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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Family Home Protection Act

  • 05-03-2015 8:37pm
    #1
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,452 ✭✭✭


    Hi, not looking for legal advice as I have neither a family nor a mortgage but I am curious in the concept of the Family Home Protection Act.

    I keep hearing about it in the context of how difficult it makes the banks job of trying to repossess even in the face of years of non payments, and there seems to be a cohort who believe it is impossible to repossess a family home under any circumstances. I.e as long as a spouse or civil partner who is not named on the mortgage refuses to give up the house the bank can't touch it?

    Surely this can't be true and have we created a monster?

    By that I mean this notion that the family home is untouchable and sacred is surely contributing to the large numbers of strategic defaulters, and others who are 720 days + in arrears?

    Also do others think that this sacred family home school of thought is what encourages the likes of Brian O'Donnell and others of his ilk to abandon all dignity and fight tooth and nail to keep something they have no intention of paying for?

    I guess I'm not really talking about the families who are in very modest homes who if they lose the roof their head the next step is the street, their fight is a bit more understandable. I am talking about those who could afford financially and practically to downsize, whether thats from a palace on Vico Road or a semi-d in the suburbs.


Comments

  • #2
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    The FHPA becomes an issue where the Bank have not properly ensured that both parties were given legal advice.

    Shortly after one or two took the piss, unsurprisingly the banks got quite good at covering this loophole.

    There's probably more technical and correct analysis out there somewhere.


  • #3
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    The Act simply means that a husband cant mortgage the family home without his spouses consent.

    It was brought in after a number if cases where wives stated they didnt know that their home was mortgaged and the banks were blocked from enforcing the security.

    The act requires that spousal consent be required to mortgage or put any other lien or transfer of property. In practice we even seek declarations that other sales are not family homes.

    Sean Quinns wife tried to argue unsuccessfully that she didnt know what she was signing when she was signing her consents.


  • #4
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    Sean Quinns wife tried to argue unsuccessfully that she didnt know what she was signing when she was signing her consents.

    Loved this! How many companies was she a director in at the time?

    Was a great piece of shamless puntary!


  • #5
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,760 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    Loved this! How many companies was she a director in at the time?

    Was a great piece of shamless puntary!

    That case is still rumbling on. She and the "children" were the directors and ultimately had to sign the guarantee and security documents. The pleadings included an explanation as to how the youngest had to be visitied at her university's lecture theatres to take her aside, explain the multi billion euro financing arrangements and get her to sign the documents. I have little sympathy as they should have stalled the rollercoaster and gotten off at that point but they did not - the funds having been, reportedly, advanced at the behest of a non director, non shareholder and an undertaking that he would get his family to provide and perfect security in due course.


Advertisement