Solved - Bankrupt but bequeathed share of property

se2020

It is still an asset even if you can not cash it in yet. It may even grow to be more valuable than it is now as property prices may rise or one of the other beneficiaries may die giving you a greater share.
The OR will take control of this asset and inform your creditors that they have it.
Best case is the creditors agree to wait until the asset can be transferred into cash and take the money then, wiping off a decent portion of your debt.
What is more likely is if the majority of the creditors want some of the money now the asset (house %) will be sold at a much reduced rate to an investment company. What ever it gets sold for will be shared among the creditors and the investment company will just sit back and wait until they can get the return from it. 
Nobody will be able to remove your mother from the house though. Basically the share you have inherited will just get passed to somebody else but under the same conditions as it was given to you.

dave3dtg

John_ said:

dave3dtg said:

Minkym00 said:

You are not reading the letter correctly. In this context the “property” is your inheritance, not the actual house. The letter would say the same whether your inheritance related to a house or not.

You can argue all day long that you don’t have a vested interest but if your father willed you a share then you do have a vested interest, simple as that.

“...by rights I should not be bankrupt from that moment”. How do you figure that? You went bust with £65k of debt and you came into a beneficial interest of £54k didn’t you? Still insolvent then. If, by the time the house is sold there is enough to pay your bankruptcy debts and the OR’s fees, then you can obtain an annulment of your bankruptcy. 

I can’t make head nor tail of your next point and seems to be rambling into fantasy. But if you’ve got an idea that could make that sort of money then pursue it. Find the investment. 

You have been told numerous times that the OR is not going to throw an 83 year old lady from her home, a judge would not allow it. The OR is not being cruel. With respect, you need to get a bit of a grip frankly.

At the risk of starting a thread within a thread....
We're in the UK where the words ideas and investment do not go together. 
No fantasy at all...it's basic economics, be the first to make something the world (or most of it at least) will buy, protect it, produce it and sell it.
No fantasy at all...I wrote my own patent application which was described by the examiner as one of the best she had ever seen. It took longer than normal to grant my patent because the whole office couldn't understand exactly how my idea worked.
No fantasy....I've won two awards but as it's the UK you get a glass trophy and no money to push the winning idea forward. If my prototype was finish at the time I'd have been up for Invention of The Year.
The stupidity of Brits and investing in ideas knows no bounds. If an idea can't be proven to be worth £Millions then it's not worth doing...give it up and get a job is the normal response.
Research proves how stupid this country is.

I don’t think that you are in any position to be calling other people stupid at this point, and to claim that the UK doesn’t do innovation well is just ridiculous.
We’re still one of the most inventive countries in the world, and the fact that you’ve not managed to make anything of yourself yet is down to you alone.
If you stop blaming others for your situation you can maybe start turning things around. It’ll be very hard to do while you think that nothing is your own fault.

You're right...my stupidity was going bankrupt when I could've spent many years avoiding my debts.

We've always been one of the most inventive/innovative nations in the world...that part isn't the stupid bit.
Historically we are at the top or near the top of The Global Innovation Index year on year...presently 6th I think. So that isn't the stupid bit. But here is the stupid bit...
Commercialisation and ownership in of those inventions and innovations is the incredibly stupid bit. We are strictly third world and bottom of the table for that.
Presently only 9% of Intellectual Property rights of inventions and innovations that are originated here are wholly UK owned....stupid.
Historically and in the 100 years prior to about 1985 the UK had thought of over 50% of the world's most profitable and significant inventions and innovations. However, as a country/economy we only profited/benefitted from less than 2% of them...incredibly stupid. Fiscally this would've been a gain of roughly £8billion or the equivalent each year. Basically it would be enough in today's money to wipe out our national debt. But as a nation we're to stupid to make the most of what we are. An American once said "you Brits, you can invent anything, but you couldn't produce or market yourselves out of a wet paper bag.
We're the 5th largest economy in the world. Remove financial services and we're 15th or 16th. Yet we're the most inventive....seems pretty stupid to me.
Yep, I was stupid to design and patent an award winning world first that had been attempted for 60+ years and which would've been purchased by up to 70% of its target market...totally daft. You should only invent things if you're already rich.

normanna

dave3dtd
You have received an asset which is now the Ors asset - which is the 8% share of the house.  They will wait until the house is sold on the death of your mother to get what you owe them.  I don't understand why you do not see this.

greensalad

dave3dtg said:

Yep, I was stupid to design and patent an award winning world first that had been attempted for 60+ years and which would've been purchased by up to 70% of its target market...totally daft. You should only invent things if you're already rich.

Sounds like your issues are sorted then with your award-winning invention.

dave3dtg

se2020 said:

I don't see how Dave can call anybody else stupid when he does not even seem to be able to understand the basics of what is going on with himself....

Dave, you have gone bankrupt,  the job of the OR is to get as much money back for the people you owe as possible. If some of those debts were not actually legal debts (like the £7k investment with no contract) or were statute barred then you should have been clever enough to work out they did not need to form part of the £65k bankruptcy case in the first place.

If the will is correct then you have inherited a share of a house. This share has a value of £56k or something. This asset is yours but you can not have any use of it because of the terms of the will. Presumably the trust is the solicitor who is responsible for ensuring you can not force your own mother out of the house to get your cash now. 
Because you are bankrupt with £65k outstanding this £56k asset will be taken from you by the OR. 
The OR is in exactly the same position you are in with this asset.  They own it but on the same terms as you do. They are unable to sell or force a sale of the house so they will just take ownership of the share and wait. They may even sell this share on at a reduced rate so they can have some money now and somebody else will wait until the other conditions (passing on/moving out of your mother) have been met.

If your brother wants to challenge the will he can but the OR will have the right to defend your (now theirs) position. Don't think you can go in with your brother to get yourself written out of the will, the money passed to him, then him give some back to you afterwards. The OR will know that trick and be watching for it.

Finally, if you think you can make £480 million from your invention then get as many jobs as you can, do as many hours as you can and save as much as you can until you have the capital to get it running. 
Don't expect many private investors to be interested after you have dropped £65k on other people who have lent you money and certainly don't expect me as a tax payer to fund you sweet anything.
If your invention really is worth that much it should be easy to sell the rights for it to a big name company. That should bring you in enough to settle the bankruptcy order and enough change to invest in another great idea.

And what if I hadn't put them in?
I took the advice of the OR's office thinking they were fair and honest...there I go being stupid again. No one I speak to knows anything about statute barred, not even heard of it. I signed up for bankruptcy and it's consequences in good faith...it seems the OR hasn't accepted my bankruptcy in good faith. So I've already suffered one of the OR's tricks.

The Will will be challenged as professional negligence. My parents had mirror Wills so with my Mum surviving, my Dad's Will is ineffective because in a legal sense when a new Will is written it supercedes any previous Will...much the same way as when my Mum has a new Will written her mirror Will is void. But I guess probate and The Land Registry will throw something up.

Unfortunately inventing doesn't work like that. As Trevor Baylis said "inventing is 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration". All the time you're slogging your guts out for someone else and bringing up a family there's no time for anything else. My most productive time was when I received that 7K. I made it last 2 years in conjunction with the back to work scheme and advanced my prototype to a level I never imagined possible.

I'm not saying you as a tax payer should find anything. You'd be paying tax any way regardless of what the government does with it. I'm saying that as an administrator the government should find the best way to create the right environment and society to encourage and support lone inventors/innovators to get to either being employers or a position where they don't approach big companies with just an idea on paper. I mean you want to live in a decent society don't you? You want as many people in work and off benefits as possible don't you? You'd love to live in a rich, debt free country wouldn't you? You'd reap the rewards and benefits inventing and innovation can bring. Yet as a tax payer you're not prepared to help. The British attitude is why should I help when the best attitude is to say how can I help...if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Your last paragraph pretty much sums up why UK inventors don't get anywhere and why most end up nowhere while rich companies make millions from their inventions/ideas. The vast majority of inventors who approach big companies with an idea on paper get totally ripped of...the aforementioned Trevor Baylis for one, Kane Kramer (MP3 player is another). It's the standard classic non-inventor advice, though the odd one does break the mould...perhaps you are that one.

Back to the OR. The OR can't sell what is now her interest and can only act on what I had and which would have benefitted me at the commencement or during my bankruptcy...my share can't be sold on, the Land Registry won't allow it.

Minkym00

If any of your debts are statute barred then they are non-provable and only creditors that are owed provable debts will get any distribution from a realised asset.

Stop thinking the OR is trying to trick you, they are not. Their job is to apply the legislation to everyone. If you have evidence that any of your debts are statute barred then provide that to the OR now. If you have a complaint about the advice you were given then submit a complaint to the Insolvency Service. If things have been done wrong they can only be righted by you highlighting it.

dave3dtg

Minkym00 said:

If any of your debts are statute barred then they are non-provable and only creditors that are owed provable debts will get any distribution from a realised asset.

Stop thinking the OR is trying to trick you, they are not. Their job is to apply the legislation to everyone. If you have evidence that any of your debts are statute barred then provide that to the OR now. If you have a complaint about the advice you were given then submit a complaint to the Insolvency Service. If things have been done wrong they can only be righted by you highlighting it.

I have no idea what would be needed as evidence to prove a debt is non-provable.
In round figures my bankruptcy is £65K.
This is made up of £46K of debt that is 6 to 10 years old, with £8K (actually written off by creditor) of it over 10 years old and none of which as far as I know is the subject of a court judgement.
£19K is under 6 years old and also as far as I know none is subject to a court judgement.

Also...a charging order could be placed on the property in relation to my Dad's will. However I read on Insolvency Service website that a TIB/OR is unlikely to attempt anything if a property is in trust.

Further, if The OR does succeed in putting a charging on the property surely it only lasts whilst my Dad's Will is in effect? My Mum's mirror Will (she will out live my bankruptcy by many years) states that the house is to be equally divided between the three of us and takes precedence upon her death. So essentially there will be no charging order because it's attached via an obsolete Will she'll have passed after my bankruptcy ends? 

dave3dtg

greensalad said:

dave3dtg said:

Yep, I was stupid to design and patent an award winning world first that had been attempted for 60+ years and which would've been purchased by up to 70% of its target market...totally daft. You should only invent things if you're already rich.

Sounds like your issues are sorted then with your award-winning invention.

Nope, I'm in the UK.

dave3dtg

normanna said:

dave3dtd
You have received an asset which is now the Ors asset - which is the 8% share of the house.  They will wait until the house is sold on the death of your mother to get what you owe them.  I don't understand why you do not see this.

I do see it along, just don't necessarily agree. But hey it's a good discussion if nothing else. It's just that there's Solicitors, Lawyers and Barristers in my family so maybe it's in my DNA.

greensalad

dave3dtg said:

greensalad said:

dave3dtg said:

Yep, I was stupid to design and patent an award winning world first that had been attempted for 60+ years and which would've been purchased by up to 70% of its target market...totally daft. You should only invent things if you're already rich.

Sounds like your issues are sorted then with your award-winning invention.

Nope, I'm in the UK.

There's a whole big world out there. You could easily contact investors abroad, you don't have to be in the same country as where you sell your invention?