Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Just Go Bankrupt! *Update June 2011 - Laws to change
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:49 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Nov 6, 2006
Posts: 6856
Location: Australia
http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3 ... endocument


Quote:
The consequences of bankruptcy for the bankrupt

1. All of the bankrupt debtor's property at the date of the making of the bankruptcy order (called the " order of adjudication ") transfers to the Official Assignee with the exception of necessaries up to a value of €3100 or more if the court allows; all property which the bankrupt acquires after the date of the order of adjudication transfers to the Official Assignee if and when the Official Assignee claims it;

2. The bankrupt's salary or pension is liable to being appropriated by the court for the benefit of the creditors subject to any provision the court may make to meet the family responsibilities and personal situation of bankrupt;

3. If (s)he obtains credit of €650.00 or more without disclosing the bankruptcy, the bankrupt is guilty of an offence;

4. If (s)he trades in a name other than that in which s(he) was adjudged bank-rupt without disclosing the latter name , the bankrupt is guilty of an offence;

5. If the bankrupt acts as a director, manager, auditor, liquidator or receiver of a company without leave of the court, s(he) is guilty of an offence ;

6. The bankrupt has certain legal obligations in connection with the administration of his/her estate, including the delivery up of his accounts or papers to the Official Assignee when requested; the delivery of his/her property to the Official Assignee, the filing of a statement of affair the giving of every reasonable assistance to the Official Assignee in the administration of his/her estate; and the disclosure to the Official Assignee of any property acquired by the bankrupt since the date of the bankruptcy order.



Quote:
The consequences of bankruptcy for the creditor

The impact of a bankruptcy on a creditor will differ depending on whether the creditor holds security for the debt or not.

The preferential creditor
Certain kinds of debts are given priority for payment before other creditors may expect to receive a dividend. They include tax, rates and certain kinds of employee claims in respect of certain periods.

The unsecured creditor
1. can no longer exercise the ordinary remedies (e.g. execution, instalment orders, registration of judgement mortgages) available to a creditor;

2. must take benefit of the bankruptcy and unless the creditor has a preferential status, will rank equally with the other unsecured creditors;

3. is not entitled to claim contractual/judgement interest beyond date of adjudication unless a surplus arises in the bankruptcy;

4. must await discharge of the Official Assignee's and Petitioning creditor's costs, expenses, fees and preferential payments before receiving a dividend;

The secured creditor must elect whether:
(a) to rely upon the security held, realise the asset comprising the security, and prove for the unsatisfied balance following realisation or

(b) to value the security at a specific figure and prove as an unsecured creditor for the difference between this figure and the total debt owing or

(c) to abandon the security and prove as an unsecured creditor for the entire debt.



Quote:
How is a person released from bankruptcy ?
A debtor may be released ( "discharged") from bankruptcy in a number of ways, set out below, all of which, however, require that enough funds must have been realised to cover the costs, fees, expenses and preferential debts arising in the bankruptcy.

Discharge after payment of debts in full
Where the debtor's creditors have been paid in full, together with such interest as the court allows. Where the bankrupt's property is sufficient to permit payment of interest at the rate payable on judgements, that rate will apply .

Discharge with the creditors' consent
Where all of the debtor's unsecured creditors consent.

Discharge after making composition with the creditors
Where the debtor has provided the Official Assignee with the funds needed to meet a settlement (called a "composition after bankruptcy" ) with his unsecured creditors - for a settlement to be effective, it must receive the support of at least sixty per cent in number and value of the unsecured creditors voting on it.



Discharge after paying fifty pence in the pound
Where the debtor's property has been fully realised and his/her creditors have received fifty pence in the pound on their debts.

Discharge after twelve years
Where the bankruptcy has lasted for twelve years, the debtor's property has been fully realised, and the court is satisfied that the debtor has disclosed any property acquired since bankruptcy and that it would be reasonable and proper to discharge the debtor from bankruptcy.

On being discharged from bankruptcy, any funds or property remaining are returned to the former bankrupt.

