Deeds high court ruling void what a twist

[bhall]

ALL THE PEOPLE SUCH AS BHALL AND THE REST OF THE POSTERS ON THE SITE THAT HELPED AND OFFERED INFORMATION TO DEEDS BEING VOID THREAD PLEASE SEE

http://self-realisation.com/equity/banksterbusters/summary-judgment-mortgage-deed-declared-void-in-the-high-court/ :smile:

 

Hello Alisono

 

As you know the deed in the case of BOS v Waugh was not found to be void for any of the reasons discussed in the "void deed" thread. The main reason discussed in that thread was if a deed was void if it had not been signed by the lender. As we now know, following the Property Chamber decision a mortgage deed is not void if it has not been signed by the lender.

 

The reason the deed was found to be void in BOS v Waugh was simple -

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html

 

63. It is not in dispute that the Trustees were individuals and that the Charge was not attested in accordance with the section. The lack of attestation appears on the face of the charge itself.

 

64. It follows that the Charge was not validly executed as a Deed. It also follows that it was void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate.

 

As said, nothing to do with any of the fanciful ideas posted in the other thread that the Property Chamber concluded were "wholly without merit and which rests on a misunderstanding of the formalities necessary to create a valid charge"

 

However, going back to the case of Bank of Scotland v Waugh, a chapter of that story has been overlooked in the link you have posted

 

http://www.burges-salmon.com/practices/disputes_and_litigation/publications/property_litigation_caselaw_update.pdf

 

Incomplete execution of security

 

A development loan was provided to a trust and secured by a charge. The charge was signed by the individual trustees but not witnessed. Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires charges to be completed as a deed which, under section 1(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions), required that the trustees signatures were witnessed. Without the witness attestations, the document was not properly signed as a deed and therefore failed to create a legal charge.

 

The document did however create an equitable charge because it was in writing, contained all of the terms and was signed by all the parties (in compliance with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989). In a subsequent action (No. 2), the bank obtained an order to perfect the equitable charge into a legal charge.

 

However, this case is more notable for the arguments on estoppel. The bank argued that the trustees were estopped from denying the validity of the charge. This argument failed because there was no witness attestation at all, whereas the authorities on estoppel require some form of witness attestation, albeit incorrect - shah v Shah [2001] EWCA Civ 527 distinguished from Briggs v Gleeds [2014] EWHC 1178 (Ch).

 

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) and No. 2 [2014] EWHC 2835 (Ch)

[bhall]

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh No. 2 [2014] EWHC 2835 (Ch)

 

http://www.legalmortgage.co.uk/#/aug-14/4586333349

 

Case summary

 

Despite having handed down judgment, the judge acceded to an application by a litigant in person to reconsider the contents, but then dismissed the application. The court went on to grant relief on the bank’s application.

 

Facts

 

In Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (reported in the July 2014 update) it was held that a registered charge which did not contain an attestation clause could not take effect as a legal charge by estoppel and would be rectified, but it could still take effect as an equitable charge. On handing down judgment , W asked the judge to effectively reconsider his judgment, and BoS applied for an order requiring the bank’s charge to be perfected under the mortgage conditions by the execution of a legal charge.

 

Held

 

Since W’s application was before the judge before he had handed down judgment, it was felt appropriate to consider the points he raised. The main point was that the legal charge was not enforceable as a contract to create a legal charge or as an equitable mortgage however the legal charge had been signed by both parties and complied with s 2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. W also challenged the account balance but the mortgage conditions provided that in the absence of manifest error any determination by the bank was conclusive and binding. There was no realistic prospect of challenge. Next W wanted to rely on a letter which suggested that [W] may not be personally liable for the debt, but this was insufficient to give rise to en estoppel. Accordingly the judge was unwilling to reconsider his judgment.

 

On the bank’s application, the court made an order under s 39(1) Senior Courts Act 1981 that in default of execution of the charge by W, it shall be executed by a District Judge of the High Court, Chancery Division.

[bhall]

I've just seen this thread. I kept away from referencing anything to do with the FTT decision on the CaG out of respect for the CaG's decision to close the threads that related to it.

 

Personally, I think you should have kept away out of respect for people such as alisono, is it me?, UNRAM and co that lost financially as a result of your previous posts, rather than out of respect to CAG. However, you do not appear to be concerned about them.

 

Isn't it odd that the poster on the self realisation site has made no reference to the (no.2) hearing as detailed in post four of this thread and the details that they have posted on the self realisation site bear such little resemblance to the official record as posted above of the no.1 case.

 

Caggers can read about both cases via the below links

 

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh & Ors [2014] EWHC 2117 (Ch) (21 July 2014)

 

Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 2835 (Ch)

 

Caggers can read into that what they will

 

I think I have commented enough on this subject in the below thread (and feel little need to comment further, as my view is the same as the outcome of the hearing at the property chamber)

 

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

 

So I will just leave it for the Judge (being the same person who you previously championed in your posts about Garguilo) to comment

 

Sinclair v Accord Mortgages Ltd (Rectification or Setting Aside of Documents : Grounds for setting aside) [2014] EWLandRA 2013_0031 (21 February 2014)

 

2.The grounds relied on by Mr Sinclair and Mr and Mrs Overson are substantially the same. The Tribunal has received a number of similar applications by mortgagors, and the same, or substantially the same, arguments have been run in the County Court in other cases, some of which are referred to below. At the heart of these and other applications is the primary allegation that the charges are invalid as the lenders did not execute the relevant deeds. This argument originated in a document posted on the internet. It is, however, an argument wholly without merit, and which rests on a misunderstanding of the formalities necessary to create a valid charge as security for a loan.

 

34. It is important to emphasise that the execution of a deed is the method by which a person transfers or creates a legal estate or interest in his property. It is, by its very nature, a unilateral act. There is no requirement for the mortgagee (or, for example, for the transferee in the event of a sale of land) to sign or execute the deed. The deed is itself the actual disposition. It is to be distinguished from a contract to sell or grant a charge, which, by definition, requires the agreement of two or more parties.

 

38. In the present cases, the charges were properly executed as deeds by the Applicants. There is no merit whatsoever in any of the points taken by or on behalf of the Applicants to seek to impugn the validity of the two charges.

 

Out of respect to the caggers that listened to you last time, don't you think you should just let this one drop.

 

Don't you feel that you have done enough damage already ? I know the outcome of the incorrect information you previously posted had little impact upon you personally, with the exception of bruising your ego, it did however have serious financial implications for the caggers that took you seriously

 

I know I do

 

No doubt you will continue to post on this topic clutching at each and every straw, never mind how strenuous the link in an attempt to support your flawed, disproved and fanciful ideas. Thats your prerogative as it is mine to choose not to engage in pointless debate with someone that is unable to accept that they were wrong. The sheer fact so few signed your petition should serve as an indication of how little faith there is in your claims.

 

Ben