The High Court adjourned two applications to approve personal insolvency arrangements for Frank and Teresa McNamara, giving Frank McNamara a further opportunity to explain conflicting information about an inheritance and rent from inherited property.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald said he could not yet be satisfied that the proposed arrangements brought the debtors’ means fully to bear for creditors, or that Frank McNamara had provided a satisfactory prescribed financial statement. He said further evidence could address those concerns. The court did not approve or reject the arrangements at this stage.
The applications, brought by a personal insolvency practitioner under section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Act, sought confirmation of interlocking arrangements. Tanager DAC, which holds security over the couple’s family home in County Meath, objected. The proposed arrangements would write down its secured debt by about €1.72 million and leave €550,000 secured on the home. The judgment records that Tanager had previously obtained an order for possession, which had not been executed before protective certificates were issued.
The court resolved several issues raised by Tanager. It admitted an affidavit concerning service of the applications, finding that the deponent had signed it despite placing her signature incorrectly. It also found that the creditor-class voting requirement was met: First Citizen Finance DAC could count as a separate class in Frank McNamara’s case because its security included land outside the family home, while the Revenue Commissioners could count as a separate class in Teresa McNamara’s case. The judge also found the arrangements sustainable on the evidence then before him and concluded that the debtors’ past payment record did not, by itself, prevent relief.
The remaining concern arose from differences between a January 2016 financial statement and the prescribed statements completed in October 2016. The earlier statement valued Frank McNamara’s half share in his parents’ house at about €500,000 and recorded monthly rent of about €800. The later statement gave an inheritance value of €182,500 and did not record rental income. The judge said the discrepancy required an explanation and supporting exhibits. He noted that the 2016 financial statement preceded the prescribed statement, but said that the difference had not yet been explained.
The judgment concluded that, but for the need for a further affidavit, the applications should be allowed. The matter was adjourned briefly for Frank McNamara to address the inherited property’s value and rental income. The judge said further argument might be needed if the explanation proved incomplete or unsatisfactory.