Judgment: 2015-01-23 · Court archive

High Court refuses credit union applications to charge and sell two family homes

The court declined the lender’s applications concerning properties jointly owned by two borrowers and their spouses, citing the homes’ family use and the spouses’ circumstances.

The High Court · [2015] IEHC 107

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Muintir Skibereen Credit Union Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Cornelius Crowley (Defendant)
  • Brendan Hamilton (Defendant)
  • Michael White (Judge)
  • Donal O’Driscoll
What

The court declined the lender’s applications concerning properties jointly owned by two borrowers and their spouses, citing the homes’ family use and the spouses’ circumstances.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The defendants raised technical objections to the judgment mortgages, arguing that the affidavit jurat being on a separate sheet made the mortgage invalid and that Donal O’Driscoll was not authorised to swear the affidavit. The court rejected those arguments, finding the mortgages had been appropriately registered and that O’Driscoll was an appropriate person to swear the affidavit.

The High Court has refused a credit union’s applications for well charging orders and the sale of two properties jointly owned by borrowers and their spouses.

The special summonses were brought by Muintir Skibereen Credit Union Limited against Cornelius Crowley and Brendan Hamilton. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael White on 23 January 2015, says both properties were family homes and the applications were made under section 31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.

The borrowers had obtained a commercial loan to develop property but were unable to repay it after financial difficulties and the collapse of the property market. The credit union obtained judgment on 5 October 2011 for €562,500 and costs of €355.98. The judgments were registered against both properties on 9 December 2011.

The defendants raised technical objections to the judgment mortgages, arguing that the affidavit jurat being on a separate sheet made the mortgage invalid and that Donal O’Driscoll was not authorised to swear the affidavit. The court rejected those arguments, finding the mortgages had been appropriately registered and that O’Driscoll was an appropriate person to swear the affidavit.

In considering whether to grant the requested orders, the judge noted that neither spouse had been consulted about the commercial loan or signed documents putting the family home up as security. The court also considered that Crowley’s wife had responsibility for three dependent children, aged 13, eight and six, and that Hamilton’s wife was in ill health. The judgment says both borrowers were in serious debt and that the spouses’ half share of any net sale proceeds would not provide either family with enough to buy another family home.

The court exercised its discretion to refuse both applications. It did not order the properties charged or sold.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review