Gorse Hill eviction ratified by court

Lollipops23 · 29-04-2015 01:39PM

The whole thing reads like something out of a Ross O'Carroll-Kelly novel.

seamus · 29-04-2015 01:41PM

Muff Richardson wrote: »

if he is taking this for some ludicrous reason to the European court of human rights as he says he is, does it mean the property will be in legal limbo for another long period of time until that is laughed out of court, or can BOI go ahead straight away with selling the property???

BOI can likely go ahead with the sale, though there's are good odds these chancers would try and get a court injunction blocking the sale.

If that fails and BOI sell, then the property is basically gone and out of the picture. The new owners could not be evicted from that property, it would remain a civil matter between the O'Donnells and BOI. In the unlikely event that the O'Donnells succeeded in any challenge, the issue would become a matter of compensating them for the property.

If BOI sell though, this whole saga becomes a lot less fun and I suspect the O'Donnells will quietly crawl back into their hole.

keano_afc · 29-04-2015 01:59PM

seamus wrote: »

BOI can likely go ahead with the sale, though there's are good odds these chancers would try and get a court injunction blocking the sale.

If that fails and BOI sell, then the property is basically gone and out of the picture. The new owners could not be evicted from that property, it would remain a civil matter between the O'Donnells and BOI. In the unlikely event that the O'Donnells succeeded in any challenge, the issue would become a matter of compensating them for the property.

If BOI sell though, this whole saga becomes a lot less fun and I suspect the O'Donnells will quietly crawl back into their hole mansion in Westminster.

Fixed that there.

end of the road · 29-04-2015 02:07PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

This family is scum. The arrogance and entitlement they've shown knows no bounds.

how are they "scum" . its not as if the bank actually deserve anything from this propertys sail, the money should go straight to the state as punishment for being reckless

end of the road · 29-04-2015 02:08PM

Preusse wrote: »

The saga continues! Although it says the receiver has taken possession it seems that Jerry Beades posted a note on the gate saying that the house is property of VICO LIMITED and that they would see any BOI or receiver entering the grounds as trespassers. They apparently changed the locks and electronic access fobs too. What a bunch of wasters :rolleyes:

Link: http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0429/697512-brian-odonnell-gorse-hill/

not wasters at all

end of the road · 29-04-2015 02:11PM

foxy farmer wrote: »

Never mind sending in the receiver send in a bulldozer.
My biggest fear was the longer this saga continued the more likely some sympathetic judge would hear the case. Then the whole case would be thrown out the window and o Donnell could stay there regardless.
Nice to see justice prevailing in the end.

what "justice" a reckless bank is being rewarded for failure. rewarded for giving out stupid amounts of money it knew wouldn't be payed back. it doesn't deserve a penny from this property or any for that matter.

tritium · 29-04-2015 02:17PM

end of the road wrote: »

what "justice" a reckless bank is being rewarded for failure. rewarded for giving out stupid amounts of money it knew wouldn't be payed back. it doesn't deserve a penny from this property or any for that matter.

Claiming the legal collateral on a defaulted loan is not being 'rewarded' in any sense of the word

jackal · 29-04-2015 02:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

what "justice" a reckless bank is being rewarded for failure. rewarded for giving out stupid amounts of money it knew wouldn't be payed back. it doesn't deserve a penny from this property or any for that matter.

How are the banks being rewarded?

The banks shareholders saw their shares go from €18.00 to €0.35 during the crisis, and stay there ever since. Who do you want punished exactly?

The O'Donnell's dragged BOI through each and every court in the land, and the courts ALL agreed with the bank. The O'Donnell's could do this as they don't have to hire solicitors. BOI do. I wonder who is picking up BOI's legal costs for these 82 court challenges which turned out to be without merit?

The O'Donnells borrowed recklessly and are losing (one of) their home(s). Boo hoo.

I see it on boards, comment sections and other places where the great unwashed can have their say, there is always a cohort giving out about the banks like its the new bogeyman or something. Blame the banks for the weather. Gay marriage, what about the banks? Evictions of people that have not paid a penny in years, what about the banks?

the.red.baron · 29-04-2015 03:08PM

Anyone know which other palatial home they have moved to, or are they destitute and out on the streets?:rolleyes:

Stinicker · 29-04-2015 03:10PM

Then these people have the absolute bare faced cheek to try and sully the great name the Land League had. The Land League was setup to fight for farmers to own their own land, my family were tenants in our farm from the early 1800's and eventually we came to own our land a result of the Land League campaign of Civil Disobedience which forced the British to sell the land which they seized in the first place.

