Aberdeen Lodge Repossession

Squall Leonhart

Heard this couple this morning on Newstalk.
They (he) borrowed 26,000,000 to develop a hotel, the economy fell apart, they still owe the money and now refuse to leave their home worth 3,000,000 which Goldman Sachs are trying to repossess with the support of our court system.

They keep banging on about how they are meeting their payments (mortgage on the house) and paying 5,000 a month on it, and that they have never borrowed a penny from GS (who bought their debt from another institution) and don't owe them anything.

I just can't get my head around the sense of entitlement and abandon that some people have with regard to their own financial decisions. Why shouldn't people have to pay their self imposed debts?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/i-m-not-going-anywhere-goldman-sachs-to-repossess-boutique-dublin-4-hotel-1.3840572

Your Face

It seems to be the trendy contrarian view to blast anyone who is in a situation like this.
Pay what you owe, of course, but dont cave to scummy institutions.

kneemos

Twenty five million was for another failed hotel project. They're arguing they're making the payments in their home and business.

If the courts say nay however it's hard to argue.

Wanderer78

The fact that banks simply create the credit/debt from thin air, still hasn't been addressed, 'behind every bad debtor, is a bad lender'!

Squall Leonhart

Your Face wrote: »

It seems to be the trendy contrarian view to blast anyone who is in a situation like this.
Pay what you owe, of course, but dont cave to scummy institutions.

This isn't a family who borrowed 10,000 for a car and couldn't make repayments. Why do people think they should be allowed borrow 26 million euro and then just dust their hands of it when it doesn't go to plan?

Was it bad lending, I don't know the details but almost certainly a resounding "yes".

As for me taking a trendy stance, ha ha that's laughable if you knew me

jay0109

They were on Primetime last night getting a hard grilling from Miriam!

If this lad who borrowed the €25m for his D4 hotel had gone on to make a killing on that hotel, would he be giving over say 90% of the big profits he would have made to the taxpayer or to charity etc? Not a chance. He'd be a multi millionaire now regaling the lads down in the golf club about the great deal he had been involved in and how he risked everything, including his home.

He was stupid to guarantee his home/business on the €25m project and the debt is now being called in. It doesn't matter who owns it and whether or not he ever dealt with them before- thats a spurious argument.

jim-mcdee

You need to have been in the courts and following the case to really know the full story. In general the courts will not allow repossession unless they have been told lies and are being deceived. Judges generally don't take kindly to such things.

Your Face

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

This isn't a family who borrowed 10,000 for a car and couldn't make repayments. Why do people think they should be allowed borrow 26 million euro and then just dust their hands of it when it doesn't go to plan?

Was it bad lending, I don't know the details but almost certainly a resounding "yes".

As for me taking a trendy stance, ha ha that's laughable if you knew me

Bingo

kneemos

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

This isn't a family who borrowed 10,000 for a car and couldn't make repayments. Why do people think they should be allowed borrow 26 million euro and then just dust their hands of it when it doesn't go to plan?

Was it bad lending, I don't know the details but almost certainly a resounding "yes".

As for me taking a trendy stance, ha ha that's laughable if you knew me

A sound financial investment can turn bad for all sorts of reasons.
Pretty sure the lender went through it before handing out twenty five big ones.

TomasMacR

heard the interview too, it was just repetitive 'putting food on the table, clothes on the kids back' stuff. serious absence of details. what happened to the €26 million? Is it tied up in litigation? how could every cent of that go down the swanny? she also kept saying she had the money to pay off the loan (assuming mortgage) and is servicing the mortgage repayment every month. Going by this much, it sounds like they have serious liquid cash at their disposal...'nowhere to go'...how about going to Sherry Fitzgerald and buying a house outright today. They won't last long there.

Feisar

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The fact that banks simply create the credit/debt from thin air, still hasn't been addressed, 'behind every bad debtor, is a bad lender'!

Ah in fairness the concept has been there from the start of banking.

jay0109

TomasMacR wrote: »

Going by this much, it sounds like they have serious liquid cash at their disposal...'nowhere to go'...how about going to Sherry Fitzgerald and buying a house outright today. They won't last long there.

Miriam asked them last night why they wouldn't downgrade (to a house more suiting their current means - she didn't mention that bit of course) but Ann Keane wouldn't answer that except to say generally 'where would they go'.
My answer to that would be somewhere less salubrious than Sandymount and to a house well south of that €2m/€3m pad they now live in.

