Bankruptcy help

regularsaver1

I saw someone the other week - a charge was put on property 12 years ago. he was discharged 3 years later. now they have approached him saying they want the funds - the charge will not just disapear unless its repaid as such

Bernard_Coleslaw

regularsaver1 wrote:

I saw someone the other week - a charge was put on property 12 years ago. he was discharged 3 years later. now they have approached him saying they want the funds - the charge will not just disapear unless its repaid as such

Righto - wasn't sure about that. Thanks for the clarification.

regularsaver1

acutally - listen to this - they have approched his ex and she has to pay, as he does not live there - and they can not go for any his assets since bankruptcy

fluffy_bunny_5

thanks for your help peeps.......
i am relieved that they wont reposses my home but just put a charge on it.
thanks again

regularsaver1

yes - but it would effect your ability to remortgage as its a charge ect

i'd advise that your partner find out all the ins and outs, and if it is neccessary to go this option

Addicted2Chocolate

if the property is jointly owned, regardless of who lives there, the trustee in bankruptcy will have a 50% interest in the equity and can seek an order for sale from court. see the leaflet 'what will happen to my home' on https://www.insolvency.gov.uk under 'leaflets'
i am confident my reply is correct, i work in the bankruptcy field. she needs to avoid bankruptcy at all costs and should seek advice.

Addicted2Chocolate

and its not a charge put on the property, it is a notice to prevent any dealings wihtout reference to the Trustee, the terms for the notices have changed recently but they are Bankruptcy Inhibitions or Bankruptcy Restrictions. So would prevent sale/remortgage.

ianian99

what was the debt for and why didn't she pay it?

regularsaver1

its all a bit confusing Addicted2Chocolate - I used the term charge, meaning they have an interest in a share of the property

I deal with TOMPs/Transfer of Mortgaged property. There is a case. Joint mortgage but wanting to remove one who is the discharged bankrupt. Trustee charge. Trustees want the funds (raised as additional lending, usually against policy but an exception for this reason). This has been a difficult case, but going through now.

I'm no expert at all - this just makes me think that it sholud be avoided


sorry to blast you with questions but please can i ask something, - how come the trustee can come back years later and ask for the funds? what does the discharge actually mean?

Addicted2Chocolate

Regularsaver: under the old legislation there was no time limit for the Trustee to dal with the interest in a property. because of ther recession in 90's and all hte bankrupt's with properties in -ve equity, nothing was done and they all sat on a register until they acquired equity (normally when the unsuspecting ex-bankrupt tried to sell or remortgage many years later).
Under the enterprise act 2002 a time limit was imposed: trustee has 3 years to deal with sale of his interest, and if it is not dealt with it automatically reverts to the bankrupt. The 3 year time limit is also retrospective and runs for pre 01/04/2004 bankruptcies from the date the act came into force: from 01st april 2004. Any properties not dealt with by 01/04/2007 will revert to the bankrupt. There are many ways of dealing with the property, icnluding obtaining a charging order. The insolvency practitioners and Insolvency Service have a lot of work to do!!
Discharge does not relate to assets at all: it means once dicharged the person is no longer subject to the duties and restrictions of bankruptcy (eg free to act as company director after discharge not before). It is a common misconception that upon discharge any bankruptcy assets come back to the bankrupt: this is not the case.
Hope thats clear!!