Most Irish farmers today trace their ownership back to the great work of the land league which eventually forced the setup of the land commission and saw hundreds of thousands of farmers taking 68 year loans to buy their own land.

These scumbags represent only want to avoid paying their debts and is mainly made up of Fianna Fail cronies. Who typically want to have their debts socialised and the profits privatised.

What needs to happen today is to have absolutely no write down and make these people and their families repay every penny owed and if necessary attach the debt to the family lineage forcing everyone belong to them to pay off the debts accrued by their ancestors as necessary.

In the days of the old land commission my great great grand father was the original debtor to the land commission but my own father ended up paying off the final installment in the late sixties and early seventies.

sjb25 · 29-04-2015 03:18PM

end of the road wrote: »

what "justice" a reckless bank is being rewarded for failure. rewarded for giving out stupid amounts of money it knew wouldn't be payed back. it doesn't deserve a penny from this property or any for that matter.

The bank has lost most of the money and most likely spent a fortune in court so yes there is some justice I'd rather see the bank get it rather than mr o donnell why should we feel sorry for him as he left the house in his jaguar!!!!! (Bank should take that aswell worth a few euros) he's getting of lucky Give the house back and fcuk of to the uk!!! don't come back I say

end of the road · 29-04-2015 03:27PM

Stinicker wrote: »

What needs to happen today is to have absolutely no write down and make these people and their families repay every penny owed and if necessary attach the debt to the family lineage forcing everyone belong to them to pay off the debts accrued by their ancestors as necessary.

not at all. a disgusting suggestion that rewards the reckless banks. any attempt to force the families and ancestors to pay off these debts should be met by a refusal to pay by the relatives of the debter, and if needs be a scorch turf policy to ensure nothing can be taken to pay off the debt. a write down is the only way now or simply lose some of the money. if my parents had debts which they don't there is no way in hell i or even my children if i had any would be paying a penny and i would implement a scorch turf policy to ensure there is nothing left that can be used to claw any money from me or my children, and i would tell my children to do the same. get out if needs be.

end of the road · 29-04-2015 03:30PM

sjb25 wrote: »

The bank has lost most of the money and most likely spent a fortune in court so yes there is some justice I'd rather see the bank get it rather than mr o donnell why should we feel sorry for him as he left the house in his jaguar!!!!! (Bank should take that aswell worth a few euros) he's getting of lucky Give the house back and fcuk of to the uk!!! don't come back I say

the bank deserve every bit of that loss and court fees for being reckless. they don't deserve a penny and all money from the property sale should go back to the state. the bank should take the car? not at all, better to have it crushed then they get it.

pmasterson95 · 29-04-2015 03:35PM

EotR do you understand what collateral is?

sjb25 · 29-04-2015 03:38PM

end of the road wrote: »

the bank deserve every bit of that loss and court fees for being reckless. they don't deserve a penny and all money from the property sale should go back to the state. the bank should take the car? not at all, better to have it crushed then they get it.

While I agree the bank was reckless so was the o donnells so yes let the bank take the car and anything else worth any money that he owes notting but a pr1ck of a man who thinks he can get away with it he deserves to lose it all while yes the bank do aswell iv no sympathy for the o donnells

end of the road · 29-04-2015 03:38PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

EotR do you understand what collateral is?

yes . whats your point? i stand by every word

end of the road · 29-04-2015 03:39PM

sjb25 wrote: »

While I agree the bank was reckless so was the o donnells so yes let the bank take the car and anything else worth any money that he owes notting but a pr1ck of a man who thinks he can get away with it he deserves to lose it all while yes the bank do aswell iv no sympathy for the o donnells

no the state and we the tax payer should get it. the bank shouldn't get a penny. i'm not bothered about whether one has sympathy for the family or not TBH

twilight_singer · 29-04-2015 03:44PM

Poor Blaise. My boxroom is always there if you need digs

cloud493 · 29-04-2015 03:57PM

Some A-grade trolling right there.

death1234567 · 29-04-2015 03:59PM

Kicking a bankrupt greedy moron out of his €30m house, Oh the humanity!

