The High Court has sanctioned the sale of a jointly owned family home in Tallaght, Dublin 24, but postponed the sale and stayed an order for possession for two years to account for the interests of the bankrupt’s spouse and dependent children.
In a judgment delivered on 12 November 2019, Mr Justice David Barniville refused A.R.’s request to adjourn the Official Assignee’s application. A.R. said he hoped to challenge a barring order preventing him from living at the property, and might then offer to buy the Official Assignee’s interest. The judge said he saw no realistic prospect of A.R. returning in the short or medium term, but stressed that he was not prejudging any future challenge to the barring order or issues in family-law proceedings.
The Official Assignee applied under the Bankruptcy Act 1988 and the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 for sanction to sell the property. A.R. and his estranged wife, J.L.R., each held a 50% interest. A.R.’s share had vested in the Official Assignee when he was adjudicated bankrupt in February 2015. Because the sale application was made before the third anniversary of that adjudication, the judge held that the share had not revested in A.R. after his discharge.
J.L.R. told the court she lived at the home with three of their four children, had no alternative accommodation and was paying the mortgage and household costs. She opposed a sale and said she intended to pursue family-law proceedings. The eldest child lived abroad but regarded the property as the family home. The Official Assignee accepted that the sale could be postponed for up to two years.
The only valuation before the court put the property at €400,000 in September 2017. The mortgage balance was about €261,000 at the October 2019 hearing, including about €53,000 in arrears. The judge estimated the equity attributable to the Official Assignee’s interest at about €65,000, while noting it could change if J.L.R.’s claimed contributions were supported by evidence. He said her submissions about those contributions were unvouched.
The court concluded that the creditors’ interests had to be balanced against those of J.L.R. and the dependent children. It sanctioned the sale under section 61(4) and postponed it for two years under section 61(5). It also granted the Official Assignee carriage of the sale, subject to that postponement, and ordered possession, stayed for two years. The court did not determine the requested accounts and enquiries at that stage, saying it would hear further from counsel. It said the orders could be reviewed, rescinded or varied if circumstances changed.