »

Selling a property is as legitimate a reason to end a lease as moving in.

Yeah fair enough. I think families should be protected but that's the law right now.

Eugene Norman

seamus wrote: »

"Tossed out"?

She is aware that if the landlord doesn't provide the legal minimum notice and in the legally required format, she can force her way back into the property? Probably a bit late now though.

The law is not really in her favour if the landlord wants to move back in or wants to sell. He did seem to move back in to do some work around the house before he sold it ( she moved down the road). He was genuinely selling it.

So nothing she could do.

thebaz

seamus wrote: »

Though it has been successfully argued in the past that someone should keep their house if it's befitting of their profession - e.g. if a consultant doctor has to suffer the indignity of living in a 3-bed semi D in Dundrum, their profession would be injured, so they get to keep their five bed in Killiney.

I feal like a real peasant , I grew up in a semi D in Dundrum
The whole thing stinks of pomposity and self-righteousness

Hitchens

so, if the Supreme Court rules that my house should be repossessed by the mortgage provider, and I decide to NOT comply with that ruling, am I then in contempt of court?

or is there a different law for the 'people who matter'?

blacklilly

Hitchens wrote: »

so, if the Supreme Court rules that my house should be repossessed by the mortgage provider, and I decide to NOT comply with that ruling, am I then in contempt of court?

or is there a different law for the 'people who matter'?

Why do you think that these are "people who matter"?

cerastes

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Yeah fair enough. I think families should be protected but that's the law right now.

Families should be protected from what? protected from someone wanting to sell or move into their own property?
or protected some other way?

RecordStraight

blacklilly wrote: »

Why do you think that these are "people who matter"?

Why do you think he put that in inverted commas?

HiGlo

€71.5m !! Just incomprehensible to me..... Disgusting carry on.
It's a sh!tty banking system feeding sh!tty greedy assh*les.... It's become a way of life. It's always going to happen.

Won't give us joe soaps a penny more than we can afford but will throw money at the fat cats who are in no greater a position to pay the amount back.

The_Pretender

HiGlo wrote: »

€71.5m !! Just incomprehensible to me..... Disgusting carry on.
It's a sh!tty banking system feeding sh!tty greedy assh*les.... It's become a way of life. It's always going to happen.

Won't give us joe soaps a penny more than we can afford but will throw money at the fat cats who are in no greater a position to pay the amount back.

There were plenty of ordinary Joe Soaps given much more than they could afford, thats part of why the country is in the mess it is now.

blacklilly

RecordStraight wrote: »

Why do you think he put that in inverted commas?

I just think it's a bit of a pointless question really. This matter has been ruled on in the supreme court so it would seem obvious that these people have been dealt with in the proper way

jmayo

seamus wrote: »

The argument is more likely that his children have a right to roof over their heads, and their family home to remain unviolated until they have grown up.

It's an argument typically used successfully in divorce and bankruptcy cases, but courts are seeing through it more often now, where people are occupying houses because they can't/won't pay the mortgage even though they have more then enough money to afford to live somewhere else.

RecordStraight wrote: »

The 'children' are all adults.

Ever notice how well taken out those "children" are anytime they are photographed leaving yet another court appearance.

Oh and their barrister claimed back in 2012 they didn't have the money to fight their case yet here we are over two years later.

The parents did the exact same mullarkey a lot of other rich greedy ba*tards did and transferred their assets out of the potential way of their creditors.

BTW should that daughter start spelling her name Blasé rather than Blaise as it would probably be more descriptive of her (and her siblings) relationship with their parents creditors.