Buy house, don't pay mortgage, live rent-free for 9 years. MOD WARNING POST #268

Nobodysrobots

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/restaurateur-ronan-ryan-and-exmiss-ireland-pamela-flood-wont-have-to-pay-any-of-1-2m-debt-on-dublin-home-37893072.html


A dangerous precedent especially with the looney left pushing anti-eviction bills through the dail. This is why we have one of the highest mortgage interest rates in the Eurozone.

GingerLily

The house is being repossessed this summer? Or am I missing something?

JDD

I do find it odd that Tanager, one of the more vilified "vulture funds" has allowed a couple with good earning capacity to surrender the home and not have to pay the balance of the mortgage. I don't think many others (apart from that lady who made headlines with having half her mortgage written off after engaging a PIP) have been afforded the same courtesy.

Or maybe they have, and the vulture funds aren't that bad after all?

punisher5112

Absolutely nuts.

Now saying that I don't like the vulture fund system either but at the end of the day all costs and the outstanding balance from the loss in the sale will be paid by the tax payer just as we had to in the crash.

Imagine 9 months free, I can't get my head around 9 years.....

jlm29

GingerLily wrote: »

The house is being repossessed this summer? Or am I missing something?

It’s being repossessed, but only after they’ve had 9 years of rent free, mortgage free living. And no responsibility for the legal fees involved

JDD

Now saying that I don't like the vulture fund system either but at the end of the day all costs and the outstanding balance from the loss in the sale will be paid by the tax payer

Not if its a vulture fund as non-recoverable loans would have no effect on current mortgage rates. I suppose you could say that if vulture funds make less profits than they expect to a from a tranche of distressed mortgages, they'd bargain down the price of the sale of any further tranches which would have a knock on effect on a banks profitability and therefore the rates they set for customers. But there's a lot of steps in there, and most vultures wouldn't be publishing their profit figures, so they'd be on shaky ground negotiations wise.

klaaaz

Nobodysrobots wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/restaurateur-ronan-ryan-and-exmiss-ireland-pamela-flood-wont-have-to-pay-any-of-1-2m-debt-on-dublin-home-37893072.html

A dangerous precedent especially with the looney left pushing anti-eviction bills through the dail. This is why we have one of the highest mortgage interest rates in the Eurozone.

Eh, it's the looney right who have been in power since(and before) the crash and oversaw the lack of evictions including helping this entitled wealthy couple living in a free house for 9 years.

hmmm

It's very clear now that we have a non recourse mortgage system, unique to the Western world. You'd be mad not to buy. Interest rates will remain elevated here, and probably rise.

meeeeh

They are walking away from the property. You might be outraged but considering how expensive legal action is it's better to achieve an agreement without protracted repossession. The vulture fund also got the mortgage at discounted rate and the settlement will only affect their profit margin. Taxpayer already paid for it by bailing out the bank and wouldn't get a cent back.

JJJackal

meeeeh wrote: »

They are walking away from the property. You might be outraged but considering how expensive legal action is it's better to achieve an agreement without protracted repossession. The vulture fund also got the mortgage at discounted rate and the settlement will only affect their profit margin. Taxpayer already paid for it by bailing out the bank and wouldn't get a cent back.

It’s worth noting no one would want to be in their shoes.

House bought for 1.2 million - still only worth 800,000. At least that’s what I gather could be wrong. 3 failed restaurants in recession. Picture all over the news.

JJJackal

JJJackal wrote: »

It’s worth noting no one would want to be in their shoes.

I’d say a lot of people would like to live rent free for 9 years without any financial repercussions. I’m sure a lot of them reading that article are wondering why the hell they are paying a mortgage on a property that is worth less than what is paid.

tylercheribini

Just proves the value of a legal team financially out of reach for the majority of us plebs.

JJJackal

Dav010 wrote: »

I’d say a lot of people would like to live rent free for 9 years without any financial repercussions. I’m sure a lot of them reading that article are wondering why the hell they are paying a mortgage on a property that is worth less than what is paid.

