who is liable for the loss
2007-03-13 05:21:38 · 11 answers · asked by richard o 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No-one is laible for the loss, but it is the owner who is out of pocket.
The owner borrowed some money from the bank, and the bank took ownership of the house because the owner failed to keep up payments that had been secured on the house.
The bank then sold the house for enough money to cover what they were owed.
The bank has their money - the owner is down 50,000 worth of house.
2007-03-13 05:26:10 · answer #1 · answered by mark 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a complicated question to which you cannot receive a definitive answer without more. Assuming that the original mortagage was greater than £20,000 the "shortfall" can be sought from the mortgagor (the person who took out the mortgage) but mention is made in other answers to limitation - the claim must be brought within 12 years of accrual of the cause of action. This is very important, but if the debt is acknowledged in the meantime time could start running again. Professional advice must be taken.
2007-03-13 13:00:02 · answer #2 · answered by Rich n 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The person who holds the morgage on the property. If the property was repossessed then it was repossessed for non payment. There will be a value attached to the morgage and the 20,000 less costs will be taken from the amount owed. The person who signed that morgage with the lender is liable for any shortfall in the sale.
2007-03-13 12:31:44 · answer #3 · answered by clever investor 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bank have to try to make an effort to sell it a high price but all this involves is advertising the sale once then accepting the highest offer. If they did this then they're in the right - this is a common occurrence.
Also pay attention to what the other guy said - you're probably out of time to claim it back anyway.
2007-03-13 16:45:06 · answer #4 · answered by Joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The lender obtained the best price, any other losses are unsecured, but since this was over 12 years ago, the limitations may apply.
The normal course could have been bankruptcy or an iva!
2007-03-13 12:39:35 · answer #5 · answered by logicalawyer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I remember paying a one off premium when I bought my first house (mortgage indemnity I think....?) The guy who sorted the mortgage told me that this payment was insurance for the bank in case this sort of thing happened ie. the bank could claim the remaining £30,000 from this insurance that I paid for. He also told me that the bank would more than likely chase me for the shortfall as well - ridiculous!
2007-03-13 12:31:59 · answer #6 · answered by Trillyp 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a racket which unscrupulous estate agents and developers have run for a long time. Government intervention is required to ensure the property is sold at market value.
2007-03-13 12:30:53 · answer #7 · answered by Geoff E 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually it is sold for hte value outstanding, the bank or mortgage lender who sold it would only be looking to recover the outstanding bill.
2007-03-13 12:26:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the owner is liable, sounds like the unfortunate sting of the early ninties negative equity in the UK
2007-03-13 12:29:22 · answer #9 · answered by Notre1Dame 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The person who didn't keep up the payments. He or she should have sold the house when they ran into difficulties if they thought they get more
2007-03-13 12:28:27 · answer #10 · answered by Professor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