The High Court has found that Seniors Money Mortgages (Ireland) DAC established its entitlement to possession of a residential property in Sligo used as security for a reverse mortgage. The court did not set out the final terms of the possession order or decide whether it would be stayed; it listed those matters for a hearing on 29 July 2024.
The loan was advanced to Elizabeth Murphy, who died in March 2018. Under the loan and mortgage terms, the balance became repayable on demand after her death. The plaintiff sought possession after demands were made to her personal representatives and later to Donal Fingleton, appointed administrator ad litem of her estate for the proceedings. No repayment was made following the demands.
The court examined whether interest could continue to accrue after Murphy’s death and whether the loan terms were unfair under the consumer contract rules. The plaintiff said the loan documents provided for interest to accrue until the loan was repaid. The judge concluded that the terms were expressed in plain and intelligible language and made clear that interest would continue after death until repayment. He therefore held that the interest terms fell outside the scope of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive. He added that, even if the terms were within its scope, he saw likely no basis to find them unfair.
The judgment noted that more than €40,000 in additional interest had accrued after Murphy’s death. The amount due was stated as €103,712.62 when demanded and €145,190.65 as of 28 May 2024. The court observed that proceedings had taken more than six years since her death, with delay attributed in part to the Covid pandemic and the need to appoint an administrator.
The demands had overstated the amount then due. The plaintiff’s solicitor accepted responsibility for the error, saying the figure had been carried over inadvertently from an unrelated precedent document. The judge held that an overstated demand remained effective because the loan documents did not make accuracy of the stated sum a condition of a valid demand, and it was clear that payment of the loan balance was required. The judgment also noted that no tender of the amount actually due had been made.
The judge concluded that the plaintiff had met the necessary proofs for possession. The parties were to address the terms of final orders and any stay at a hearing listed for 2pm on 29 July 2024.