Will they be able to get a mortgage again? Very stressful. We would need to know more

pyramuid man

It wouldn't surprise me if they have been saving enough to buy another house in that nine years....

AmberGold

From what I have read about this case I think there was an issue with the mortgage being sold a number of times, this meant the legal process had to be started again. Personally I wouldnt fancy living with this hanging over me for close to 10 years with 4 children in tow.

tylercheribini

AmberGold wrote: »

From what I have read about this case I think there was an issue with the mortgage being sold a number of times, this meant the legal process had to be started again. Personally I wouldnt fancy living with this hanging over me for close to 10 years with 4 children in tow.

They certainly didnt get off "scott free" as it were,their own legal fees would have been considerable.

Franz Von Peppercorn

meeeeh wrote: »

They are walking away from the property. You might be outraged but considering how expensive legal action is it's better to achieve an agreement without protracted repossession. The vulture fund also got the mortgage at discounted rate and the settlement will only affect their profit margin. Taxpayer already paid for it by bailing out the bank and wouldn't get a cent back.

So what if they are moving away? They still owe the mortgage. A non recourse system just for the rich doesn’t cut it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The reactions here will be quite different than some ordinary joe schlo not paying his mortgage in Blanch.

Fr Tod Umptious

I'm guessing their credit rating is shot to **** too.

Hardly an enviable situation

Franz Von Peppercorn

hmmm wrote: »

It's very clear now that we have a non recourse mortgage system, unique to the Western world. You'd be mad not to buy. Interest rates will remain elevated here, and probably rise.

Unique to Europe perhaps. The US has this, in most States.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm guessing their credit rating is shot to **** too.

Hardly an enviable situation

Heart goes out.

jam_mac_jam

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm guessing their credit rating is shot to **** too.

Hardly an enviable situation

As it should be.

Arthur Daley

hmmm wrote: »

It's very clear now that we have a non recourse mortgage system, unique to the Western world. You'd be mad not to buy. Interest rates will remain elevated here, and probably rise.

It's got to be fairly obvious at this stage that Ireland is some sort of experiment in this regard. Go across the water to Britain, and you'll be out on your ear after 90 days past due (not 9 effin years), and little to no public sympathy for your sob stories either.

Mad_maxx

JJJackal wrote: »

It’s worth noting no one would want to be in their shoes.

House bought for 1.2 million - still only worth 800,000. At least that’s what I gather could be wrong. 3 failed restaurants in recession. Picture all over the news.

Some people have incredibly hard necks

Fr Tod Umptious

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Heart goes out.

Don't matter if it does or not.

The point is that, contrary to what some here think, not paying a mortgage for 9 years, getting ones house repossessed and having a terrible credit rating is not a good outcome for the family.

Atlantic Dawn

AmberGold wrote: »

From what I have read about this case I think there was an issue with the mortgage being sold a number of times, this meant the legal process had to be started again. Personally I wouldnt fancy living with this hanging over me for close to 10 years with 4 children in tow.

With the €374,000 they saved they could simply buy a modest 3 bed outright with zero mortgage, what a country we live in, utter kip.

DubCount

Living rent free is not unique to this case. The sate subsidises many rent payments through HAP/Rent Allowance, Landlords subsidise rent payments for non-paying tenants and banks pick up the tab for non-paying mortgages. What makes this case different is getting to live rent free in a trophy house while having an income to make at least a contribution, but not paying.

Once again, Ireland needs to decide what to provide to those who "cant pay" and what to do with those who "wont pay". There are lots of anti-eviction protesters who seem to think nobody should have to pay anything. For some reason we seem unable to have a conversation about this topic without going completely communist.

Arthur Daley

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

getting ones house repossessed

At no point was this 'their' house that's the point. Same for all of us until we honour the contract after a life time of toil. It's just two fingers up to the working population this stuff.

