Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Family home protected from possession order for second and third loan facilities
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refuses a financial institution's application for possession of a family home in relation to two out of three loan facilities, due to the absence of prior written consent from the non-owning spouse as required by the Family Home Protection Act, 1976. The original decision from the Circuit Court was partially upheld, with the High Court affirming that the second and third loans were not secured against the property. However, the High Court allowed the financial institution an opportunity to provide further evidence regarding its entitlement to the mortgagee's interest under the 1999 Mortgage for the first loan. The case highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory requirements for securing loans against family homes and the necessity for financial institutions to provide clear proof of their legal standing to enforce security.
Family Home Protection Act, 1976, mortgage, possession order, High Court, Circuit Court, loan facilities, consent, non-owning spouse, statutory requirements, security, evidence, financial institution, mortgagee's interest, 1999 Mortgage, statutory limitations, unsecured loans, legal standing, enforcement.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
