Order of Sale enforcement

Blonde_Bint

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Actually yes, because it's not as though the tough action is the first thing that happens. In life we all have to face the consequences of our actions - the NRP who has refused to pay anything is not suddenly being faced with homelessness - it is an extremely long, drawn out process. There are plenty of opportunities throughout the years - yes it takes years to get that far - to start making payments and thus preventing such action. They have a choice and choose not to pay, and therefore must then realise that their choice will lead to such action. I felt no guilt at all when my ex faced this possibility - he afterall had decided for himself that he would not pay anything. He was given so many chances I believed that nothing would ever happen - clearly so did he! Had they forced the sale, he would have in effect, put himself and his family in that position through his own choices. He could have easily avoided it. In the end, he made a different choice, and paid via remortgaging (he had racked up a huge debt which was totally correct but he had just not wanted to pay). He thus avoided losing his home.

Lets face it anyone dodging the csa know they are dodging payments, and they are aware that these payments are being sought and that they are racking up. so shes got you banged up against the wall there Blob, i'd call that fair n square I would.

You dont start off facing loosing your home and being threatened with deo's and imprisonment these actions are a long long long long long long long long long way down the line.

heres your first payment plan Mr Binty and by the way today we are throwing in free deo's or imprisonment's to go with that, can I interest you' iyswim. We have had our problems with payments gone awry etc but because we always paid every step of the way, now do not face the prospect of a huge bill.

Steve40_2

heres your first payment plan Mr Binty and by the way today we are throwing in free deo's or imprisonment's to go with that, can I interest you' iyswim. We have had our problems with payments gone awry etc but because we always paid every step of the way, now do not face the prospect of a huge bill.[/QUOTE]



I like this ending its exactly what they do with the deo options at start of any case under there new rules something about the PWC's collection preferences .

Dancing_Shoes

Getting back on topic;), NACSA - It is very worrying that you are aware of cases where they are tring to force the sale of a house when the arrears are incorrect:mad:
What about if the house is in joint names with the nrpp, can they only take half of the equity (if there is any in the current climate:rolleyes:) or can they take the nrpp's share aswell??
What about if you have children that live in the house they are trying to force a sale on? Who is there to protect those children??

LizzieS_2

The csa can only take equity relating to nrp. As part of the sale, I would guess they would give the nrrp the option of buying the nrps share?

Blob

NRPP's are protected by the Married Womans Protection Act, and under the provisions of that Act any money that they have put in if the house is sold will be thier's. It works for both women as well as men. This Act even over rides Bankrupsy in some respects.

Dancing_Shoes

Blob wrote: »

NRPP's are protected by the Married Womans Protection Act, and under the provisions of that Act any money that they have put in if the house is sold will be thier's. It works for both women as well as men. This Act even over rides Bankrupsy in some respects.

How do you know who has put in what?

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

How do you know who has put in what?

I am not sure what Blobs opinion of MWPA act is. This is my understanding.

If 2 people (married or not) are named on the title deeds to a property, irrespective whether as joint tenants or tenants in common, it is automatically assumed they own the property in equal shares.

If the shares are intended to be unequal, the couple must complete a declaration of trust. Failure to complete this could render a claim under MWPA irrelevant as the partys both made a choice upon purchase.

The MWPA comes in when one party appears on the house deeds but the other does not. The party not having their name on can make a claim under MWPA but the burden of proof rests with them.

The MWPA is also restrictive - it applies to married couples & those who can prove there was an intention to marry.

Blob

I think it is a very good Act as it has played a part in my divorce 10 years ago and supported the claim by my ex for 50% of teh equity in the house, something that I had said that was hers from the outset. But as I was bankrupt it had to be fought through the Courts, if she had be open to talks in the first place then it would not have happened.

As for a Trust Deed, have checked this out already that is not revelent, if it is proved that the money was put in by one party then that money is theirs end of! This has been bourn out as in my case there was no Deed of Trust in place.

Blob

DS This will be in the deed of Sale when you buy the house, and if the money has come from the sale of a diferent property then it is there and is deem as proof!

LizzieS_2

Blob wrote: »

DS This will be in the deed of Sale when you buy the house, and if the money has come from the sale of a diferent property then it is there and is deem as proof!

Blob, you are missing the point. It is hard to prove who paid for what during the marriage (not talking about initial capital outlays).