Are there alternatives to being made a bankrupt ?
Yes, there are. A debtor may enter into an arrangement with his/her creditors for the settlement of the debts due to them, and to avoid bankruptcy or other proceedings being taken against the debtor. Arrangements with creditors are of two kinds, voluntary arrangements and arrangements under the court's control.

Voluntary arrangements
A debtor may agree with his creditors collectively to pay them a proportion of the mount owing to them in full discharge of their debts, or may agree to transfer specific property to a trustee on terms that the trustee sell the property and distribute the proceeds of sale among the creditors. In either case, the agreement will be set out in a deed. For the deed to be effective, a copy of it, and of any document attached to it, must be registered in the Central Office of the High Court.

Arrangements under the control of the court
A debtor may ask the court for protection against proceedings being taken against him/her, so as to give the debtor time to present a proposal to his/her creditors, whether for the payment of a dividend on their debts or for the transfer of property to the Official Assignee to be sold and distributed among the creditors. For the proposal to succeed, the costs, fees , expenses and preferential debts must be paid in full, and the proposal must receive the support of at least sixty per cent in number and value of the unsecured creditors voting on it.



Quote:
The consequences of bankruptcy for family members
The home

Where the bankrupt owns, whether solely or jointly with another person, a dwellinghouse which is or has been the family home, the Official Assignee may not sell the home without obtaining permission from the court. Where such permission is sought, the court may postpone the sale of the home having regard to the interests of the creditors and of the spouse and dependants of the bankrupt as well as to all the circumstances of the case;

Where the bankrupt holds property jointly with his/her spouse, or another person, the bankruptcy causes the joint ownership to be split , and the Official Assignee and the non-bankrupt co-owner will then hold separate interests in the property.

Contents
A bankrupt is entitled to retain, as items excluded from seizure, articles of clothing, furniture and tools or equipment relating to his/her trade, or other necessaries for the family and any dependent relatives residing with the bankrupt, to a value of €3100.00 The bankrupt may apply to the court to increase that figure.

Income
Where the Official Assignee applies to the court for the appropriation of part of the bankrupt's salary, income or pension, the court, in directing any deduction to be made, may have regard to the family responsibilities and personal situation of the bankrupt.

Social welfare and unemployment payments are not liable to appropriation.



Persons having commercial relations with a bankrupt
The following are some common examples of third parties having dealings with a bankrupt .

Property owned jointly with a bankrupt
Where a person owns property jointly with a bankrupt, the bankruptcy operates to split the joint ownership, and separate interests are then held in the property by the non-bankrupt co-owner and the Official Assignee.

Leases to the bankrupt
A covenant in a lease for forfeiture of the lease in the event of the lessee's bankruptcy is void as against the Official Assignee. On the other hand , the Official Assignee may , with the permission of the court, disclaim a leasehold interest which contains onerous covenants at any time within twelve months from the date of the bankruptcy order, or later if the court permits. In that case, the landlord may make a claim as a creditor in the bankruptcy for any damages incurred by the disclaimer. However, the court may, before considering the Official Assignee's request, require the Official Assignee to put the landlord or others affected on notice of the request, and may impose conditions on any disclaimer. The Official Assignee is precluded from disclaiming a leasehold interest where a party affected has requested him in writing to decide whether or not to disclaim , and the Official Assignee has not replied within twenty-eight days indicating an intention to disclaim. A landlord who has distrained goods of a bankrupt lessee within three months before the bankruptcy order will share in the proceeds of sale of the goods on an equal footing with the preferential creditors of the bankrupt.

Partnerships
A partnership in which the bankrupt has been involved is dissolved by the bankruptcy, unless the terms of the partnership provide for it to continue.

_________________
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2281&p=374552&hilit=IMF+database#p374552
^^DOOM ^^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:54 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Nov 6, 2006
Posts: 6856
Location: Australia
Sounds like they would bleed ya dry taking your car, pension and some of your salary.