Cuddlesworth · 29-04-2015 03:59PM

He's a smart man and knows exactly what he is doing.

The next part will be the more interesting one in this saga, once the property is sold he will still owe at least 50 million which they can finally start trying to recover. He has got at least 3 years of time from frivolous court cases to sink and bury every other asset he has under a pile of shell companies and dodgy deals to family.

pmasterson95 · 29-04-2015 04:00PM

end of the road wrote: »

yes . whats your point? i stand by every word

So in your world if I was to take out a loan I shouldn't have to surrender collateral if I can't make repayments?

I like that system, it definitely suits me.

Do you give out loans?

pmasterson95 · 29-04-2015 04:01PM

end of the road wrote: »

yes . whats your point? i stand by every word

So in your world if I was to take out a loan I shouldn't have to surrender collateral if I can't make repayments?

I like that system, it definitely suits me.

Do you give out loans?

Lollipops23 · 29-04-2015 04:07PM

end of the road wrote: »

how are they "scum" . its not as if the bank actually deserve anything from this propertys sail, the money should go straight to the state as punishment for being reckless

Because they are intentionally frustrating the legal system and refusing to acknowledge that they were,as you say,reckless. They borrowed beyond their means, not for a 3 bed semi, but for several mansions. They were beyond greedy, and of course they weren't the only ones. But the arrogance makes them scum IMO.

end of the road · 29-04-2015 04:17PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Because they are intentionally frustrating the legal system and refusing to acknowledge that they were,as you say,reckless. They borrowed beyond their means, not for a 3 bed semi, but for several mansions. They were beyond greedy, and of course they weren't the only ones. But the arrogance makes them scum IMO.

ah go away oul that. murderers rapists child abusers muggers are scum. this family are nothing in comparison. idiots is all they are, far from "scum"

jaykay74 · 29-04-2015 04:28PM

On arrival, Mr O'Donnell told reporters that he was disappointed by the Supreme Court decision yesterday not to allow them to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal. He said he understood that this was because of "new rules."

Mr O'Donnell said that they had been to court 82 times and had lost 82 times. "Statistically that's impossible," he said.

Well if you have no fcking case you may lose the 82 times!!

29-04-2015 04:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

what "justice" a reckless bank is being rewarded for failure. rewarded for giving out stupid amounts of money it knew wouldn't be payed back. it doesn't deserve a penny from this property or any for that matter.

You appreciate that there was a contract, money was advanced on foot of security, and this has been done since the dawn of time.

There was a breach of the agreement and the bank moved on same. I am not sure why you think banks should not be allowed to act for breach of an agreement. They are not looking for a reward nor was any given, they simply sought the enforcement of the obligations that the parties agreed.

end of the road wrote: »

i would implement a scorch turf policy to ensure there is nothing left

Would a scorched earth policy not be more effective?

sjb25 · 29-04-2015 04:33PM

jaykay74 wrote: »

On arrival, Mr O'Donnell told reporters that he was disappointed by the Supreme Court decision yesterday not to allow them to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal. He said he understood that this was because of "new rules."

Mr O'Donnell said that they had been to court 82 times and had lost 82 times. "Statistically that's impossible," he said.

Well if you have no fcking case you may lose the 82 times!!

When a judge finds out he is hearing these cases

end of the road · 29-04-2015 04:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a breach of the agreement and the bank moved on same. I am not sure why you think banks should not be allowed to act for breach of an agreement. They are not looking for a reward nor was any given, they simply sought the enforcement of the obligations that the parties agreed.

if a bank is reckless as to be bailed out by the tax payer it loses the right to act on anything. such obligations should be taken by the state and enforcement action taken by the state, all proceeds of any enforcement of obligations should be taken by the state as payment for the bailout, avoiding the bank completely and ensuring the tax payer gets every penny back and more.

mickdw · 29-04-2015 04:42PM

end of the road wrote: »

if a bank is reckless as to be bailed out by the tax payer it loses the right to act on anything. any proceeds of any enforcement of obligations should be taken by the state as payment for the bailout, avoiding the bank completely and ensuring the tax payer gets every penny back and more.

If the bank didn't act on this and recover 7 million or so from the sale, and if they also failed to act on hundreds of other cases where mortgages are not being paid, the hole in the banks books would have to be filled by another cash injection from government.

Gorse Hill eviction ratified by court

Comments