Still waters

Nobodysrobots wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/restaurateur-ronan-ryan-and-exmiss-ireland-pamela-flood-wont-have-to-pay-any-of-1-2m-debt-on-dublin-home-37893072.html


A dangerous precedent especially with the looney left pushing anti-eviction bills through the dail. This is why we have one of the highest mortgage interest rates in the Eurozone.

klaaaz wrote: »

Eh, it's the looney right who have been in power since(and before) the crash and oversaw the lack of evictions including helping this entitled wealthy couple living in a free house for 9 years.

Ye do realise left and right in Ireland are mirror images of each other

Franz Von Peppercorn

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Don't matter if it does or not.

The point is that, contrary to what some here think, not paying a mortgage for 9 years, getting ones house repossessed and having a terrible credit rating is not a good outcome for the family.

Not paying a mortgage saved them 300k+.
The hypocrisy here is beyond belief.

griffinlee

imo the V fund went easy on this couple as to not look like the bad guy in the press. Bad publicity fuels hatred for these funds. this couple are very very fortunate

Arthur Daley

The V Fund won't care one way or another. They are not going to pay a dime for this. They are not that gullible. The Irish taxpayer is.

Fr Tod Umptious

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Not paying a mortgage saved them 300k+.
The hypocrisy here is beyond belief.

Non payment of mortgage meant that they no longer allowed live in the house they lived in for 9 years and they are unlikely to get any sort of a loan (personal, business, car etc) again in the foreseeable future with anything like a normal interest rate.

If you were offered that outcome by spending 300k+ on something instead of your mortgage would you take it ?

In the case of their home they speculated to accumulate and it didn’t work out. <snip> The fact is for 9 years they lived in a prime property rent free without making 1€ repayment, how can this be deserving of sympathy? This is why we pay higher interest rates.

NIMAN

It does appear to prove the theory that the more you owe the more leeway you are given.

These folk are allowed to walk away from over €1mill debt, yet if you owe €50,000 then they will chase you til its repaid.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Non payment of mortgage meant that they no longer allowed live in the house they lived in for 9 years and they are unlikely to get any sort of a loan (personal, business, car etc) again in the foreseeable future with anything like a normal interest rate.

If you were offered that outcome by spending 300k+ on something instead of your mortgage would you take it ?

Yeh I’d buy a house for 300k. In fact 300k would pay off my mortgage and then some.

You keep trying to promote a deliberate act as some kind of misfortune.

Tacklebox

NIMAN wrote: »

It does appear to prove the theory that the more you owe the more leeway you are given.

These folk are allowed to walk away from over €1mill debt, yet if you owe €50,000 then they will chase you til its repaid.

And if you're rubbing shoulders with celebs, attractive looking and have a lovely smile....

I know a few similar couples in Clare who are living it up and haven't paid any of their mortgages in years.

Still making money and going on holidays, new car's etc.

There's definitely something wrong somewhere.
No way should they have gotten away with that.

I guarantee you, they'll get on with their lives and they'll not feel one bit of remorse, shame or guilt.

It's just another day for the middle classes, laughing at everyone else.

This will make that couple feel invincible now.

They'll be celebrating and cracking open the champers, and they'll land on their feet.....

Not sure I agree with all above in that I’m sure there is some embarrassment felt.

I lived in the US for a couple of years and I have to say I admire their system.

Business people/entrepreneurs take a chance and if it doesn’t work out, bankruptcy for a couple of years, then they go again with a clean slate, but, they get turfed out on their hole quick. They don’t have it both ways. They start again and it’s almost like a right of passage and in many ways is admired.

Here, you borrow big, you can’t access credit again when things go bad, but the creditor takes an enormous hit and that gets passed on to the rest of us.

Fr Tod Umptious

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Yeh I’d buy a house for 300k. In fact 300k would pay off my mortgage and then some.

You keep trying to promote a deliberate act as some kind of misfortune.

No I'm not

I saying a deliberate act of spending 300+k over 9 years on something other than ones mortgage has consequences such as a repossession and a bad credit rating.

It's not a win win like some here think it is.

It's not a win at all, it's a loss.

punisher5112

NIMAN wrote: »

It does appear to prove the theory that the more you owe the more leeway you are given.

These folk are allowed to walk away from over €1mill debt, yet if you owe €50,000 then they will chase you til its repaid.

Wrong if it's 1 cent or even €1.50 they will send letters, call and end up sending out debt collection agency letters.

Graham

Mod Note

Leave the unfounded allegations/guesses out please.

Do not reply to this post on thread.

Rosina1969

9 years rent and mortgage free????!!!!! I'd say they will buy another house no problem.

Life is bloody unfair. One law for the rich another for the poor. Im facing homelessness cos I cant recover my feckin deposit, from a landlord who has blatantly spent it, and not paid his mortgage for 2 years, and has been receiving my rent.

If I hadn't paid rent for the past 9 years I'd have approx. 150,000 grand. Or I could have been living a life instead of this month to month existence I'm struggling so bad just putting food on the table and paying bills. I bet all their kids do all their activities they want to.

klaaaz

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]
I saying a deliberate act of spending 300+k over 9 years on something other than ones mortgage has consequences such as a repossession and a bad credit rating.

It's not a win win like some here think it is.

It's not a win at all, it's a loss.

Really? This couple are wealthy celebrities, they will have no problem earning multitudes again due to their connections among the elite in society, a poor credit rating won't even figure when they "earn" six figures pa in their careers. The vast vast majority of us do not earn that much and would suffer from a bad credit rating for life with no hope of ever owning a house, running a business or having a simple car loan. This wealthy entitled couple will not ever be paupers so your poor mouth does not apply!

JDD

This is shocking tbf. As a previous poster says, if it was Joe Schlo not paying on a €300k house, and he stayed in it for nine years while different lenders didn't make a consistent attempt to repossess, the public would have had more sympathy.

Even if these two hadn't paid a penny for nine years, it'd be more palatable if they were stuck with at least a portion of the remaining €400k - rolled into the mortgage for their new home or whatever. It's not as if the town mine has been closed is it? Both of them have substantial earning power.

I've said before that "moral hazard" isn't really an argument when it is applied to cases that are a result of the financial crisis, as they are just the other side of the coin to the bank bailouts. But this is a nonsense. One party had decided to give up their lucrative career and have three kids, all while being unable to pay ANYTHING towards their mortgage. Must be nice to be them. And what was he doing for nine years where they were unable to pay anything towards their mortgage? Clearly they had enough to pay a lawyer.

And really, so what if they can't get a credit card or a car loan again. They shouldn't get a credit card or a car loan. Or any loan. They are untrustworthy with other people's money.

Graham

Mod Note

Off topic posts deleted.

If you want to have a general gossip about the couple in question, take it somewhere else.

happyfriday74

Yep. The slow repo process is why we pay such high rates.

I was in Spain recently and was shocked at the level of homelessness. A Spanish mate told me that once you bounce a few mortgage payments action is taken fairly quickly.

the other side of this is their rates are much cheaper and sub 2%

JDD

It's the same in the UK. Miss three payments and you're in court a month later. If you don't pay the entirety of the arrears the day you are in court a repossession order is given and you're out the next month.

Simple_Simone

The family fights back!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/when-you-only-have-one-side-of-the-story-it-looks-horrific-restaurateur-ronan-ryan-on-not-having-to-pay-1-2m-debt-on-home-37900137.html

Marcusm

They played the game. They realised a sale at 500kwas not acceptable. Tanager left them in place so that the house was not abandoned. Surprised that they have not had to agree to any future payments at all.

beauf

Simple_Simone wrote: »

The family fights back!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/when-you-only-have-one-side-of-the-story-it-looks-horrific-restaurateur-ronan-ryan-on-not-having-to-pay-1-2m-debt-on-home-37900137.html

Paints a different story alright. It didn't make a lot of sense up till now.

dubrov

Simple_Simone wrote: »

The family fights back!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/when-you-only-have-one-side-of-the-story-it-looks-horrific-restaurateur-ronan-ryan-on-not-having-to-pay-1-2m-debt-on-home-37900137.html

Not much of a defence to be honest. At no point is there any suggestion that they would have to take any personal responsibility for the losses they had accumulated.