Yes, it'd be tough on the kids. And all would be moving from friends etc. But you take the risks and you have to pay some penalty if it all goes wrong

Feisar

kneemos wrote: »

Twenty five million was for another failed hotel project. They're arguing they're making the payments in their home and business.

If the courts say nay however it's hard to argue.

Obviously they must have provided personal guarantees on the loan.

Feisar

Why are banks allowed sell on debt? Can the person(s) who receive the loan do the same?

Wanderer78

Feisar wrote:

Ah in fairness the concept has been there from the start of banking.

Only that it's not a concept, allowing banks to do this is dangerous and ethically questionable, even though we require banks to do this, a more democratic approach is required urgently, as it's currently being abused to gain control of assets, including public assets

Cienciano

Sounds like he's just trying to get the support of the anti-repossession mob. Remember a few years ago and some guy was getting his house repossessed and the usual mob turned up to protest it. Then it turned out he owned something like 25 properties across uk and Ireland.

ohnonotgmail

Cienciano wrote: »

Sounds like he's just trying to get the support of the anti-repossession mob. Remember a few years ago and some guy was getting his house repossessed and the usual mob turned up to protest it. Then it turned out he owned something like 25 properties across uk and Ireland.

this crowd? https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deluded-odonnells-owe-71m-but-want-to-keep-mansion-31035382.html

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

They are making the repayments, are they not?

On a seperate issue, I would ban this sale-of-debt idea straight up for a start.

ohnonotgmail

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

They are making the repayments, are they not?

On a seperate issue, I would ban this sale-of-debt idea straight up for a start.

THe house was used as a personal guarantee on a loan separate to their mortgage.

jay0109

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

They are making the repayments, are they not?

On a seperate issue, I would ban this sale-of-debt idea straight up for a start.

They are making payments on a €1m mortgage on the house.
They're not making any payments on the €26m from the failed hotel project.

Cienciano

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this crowd? https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deluded-odonnells-owe-71m-but-want-to-keep-mansion-31035382.html

Yeah, think that's the ones. In fairness, the anti-repossession mob abandoned him after details came to light.

punisher5112

Reminds me of gorse hill killiney.....

These people don't live in the real world and us fools end up paying for them just like those that never work a day in their life.

White collar crime and fraud is exactly that so why don't we see these people do time.

Hoboo

They shouldn't be on front of the cameras, didn't explain their issue very well.

They ate arguing that the loan they received was from a lender that collapsed before the project was finished. Had it not collapsed, they could have finished the project, and everyone would be paid.

The lender decided to sell the incomplete project (for 2m) even though 25m had been used. Lenders choice, not the borrower.

Goldman bought the loan on their house, nothing to do with the 25m, for 300k. But now are claiming they are owed the 25m.

That's my understanding, they haven't been heard in court due to GS preventing them with legal glue.

I think people need to read up on the case rather than see 2m house, 25m owed, kick them out! Divided and conquered we all eventually.

banie01

Feisar wrote: »

Why are banks allowed sell on debt? Can the person(s) who receive the loan do the same?

Let's say the bank lends you a certain sum of money on the basis of credit check, business plan and guarantee.
The bank then has a legally binding agreement with the borrower that will include a clause regarding transferring ownership of the debt.
The borrower does not "own" the debt, they are liable for it a distinct difference.

The borrower can't sell a debt they don't own, they can of course enter a negotiation with the lender to see if the lender will accept a settlement figure.
Then when that figure is known they can attempt a refinancing effort to buy out the original lender, but even if a discount is agreed a debt is still outstanding to whomever financed the buyout.
Or an effort to renegotiate the term and interest owed on the loan can be undertaken.
In any case the lender is perfectly entitled to pursue maximum return on the loan advanced.

If a borrower is servicing their loan at the agreed level, the bank will abide by the terms of the agreed loan.
If a borrower has difficulty servicing their full obligations then the clauses in the loan agreement governing arrears, foreclosure and or sale of the debt.

This seems to be a business loan to which the house and B&B were offered as part of a personal guarantee.
The usual protections of mortgage/home loan aren't applicable as these people entered into a purely "business" arrangement with the attendant guarantees.

Edgware

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

Heard this couple this morning on Newstalk.
They (he) borrowed 26,000,000 to develop a hotel, the economy fell apart, they still owe the money and now refuse to leave their home worth 3,000,000 which Goldman Sachs are trying to repossess with the support of our court system.

They keep banging on about how they are meeting their payments (mortgage on the house) and paying 5,000 a month on it, and that they have never borrowed a penny from GS (who bought their debt from another institution) and don't owe them anything.

I just can't get my head around the sense of entitlement and abandon that some people have with regard to their own financial decisions. Why shouldn't people have to pay their self imposed debts?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/i-m-not-going-anywhere-goldman-sachs-to-repossess-boutique-dublin-4-hotel-1.3840572

It's Ireland. The normal rules don't apply to stupid people. It's a disgrace Joe

Edgware

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

Heard this couple this morning on Newstalk.
They (he) borrowed 26,000,000 to develop a hotel, the economy fell apart, they still owe the money and now refuse to leave their home worth 3,000,000 which Goldman Sachs are trying to repossess with the support of our court system.

They keep banging on about how they are meeting their payments (mortgage on the house) and paying 5,000 a month on it, and that they have never borrowed a penny from GS (who bought their debt from another institution) and don't owe them anything.

I just can't get my head around the sense of entitlement and abandon that some people have with regard to their own financial decisions. Why shouldn't people have to pay their self imposed debts?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/i-m-not-going-anywhere-goldman-sachs-to-repossess-boutique-dublin-4-hotel-1.3840572

It's Ireland. The normal rules don't apply to stupid people. It's a disgrace Joe

Samuel Vimes

See how they like being locked up in the Joy after bank gets an attachment order against them.
Not sure the menu or wine list will be to their taste!

Wheeliebin30

Can we all stop paying our mortgage yet?

punisher5112

Free mansions for all.


Cash should be housed there as she says the gubernment is wobbing her and gets notin....,

Odelay

It’s just a bog standard house.

punisher5112

Odelay wrote: »

It’s just a bog standard house.

Do you live in a €3,000,000 house.... I don't.... And never will as I work hard but am crucified with tax, bills and more tax...

ohnonotgmail

Odelay wrote: »

It’s just a bog standard house.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Do you live in a €3,000,000 house.... I don't.... And never will as I work hard but am crucified with tax, bills and more tax...

"It’s just a bog standard house" was a phrase used by Gerry Beades to describe te €7m house in Gorse Hill that a bank was trying to repossess. I think you missed the sarcasm in the post.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jay0109 wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

They are making the repayments, are they not?

On a seperate issue, I would ban this sale-of-debt idea straight up for a start.

They are making payments on a €1m mortgage on the house.
They're not making any payments on the €26m from the failed hotel project.

Fair enough. In which case, tough on them

kneemos

Hoboo wrote: »

They shouldn't be on front of the cameras, didn't explain their issue very well.

They ate arguing that the loan they received was from a lender that collapsed before the project was finished. Had it not collapsed, they could have finished the project, and everyone would be paid.

The lender decided to sell the incomplete project (for 2m) even though 25m had been used. Lenders choice, not the borrower.

Goldman bought the loan on their house, nothing to do with the 25m, for 300k. But now are claiming they are owed the 25m.

That's my understanding, they haven't been heard in court due to GS preventing them with legal glue.

I think people need to read up on the case rather than see 2m house, 25m owed, kick them out! Divided and conquered we all eventually.

Goldman Sachs get a two mil house for 300,000.

TomasMacR

Hoboo wrote: »

They shouldn't be on front of the cameras, didn't explain their issue very well.

They ate arguing that the loan they received was from a lender that collapsed before the project was finished. Had it not collapsed, they could have finished the project, and everyone would be paid.

I don't understand this bit...were the funds not already borrowed, hence the debt. How is the project collapsing the responsibility of the lender?

topper75

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The fact that banks simply create the credit/debt from thin air, still hasn't been addressed, 'behind every bad debtor, is a bad lender'!

Maybe you can trace this back beyond the banks.

They can only 'create debt from thin air' if that is permitted by those controlling the money supply.

There are people out there legally drinking nowadays who don't understand money supply. I'm not an Irexit guy but going into the EMU was a dumb, dumb move by Ireland. It is barely two decades in place but it destroyed our potential for slow steady growth twice already. It will do so again.

griffin100

The B&B / House is not owned by them, it’s owned by a company. That generates tax and other benefits for the owners of the company. It also allowed the company to borrow €25m using this company asset as collateral. The company can’t pay its debts so the bank is calling in the collateral. Happens every day in business. It’s tough on them but you have to take the rough with the smooth in business.

