nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

HiGlo

The_Pretender wrote: »

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.

Fair point. Very true.

Still ridiculous carry on - no matter who the recipient....

conorh91

seamus wrote: »

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.

Where was that 'successfully argued'?

The only person I've ever heard make that remark was an accountant on the radio a few years back. It isn't a legal consideration.

All primary residences are to be repossessed only as a last resort, and with very strict conditions imposed by the Central Bank and the courts.

Desolation Of Smug

Gorse hill - the vale of tears...Didn't Pat Kenny and his neighbours have a bit of a spat over another section of "gorse".

Seems more like Orse Hill.

cloud493

How does he possibly owe that much money? Its insane.

Desolation Of Smug

cloud493 wrote: »

How does he possibly owe that much money? Its insane.

Getting up to your b0ll0x in debt doesn't come cheap you know.

Nucular Arms

Blizzardmoment wrote: »

Do people not realise that the moral obligation lies with the borrower to pay back the money they were given.

He's a lawyer.. what would he know about morals?

Chijj

This case is truly laughable, I hate the utter indignation of all this, they owe 71 million and are still trying to fight against possession.

People claim the banks are the ones to blame (obviously they played their part) but it is people who borrowed above their means and then when the **** hits the fan they end up cosingt the state even more money by going round the houses through any court that will hear their plea.

Then the "Land league" come along, they should be banned from using that name, there is a big difference between poor tenants being turfed out of their home & normally land they worked because of increase in rent than someone who has lived the life of Riley and then when it catches up with them blame the banks & Robin Hood and his merry men show up.

As I said laughable.

whiskeyman

cloud493 wrote: »

How does he possibly owe that much money? Its insane.

Sure that's small change to what some others owe.

Sean Quinn anyone?

Shurimgreat

Has his rockstar neighbour pleaded for debt forgiveness on o'donnells behalf yet??

Jet Black

cloud493 wrote: »

How does he possibly owe that much money? Its insane.

Really because of his occupation. Solicitor was one of the top jobs from a banks perspective and they would give them whatever money they wanted. So say he gets a small enough sum, say 10 million. With this he buys 20 properties, fills them with people to pay his mortgage on each one and he has a nice little portfolio. Repeat this over and over.