Guarantor loan trouble

jonesMUFCforever

MinuteNoodles said:

jonesMUFCforever said:

This thread is not about applying for a mortgage or self-certifying - its about signing a guarantee to make good a liability in husband's name if business goes bust.

WOOOOSH. The whole point was to illustrate the fact that back then financial institutions didn't bother doing any checks and the government were happy about that.

Not my problem that someone signed something as a guarantor and has been held to task. I bet the old "my husband made me do it" line has been used by many an aggrieved spouse when relationships have gone down the pan and lenders have pursued them for the money.

With lending I agree with you 100%
But you, as well as other posters on here are missing the point that the OP has made - she claims she signed a guarantee for her husband's debt in a branch - I dispute this. The guarantee would be worthless unless she had independent legal advice (you know to advise her what a guarantor means!) This means she would have had to go to a solicitor of her choice to be told what she was signing.
There is legal precedent about this - and the reason I believe they still do it.

MinuteNoodles

jonesMUFCforever said:

The guarantee would be worthless unless she had independent legal advice (you know to advise her what a guarantor means!) This means she would have had to go to a solicitor of her choice to be told what she was signing.

You're talking rubbish.

jonesMUFCforever

MinuteNoodles said:

jonesMUFCforever said:

The guarantee would be worthless unless she had independent legal advice (you know to advise her what a guarantor means!) This means she would have had to go to a solicitor of her choice to be told what she was signing.

You're talking rubbish.

When did you last take out a business loan which was guaranteed by a third party?

jonesMUFCforever

Have a look at RBS v Etridge court case.

jonesMUFCforever

or Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1975] 

KittyHawk

You are talking rubbish. It's called '(actual) undue influence' and there's reams and reams of case law. I agree she hasn't got a chance twenty years on, when the husband is dead, but the principle is completely and utterly sound. 

MinuteNoodles

jonesMUFCforever said:

When did you last take out a business loan which was guaranteed by a third party?

I didn't because I'm not so incredibly stupid as to ever do that. If you're setting up as a Ltd Company you're literally setting fire to one of the main reasons to be operating as a limited company - protection from debts if it all goes to crap.

jonesMUFCforever

MinuteNoodles said:

jonesMUFCforever said:

When did you last take out a business loan which was guaranteed by a third party?

I didn't because I'm not so incredibly stupid as to ever do that. If you're setting up as a Ltd Company you're literally setting fire to one of the main reasons to be operating as a limited company - protection from debts if it all goes to crap.

Well good luck in securing any borrowing with a Ltd company without giving security.

jonesMUFCforever

Kitty are you Doris in disguise?
Doris aka a troll has not been back since the first post a week ago.
The work I did a long time ago must have been a fiction of my imagination then>? Never mind you know best LOL

KittyHawk

Er - no, I'm not 'Doris'. I've barely got time to go to the loo these days, let alone change my username to troll you. 

Having read your posts, I'm actually not clear what point you're trying to make, but here's mine: 'Etridge' was 2001, and it established the principle that banks should be alive to the possibility of undue influence where there was a manifest disadvantage to one (spousal) party. As the OP's experience was pre-2001, she may well have been (as many wives were) a victim of undue influence, having had no independent legal advice. She won't be able to *do* anything about it - as I acknowledged - but that doesn't change her putative position. And it's 'figment', not 'fiction'. 
Why don't you use your extensive legal knowledge to assist your man Maguire. Talk about the dangers of over-validating a modest talent.