Feisar

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Only that it's not a concept, allowing banks to do this is dangerous and ethically questionable, even though we require banks to do this, a more democratic approach is required urgently, as it's currently being abused to gain control of assets, including public assets

whiskeyman

kneemos wrote: »

Goldman Sachs get a two mil house for 300,000.

This is the prob
The owners live in the property so they could even give them 500,000 to buy a home outright And still make a today profit on the loan, but the owners gave a lame 'where would we go' answer last night.
They know their home is also their income and allows them a nice life.

punisher5112

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

"It’s just a bog standard house" was a phrase used by Gerry Beades to describe te €7m house in Gorse Hill that a bank was trying to repossess. I think you missed the sarcasm in the post.

Me very sorry..... I'm really bad at reading the sarcasm lately.... I think I need to see someone;-)

Hoboo

TomasMacR wrote: »

I don't understand this bit...were the funds not already borrowed, hence the debt. How is the project collapsing the responsibility of the lender?

To be frank I don't know, I'm just stating my understanding so far. I'm not sure if they're claiming when the bank collapsed they hadn't received all the funding (normally done in stages, so they wouldn't have received the final amount until final phase), or they needed more to finish, knowing once done it would clear everything, but the bank collapsed leaving them in limbo. The bank, which was the owner of the loan, sold a 25m investment for 2m. Their choice. They didn't sell the loan, they sold the property.

All GS bought was the loan on the house which was separate and has never missed a mortgage payment. The 25m had nothing to do with them. The 25m was Guaranteed by the house, not vice versa.

If GS had bought the 25m loan they could take the house, not the other way around.

Berserker

kneemos wrote: »

Goldman Sachs get a two mil house for 300,000.

If the people who borrowed met their repayments or even attempted to play ball on their debt, something that good enough for the banks here more often than not, then they wouldn't be getting a house at all.

On a side note, what's wrong with downsizing? Plenty of properties available within 30 mins of Sandymount for 500K. Plenty of places available in D4 for that amount.

Geuze

Feisar wrote: »

Why are banks allowed sell on debt? Can the person(s) who receive the loan do the same?

Why can any asset be sold?

Financial assets are bought and sold every day.

Bonds, shares - these are bought and sold every day.

Watched prime time last night and they weren’t very good at explaining their case. I was left confused.

Did they say Goldman Sachs bought the mortgage loan or the 26 million loan for 300k?
I think they also said that they were not offered a reduced rate like Goldman Sachs were and could have funded it with help from family and friends.

Geuze

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

THe house was used as a personal guarantee on a loan separate to their mortgage.

I would not ban the sale of loans.

But I would ban these cross-guarantees..

PPR should not be used as security on business loans.

El_Bee

for sure it's the bankers fault, I mean personal debt is like alcoholism, blame the disease not the person

Geuze

Feisar wrote: »

Why are banks allowed sell on debt? Can the person(s) who receive the loan do the same?

Loans as assets can be bought or sold.

A liability can't be sold.

10000maniacs

Your Face wrote: »

It seems to be the trendy contrarian view to blast anyone who is in a situation like this.
Pay what you owe, of course, but dont cave to scummy institutions.

I too would love to live in a €3 million mansion. But breaking news, I can't afford it. So I have given up on the idea.
It is ultimately our money that they were playing Russian roulette with. So kick 'em out.

Hoboo

Berserker wrote: »

If the people who borrowed met their repayments or even attempted to play ball on their debt, something that good enough for the banks here more often than not, then they wouldn't be getting a house at all.

On a side note, what's wrong with downsizing? Plenty of properties available within 30 mins of Sandymount for 500K. Plenty of places available in D4 for that amount.

Have you read anything about the case?

El_Bee

El_Bee wrote: »

for sure it's the bankers fault, I mean personal debt is like alcoholism, blame the disease not the person

Mortgages from Irish Nationwide ended up a complete mess though which is who they loaned off first. Don’t have one personally but I do know.....

Irish Nationwide went bust
Loans transferred to Anglo Irish Bank
Anglo Irish Bank went into liquidation
Loans transferred to Irish Banking Resolution Company (IBRC)
IBRC wrote to borrowers saying they were selling loans on and if buyer was not found loan would transfer to Nama
IBRC would not enter into a negotiation with the borrower to pay off the loan at a reduced rate. They would sell to someone else for reduced rate but the borrower had to pay full amount.
Loans then transferred here, there and everywhere.

PinotNero

Hoboo wrote: »

Have you read anything about the case?

Have you?