Coping with a Tactical Bankruptcy

mookie2805

The reason that the mortgage and second loan is relevant is because he was declared bankrupt as he claimed that he couldn't afford to pay these, Yet he wasn't paying them anyway. His other debts totalled around 12k and with his income he should of been easily dealing with these.

We have proved his share to the trustee and as yet the trustee hasn't valued the property. We in all honesty received nothing in the way of communications from the trustee and now they have passed us over to a insolvency and collections solicitor to continue. Again she hasn't really spoken with us.

This should never have been a bankruptcy in the first place. One of the most sickening points in this is that if I hadn't of conducted a google search for him in May 2013 I would never have known he was bankrupt. We heard nothing from the trustee until October 2013. It was myself who had to contact the Insolvency Practitioner and again they were hopeless and frankly they couldn't care less.

egrescrimp

mookie2805 wrote: »

The reason that the mortgage and second loan is relevant is because he was declared bankrupt as he claimed that he couldn't afford to pay these, Yet he wasn't paying them anyway. His other debts totalled around 12k and with his income he should of been easily dealing with these.

We have proved his share to the trustee and as yet the trustee hasn't valued the property. We in all honesty received nothing in the way of communications from the trustee and now they have passed us over to a insolvency and collections solicitor to continue. Again she hasn't really spoken with us.

This should never have been a bankruptcy in the first place. One of the most sickening points in this is that if I hadn't of conducted a google search for him in May 2013 I would never have known he was bankrupt. We heard nothing from the trustee until October 2013. It was myself who had to contact the Insolvency Practitioner and again they were hopeless and frankly they couldn't care less.

If he's on the credit agreements for these secured products it doesn't matter if he's the one paying them or not, he is accountable for them being paid and if he says he cannot afford these payments anymore along with the unsecured debts he can go bankrupt even if that leaves a sour taste in your mouth

Anondebtadvisor

All you can do is deal with the trustee in bankruptcy and co operate with them. The bankruptcy order has been made and there is nothing you can do about that.

Concentrate your energies on making a case to the trustee and consider these points:--

Get the property valued on a forced sale basis?
Do you have any elderly people or disabled children in the house?

If the trustee has not even had the property valued how do they how much equity there is??

mookie2805

from valuations of the previous attempt to sell its worked out from there

We have three children. The eldest has been diagnosed with and is being treated for a depressive mental disorder

Anondebtadvisor

mookie2805 wrote: »

We have three children. The eldest has been diagnosed with and is being treated for a depressive mental disorder

There is your argument for having a charge placed over the property for the equity instead of sale.

Any valuation should be "forced sale" value NOT market value

alastairq

Mookie....as Anon says, the mortgage and secured loan are an irrelevance as far as bankruptcy is concerned.

Bankruptcy deals solely with unsecured debt.....a mortgage is a secured debt.....secured on the property...as is the secured loan. These are outside the province of Bankruptcy.

As Anon says....you need to get a realistic [forced sale] valuation or two.

Then you will need to demonstrate whether your ex's share of the equity is at, or less than, 50%.

You already mention the Trustee has established his share to be...32% of the equity? [a value of, you say, approx £20,000?]

If you are happy to accept the Trustee's assertion that your Ex only has a 32% share of the equity....which might reflect the fact he hasn't contributed [or lived in] the property for 4 years ....then you need to demonstrate a much lower property value...hence, the 32% of the equity will be less?

You are quite hung-up about your Ex's bankruptcy..and the reasons you say he gave for his becoming insolvent in the first place....don't be.

[Generally, reasons for insolvency are somewhat irrelevant in BAnkruptcy, except as so far as, they might result in the bankrupt receiving a BRO/BRU....which won't have any effect upon you in any way whatsoever.]

Exactly what sort of advice were you seeking?

For, aside from that posted by Anon, there isn't much more that can be added.

SO, in simple terms, you have the opportunity to purchase [fro the trustee] your ex's share of the equity.

You reckon you cannot afford this [or get a second mortgage to cover it]...

So..you need to have an argument for the Trustee to place a Charge on the property for your ex's share of the equity....which you have, with your children [as Anon says above].

[Remember, that Charge will solely refer to your Ex's share of the equity, not yours.....therefore, if the share of equity doesn't cover the Charge value [don't forget, the Trustee adds interest to it every year].....that's too bad, you yourself don't have to cover it...from your share, that is.]

So, seek to 'lower' the valuation as much as possible......maybe to an extent you could afford to buy the OR's interest?

CKhalvashi

mookie2805 wrote: »

It was myself who had to contact the Insolvency Practitioner and again they were hopeless and frankly they couldn't care less.

It depends largely who you get.

I've had to deal with IP's for various reasons (from enquiring about something, to reporting suspected bankruptcy fraud) and the office I've largely dealt with have been brilliant.

If you feel it's not being taken seriously, you may be worth writing a formal complaint, however they may not be able to answer it as fully as you'd like under the DPA.

CK

woodformoretrees

mookie2805 wrote: »

yet we as a family have done nothing but pay our way and secure our home as best we can

Haven't we all dear.

longtermplanner

The reason that the mortgage and second loan is relevant is because he was declared bankrupt as he claimed that he couldn't afford to pay these, Yet he wasn't paying them anyway. His other debts totalled around 12k and with his income he should of been easily dealing with these.

You have to put all these thought out of your head. Someone is legally entitled to go bankrupt if they cannot repay all their debts. he couldn't repay all his debts so it was his right to go bankrupt.

It may be this was a financially stupid decision on his part and that he may have been doing it to get to you, rather than to sort his own problems out. But where you are now, that is irrelevant.

If you think there is a serious chance of your being able to buy out the OR's share in a few years, then you need to make the case that your child's mental health means you should be allowed to stay in the house.

Otherwise if no one in your family can lend you this money, the house is going to be sold. You and your new partner need to move forward and make the best of it - the best revenge is a life well lived.

alastairq

mookie2805 wrote: »

I do appreciate that and for many it is the last resort. However from my investigations into this its a worrying trend for businesses and individuals to use this as a way of gaining. There are always victims and it just seems that we are being punished yet we as a family have done nothing but pay our way and secure our home as best we can

Mookie, in your personal situation [posted elsewhere], whilst unpleasant, it is typical of what happens when a relationship ends....but the joint responsibilities still have to be addressed.

BAnkruptcy is a [legal] tool.

It is there to deal with an otherwise intolerable [debt] situation.


It is, in effect, a last resort.


Without it, neither debtor, nor creditor, has any sort of closure.

When two people enter into a relationship, and assume joint responsibility for finance & property, that joint responsibility extends to joint liability....and in the worst case scenario, sharing the downsides.

This, despite our individual efforts to start afresh.

When it comes to property [shares] & money, moral issues take a side line. This is [ to me] a blatant fact prevalent in the type of society we live in.

Trouble is, we all see the emotional side of relationships...rarely the legal side.

All of which goes to colour my own opinion of 'joint' finances....so much better if, in the long term, we take a cynical view [perhaps at the altar??]....by keeping finances separate so that, should the [statistically] inevitable eventually happen, one party does not face the task of dealing with all the finances....as can happen with joint finance, if the other party petitions bankruptcy?