So what do you make of this bit (from above)

Quote:
Discharge after paying fifty pence in the pound
Where the debtor's property has been fully realised and his/her creditors have received fifty pence in the pound on their debts.

_________________
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2281&p=374552&hilit=IMF+database#p374552
^^DOOM ^^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:20 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Nov 6, 2006
Posts: 6856
Location: Australia
If you only have to pay half back then whats to stop mass bankruptcies?
Someone tell me Im missing something here
What am I leaving out? If you need only pay them 50% back then I see no reason why we will not have waves of bankruptcies

_________________
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2281&p=374552&hilit=IMF+database#p374552
^^DOOM ^^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:41 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Nov 7, 2006
Posts: 5308
Location: Cloud 9
Well, you only need to pay back 50%, but you will not be able to get any financing for 12 years, you lose pretty much all your salary (over a living allowance), all your pension, all your assets pretty much.

That being said, if you owe 700k on a 300k house, it may be worth while.

_________________
Landlord throwing you out on your ear so he can sell?
Need to save a few bob?
Then take a look at the bargain aisle
http://www.thebargainaisle.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:44 am 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: Sep 13, 2007
Posts: 27309
Location: Tullamore
whizzbang wrote:
Well, you only need to pay back 50%, but you will not be able to get any financing for 12 years, you lose pretty much all your salary (over a living allowance), all your pension, all your assets pretty much.

That being said, if you owe 700k on a 300k house, it may be worth while.

The thing about not getting any financing for the next 12 years is the bit that concerns most people, I think. Would this be the case if there were masses of bankrupts in need of finance?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:46 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Nov 6, 2006
Posts: 6856
Location: Australia
12 years lads or 40 years being unable to afford to get a loan anyway

_________________
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2281&p=374552&hilit=IMF+database#p374552
^^DOOM ^^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:47 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Jan 27, 2007
Posts: 5131
Location: Elsewhere
Quote:
Would this be the case if there were masses of bankrupts in need of finance?


They'd just introduce Subprime to Ireland.
We've never had it before you know...

-Rd

_________________
www.IrishHomeTruths.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:47 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Jan 10, 2008
Posts: 5353
Location: BubbleBurst Ireland
Batoneffect,
if you put some of your hard earned income into a property could'nt afford the payments for whatever reason and had to walk away would it not be better if the law was on your side to some degree and not just out to "lynch you"?

What I mean by that is would'nt it be better if the banks had to shoulder some of the responsibility for lending, something they have avoided so far during the bubble? I.e. if they could'nt touch you for sending "jingle mail" in the post they would not be so keen to throw their money around.

The obvious result of this is it works against a bubble forming and ensures people get a fair shake instead of having a licence to screw every last penny out of you for 40 years.

_________________
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Winston Churchill


A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.
Dwight D. Eisenhower


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:49 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Nov 6, 2006
Posts: 6856
Location: Australia
spqr64 wrote:
Batoneffect,
if you put some of your hard earned income into a property could'nt afford the payments for whatever reason and had to walk away would it not be better if the law was on your side to some degree and not just out to "lynch you"?

What I mean by that is would'nt it be better if the banks had to shoulder some of the responsibility for lending, something they have avoided so far during the bubble? I.e. if they could'nt touch you for sending "jingle mail" in the post they would not be so keen to throw their money around.

The obvious result of this is it works against a bubble forming and ensures people get a fair shake instead of having a licence to screw every last penny out of you for 40 years.

I see what your gettin at and maybe it would entice them to calm down lending but isnt it easier to walk away in the states yet they have mental numbers of reposessions etc - I really dont know enough about either to draw comparisons. Maybe someone else can! :?

_________________
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2281&p=374552&hilit=IMF+database#p374552
^^DOOM ^^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:53 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 7091
Location: Multiverse
Anyone who considers bankruptcy an easy option needs a slap across the face. A few of my clients experienced it in the past, and trust me, you DONT wanna go there !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:54 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Nov 7, 2006
Posts: 5308
Location: Cloud 9
mr_anderson wrote:
Anyone who considers bankruptcy an easy option needs a slap across the face. A few of my clients experienced it in the past, and trust me, you DONT wanna go there !


