I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
Typo, I meant wouldn't be. I'll change it now.
I have actually. A former employer had their goods mistakenly seized by a sheriff. He mistook their stuff for the stuff he was supposed to repossess. They had an awful job getting their stuff back.
Anyway, I can't see Ammi having any assets in 20 years time. They'll all be living in the family home on the scratcher as none of them will be employable.
Enoch and family are such a sideshow compared to what’s happening now inside the tent
Arthur Cox won’t bother alright, not worth their time. It would cost them more to just think about whether they would try to recover the costs than they’d ever see.
I presume like all cults the €70,000 became community property. The petrol and tyres they burned through going back and forth to Wilson’s put a fair dent in the 70.
What assets does Enoch have for the Sheriff to collect?
Satchel and scarf?
Vote NO posters.
See, if I was CEO of Arthur Cox, I would go for costs. Not that I'd ever expect to collect them, but just to have the Order.
Because if they don't go for costs, Ammi will twist it into some kind of admittance of wrong doing on their part.
Oh, I think they'll take their costs order. They just won't waste time or resources trying to enforce it.
SFAIK there are no religious issues at stake in Ammi's case. Her behaviour in the proceedings isn't religiously-motivated; this is just how the Burkes roll.
Their entire "thing" is that they are always 100% right and anyone that disagrees with them is corrupt etc. etc.
She was sacked for being extremely difficult, argumentative and refusing to accept instructions/information from her managers.
Basically , exactly the kind of behaviours she displayed in the various WRC hearings and court appearances.
Yup. I suspect the Burke's psychology determines their religion more than the other way around.
Hardly, they seem to think that everyone not a member of their household is an agent of Satan.
There's no way on Earth that A. Cox & Co won't go for an order of costs.
They may do, but it's not an issue that has come up in Ammi's unfair dismissal proceedings. Her grounds of objection have nothing to do with religion.
You misread Andrew, I did not say Enoch had assets. I actually said the opposite "that in contrast to Enoch, Amni does have assets".
There is a house that will eventually be passed on as an inheritance. The Sheriff can afford to sit and wait for 20/30/40 years for that to happen.
And neither Ammi or Enoch can inherit the house because it is a property against which a charge can be registered for the debts they are now accruing.
the house is owned by the parents. a charge against either Ammi or Enoch cannot be registered against it.
What part of cannot inherit did you not understand?
there is nothing to stop them inheriting.
In fairness, the poster is saying a charge against Ammi/Enoch can't be registered against it as it's not theirs, which negates your suggestion that they can't inherit it because a charge can be put on it.
Your snotty answer isn't really helpful!
In fairness the poster tried to refute a claim I did not make.
Except the court ordered debt which can be registered against the property post inheritance.
You said "And neither Ammi or Enoch can inherit the house because it is a property against which a charge can be registered for the debts they are now accruing" - and ohnonotgmail was arguing that a charge can't be registered against the house as it's not Ammi/Enoch's.
So that does seem to be arguing a claim you did make - specifically, that a charge can be placed on the house.
That's how I read it too.
I am still saying that.
I said specifically the debt can be registered against the property if they inherit, I NEVER said the charge could be registered against the house while the parents are alive and own it.
The house will be willed to some "church" body that is basically just the kids but registered as a religious charity, I suspect.
But now you've gone from "neither Ammi or Enoch can inherit the house" to "If Enoch or Ammi inherit" (which you've said twice), so a contradiction there.
Can a charge be placed on a potential inherited asset? We probably need more than a snotty reply here to discuss further
Would I be right in thinking that the point is that they can inherit, but they won't actually receive any money because the sheriff will step in intercept any funds on the basis that they owe the state money as a result of the fine and the Sheriff can take that in lieu of payment.
My question would then be: considering there are ten siblings, what happens if the other eight (or even if all ten) decide not to sell, and so receive little or no income from the actual inheritance? The Sheriff can't collect 10% or 20% of a physical property.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/08231869fd786c2459f2d35b207b4d26.svg)