Oh, the inside scoop. so what happens in reality? Do people just give up trying to earn?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:14 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: Nov 9, 2006
Posts: 1427
spqr64 wrote:
Batoneffect,
if you put some of your hard earned income into a property could'nt afford the payments for whatever reason and had to walk away would it not be better if the law was on your side to some degree and not just out to "lynch you"?

What I mean by that is would'nt it be better if the banks had to shoulder some of the responsibility for lending, something they have avoided so far during the bubble? I.e. if they could'nt touch you for sending "jingle mail" in the post they would not be so keen to throw their money around.

The obvious result of this is it works against a bubble forming and ensures people get a fair shake instead of having a licence to screw every last penny out of you for 40 years.


People were not marched into banks at gunpoint and forced to borrow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:05 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 5541
spqr64 wrote:
if they could'nt touch you for sending "jingle mail" in the post they would not be so keen to throw their money around.


Except, look at what's gone on in the US.

The problem there was that the people selling the mortgages were totally focussed on selling mortgages. The more mortgages they sold, the more commi$$ion they got paid. Whether or not any of those mortgages would ever be repaid becomes someone else's problem.

In the IT industry, the sub-prime crisis would be described as 'a post sales issue'. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:28 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance
User avatar

Joined: Jan 27, 2007
Posts: 5131
Location: Elsewhere
Quote:
if you put some of your hard earned income into a property could'nt afford the payments for whatever reason and had to walk away would it not be better if the law was on your side to some degree and not just out to "lynch you"?


That Law isn't out to lynch anyone. Up until now, and still now to a great extent, the Law does everything it can to make sure you stay in your house.

Up until now when the numbers involved were small, the banks often did everything in their power to make sure you stayed in the house.

the numbers involved are now growing so rapidly that the banks have a legitimate concern that they may become owners and landlords of a very significant chunk of the countries housing, and the banks are not fools, they know that property is not an asset that you want a major exposure to right now. They also know that cash is something they really need, so they're pushing to get bad mortgages off their books to an extent that they didn't before.


Quote:
What I mean by that is would'nt it be better if the banks had to shoulder some of the responsibility for lending,


They do shoulder responsibility. If you think the banks can walk away from this without losing money then you haven't been watching the news.
By the time it gets as far as the courts the bank has already lost money and is shouldering some of the blame.

I don't think banks should be able to add on thousands of euro's in legal fees to a relatively small bill, that's a recipe for ensuring that there's no happy ending for anyone, and it's an attempt by the bank to grap as much extra as they can.

Perhaps if he maximum legal costs that could be awarded was pegged to the size of the arrears then you might see the banks being a bit more helpful to people with smaller arrears.

Quote:
The obvious result of this is it works against a bubble forming and ensures people get a fair shake instead of having a licence to screw every last penny out of you for 40 years.


Not necessarily. The question of lending practices and how the banks behave in a boom is completely separate from the question of how they behave in a bust. It's sad but tue, business is short sighted. Take what you can when you can, and hope someone else is sitting in your chair when it goes tits up.

-Rd

_________________
www.IrishHomeTruths.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:42 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Oct 29, 2007
Posts: 7091
Location: Multiverse
whizzbang wrote:
mr_anderson wrote:
Anyone who considers bankruptcy an easy option needs a slap across the face. A few of my clients experienced it in the past, and trust me, you DONT wanna go there !


Oh, the inside scoop. so what happens in reality? Do people just give up trying to earn?


Completely the opposite.
You bust your balls to pay off the debt as soon as possible. 2 or 3 jobs are often necessary.
You also live entirely without any form of credit, wheather loans or cards.
It also entails selling everything you have and being forced to live with friends and/or relatives for as long as nexessary.
It is NOT a road you voluntarily want to go down.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: discostu, Google Feedfetcher, Madness of Crowds and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to: