SPML/LMC anyone claimed for mis selling and unfair charges?

[Suetonius]

Firstly, Happy New Year Everyone !!!!!

 

I hope that 2010 is really good to you all and I would like to give a warm welcome back to Superslueth.

 

Now just incase you need further proof, check out the HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Brown Wilkinson and his take on the law. Read it for the principles of law when there is an issue of retaining or separting legal and equitable titles. It's in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v London Borough of Islington:

 

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 (22 May 1996)

 

The Retention of Title Point

It is said that, since the Bank only intended to part with its beneficial ownership of the monies in performance of a valid contract, neither the legal nor the equitable title passed to the local authority at the date of payment.

The legal title vested in the local authority by operation of law when the monies became mixed in the bank account but, it is said, the Bank "retained" its equitable title.

I think this argument is fallacious. A person solely entitled to the full beneficial ownership of money or property, both at law and in equity, does not enjoy an equitable interest in that property. The legal title carries with it all rights. Unless and until there is a separation of the legal and equitable estates, there is no separate equitable title. Therefore to talk about the Bank "retaining" its equitable interest is meaningless. The only question is whether the circumstances under which the money was paid were such as, in equity, to impose a trust on the local authority. If so, an equitable interest arose for the first time under that trust.

 

The Separation of Title Point

The Bank's submission, at its widest, is that if the legal title is in A

but the equitable interest in B. A holds as trustee for B.

Again I think this argument is fallacious. There are many cases where B enjoys rights which, in equity, are enforceable against the legal owner, A. without A being a trustee, e.g. an equitable right to redeem a mortgage,

equitable easements, restrictive covenants, the right to rectification, an insurer's right by subrogation to receive damages subsequently recovered by the assured: Lord Napier and Ettrick v. Hunter [1993] A.C. 713. Even in

cases where the whole beneficial interest is vested in B and the bare legal interest is in A. A is not necessarily a trustee, e.g. where title to land is acquired by estoppel as against the legal owner: a mortgagee who has fully discharged his indebtedness enforces his right to recover the mortgaged property in a redemption action, not an action for breach of trust.

 

Secondly,

 

The starting point for understanding how the trust, and the distinct forms of ownership which characterise it, come into being is the decision in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669, and particularly the now very famous passage from the judgment of Lord Browne-Wilkinson. That judgment insisted, probably as part of the ratio of the case, that the owner of any property is vested with legal title alone.

 

It is only when separation of title is sought that distinct equitable ownership will arise. Indeed, it is clear in light of Westdeutsche that distinct equitable title is not recognised as being vested with separate existence unless and until title is separated into legal and equitable

 

“estates: A person solely entitled to the full beneficial ownership of money or property, both at law and in equity, does not enjoy an equitable interest in that property. The legal title carries with it all rights. Unless and until there is a separation of the legal and equitable estates, there is no separate equitable title.”

 

This analysis suggests that, in absence of a trust, equitable ownership would appear to have no intrinsic value. This does of course require some thought given that it is equitable title which is more readily equated with ‘value’ through its associations with entitlement, benefit and enjoyment, while legal title more readily connotes responsibility and burden.

 

Moreover, bare legal title is usually regarded as having no value, but it is also the case that in absence of a trust, people who are legal owners of property believe, entirely correctly, that their ownership gives them valuable rights. The obvious way to explain this apparent paradox is to observe that, in the absence of a trust, owners at law hold equitable title as well. Indeed, it is the equitable, rather than the legal title which carries with it the valuable rights of ownership, and while the duties of legal ownership are not any different in character, they cease to be burdensome when owed by one person to himself.

 

The true position, as set out by Lord Browne-Wilkinson above, is that all rights are subsumed within the legal title; that is, in the absence of a trust it is legal title itself which is valuable. Again, Lord Browne-Wilkinson insisted that it is not separation of ownership into distinct equitable and legal titles which gives rise to a trust, and something more is required. This ‘something more’ is that the basis of all trusts is conscience. What this reasoning proposes is that a trust actually arises by virtue of, and precisely because the conscience of the legal owner is affected, and this requires him to hold property as owner at law on behalf of the equitable owner.

 

Usually, the conscience of the legal owner is ‘affected’ in this way from his undertaking of trusteeship. However, it is also the case that actual imposition upon the conscience of an individual can arise where legal title, and thus (initially in absence of a trust) ownership property has been acquired through inequitable conduct on his part.

 

Equity operates on the conscience of the owner of the legal interest. In the case of a trust, the conscience of the legal owner requires him to carry out the purposes for which the property was vested in him (express or implied trust) or which the law imposes on him by reason of his unconscionable conduct (constructive trust).

 

The SPV always owned the legal title. The SPV as the LEGAL OWNER created a trust and gave their legal interest to a trustee who held the mortgages in trust for the investors. The SPV has never been a mere beneficiary. They are the ones who settled their legal interest into trust to be held for the investors as beneficiaries.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong Superslueth. You appear to be saying that the SPV as the LEGAL OWNER gave their legal interest to a trustee.

 

Are you saying within the trust, the SPV as settlor, retained the equitable title and transferred the legal title to the trustee.

 

I must be misunderstanding you as:

 

Westdeutsche v Islington BC

 

"The notion of equitable title has no meaning unless there is a separation of legal and equitable titles. Where one person is absolutely entitled to the property, equitable rights are encompassed within the legal title.

 

It follows that where a resulting trust is set up, it is not correct to see the settlor as starting with legal and equitable title, parting with legal title and retaining equitable title. The equitable title is instead created on the transfer of legal title, because the conscience of the recipient is affected."

 

 

Anyway it is now 2010....

 

Suetonius wishes you all every success in which ever argument and/or position you decide to use.

 

Good luck to one and all

Edited January 1, 2010 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Going around in the equitable and legal assignment circles again

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2608337.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2608374.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2611978.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2617859.html

 

2010 a new year people

 

H8them,

 

Thank you for all of your supportive posts. However, I implure you to ciest and desist with your continued attempts.

 

Honestly and with respect there is no point. Trust me from one that knows, it doesn't matter what information you post or what really happens when cases go to court, you cannot argue against personal opinion and win.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Suetonius
typo

[ryde]

Thanks suetonius and best wishes to you and all and thanks to all for all the illuminating debate that has graced 176 pages to the enrichment of the knowledge of everyone and helped many I should think, survive.

Its been one hell of a rollercoaster ride.

Its great to see two heavyweights back again hopefully to carry us all into the next new year where this will all undoubtedly move on to stage 2,perhaps sppl may be a foretaste of things to come?

Edited January 1, 2010 by ryde

[Crapstone]

We are truly being stitched up..first the OFT and now a High Court decision that true copies of agreements don't have to be provided.

 

FFS.... Where is the consumer law and protection in all this? It's giving the creditors a free for all and as if they don't invent enough as it is.

 

Don't rely on anyone..Do your own legwork and put across you own case.

Capstone is back online with the revised charges...£115 ...nasty.

 

The simple way I see it is that legal title belongs to someone and that's not us. They reserved their rights. We still have to pay or lose what we have already fought so hard to retain.

[ryde]

We are truly being stitched up..first the OFT and now a High Court decision that true copies of agreements don't have to be provided.

The simple way I see it is that legal title belongs to someone and that's not us. They reserved their rights. We still have to pay or lose what we have already fought so hard to retain.

After all the handwringing (a great deal from me (as crucial to my predicament) clutching at as many straws as possible ), dead right and very little if any chance of escape as will always be passed on ad infinitum. Liability is always going to be there to someone,best hope is for a better deal with the end of this lot,which would be a real possibility and some regulation as promised in the new year,we can all live in hope.

Edited January 1, 2010 by ryde

[h8them]

I see you there Kegi, did you have a good new year celebration.

 

I hear you Suetonius but this argument won't go away. The fight will go on and on and on

 

The SPV as the LEGAL OWNER created a trust and gave their legal interest to a trustee who held the mortgages in trust for the investors. The SPV has never been a mere beneficiary.

 

How can the SPV be the legal owner, give the legal interest (also known as the legal title) to the trustee and still remain the legal owner?

Edited January 1, 2010 by h8them

[wot2do?]

chizzle me nizzle

 

me big bad bruv ITBG? will be back in 2010 with even more fun and games

 

BIG UP

 

ITGG? was spot on

[wot2do?]

rotflmao @ ITBG? for all the wrong reasons

[wot2do?]

lol @ ITBG?

 

how many times are you going to log on and off posting the same thing

[wot2do?]

man you are too much

[ryde]

itbg

The prodigal returns!!

whatever you're on and I know you don't do drugs,send me some.

Whatever they try and do to you in that state of mind you just wouldn't care.

And somewhere its gotto be right as sppl are down DESPITE STILL BEING REGISTERED AT CH AND THE FSA solely/collectively due to itbg/iatwb or other various incarnations so don't knock it join it, its the first big result in over a year ,there's nothing to lose.

Time to pulverise LMC.

wars comin ,

kill em all ,

grass the b.stards up

etc etc!

DO IT NOW

Must go now ,have to find my slippers then it will be time for scones and jam , radio 4, then quiz night. aah heaven.

Edited January 1, 2010 by ryde

[Crapstone]

Just 3 words..Keep it real.

[wot2do?]

Big shout out to da Staines Massive

 

Ali G in Da House.

 

 

Someone please let me know when has left the building.

[wot2do?]

P.S isn't a mortgage debt a chose in action ?

[Suetonius]

Best wishes to you too Ryde, I hope 2010 is really good to you.

[Suetonius]

How can the SPV be the legal owner, give the legal interest (also known as the legal title) to the trustee and still remain the legal owner?

 

P.S isn't a mortgage debt a chose in action ?

 

interesting... Very interesting

[supersleuth]

wot2do

 

There are two documents at issue. First the mortgage loan agreement and second the mortgage deed.

 

A mortgage loan agreement is a debt. That is the CONTRACT under which you are obliged to pay interest etc. That MORTGAGE LOAN AGREEMENT is a chose in action. The mortgage loan agreement is subject to LPA s.136. It is the alleged breach of the terms of this contract on which they bring action against you....

 

BUT

 

It is the The MORTGAGE DEED that they seek to enforce. It is the mortgage deed that you gave them in exchange for the LOAN. It is the mortgage deed which is a disposition of an interest in LAND. The enforcement of a mortgage deed is a possession in action. The mortgage deed is not subject to LPA s.136. It is the document under which they seek POSSESSION.

 

Thus, they say you breached the mortgage loan agreement BUT that is not the document that they are enforcing. They enforce the mortgage DEED

 

Does it not seem logical that a REPOSSESSION action is an POSSESSION IN ACTION? - or - would you say that a REPOSSESSION action is a chose in action?

Edited January 2, 2010 by supersleuth

[Suetonius]

Special Season Greetings to ITBG? (Lord Cagger)

 

I especially want to wish you every joy and success in 2010. Not being sarcastic, I genuinely do.

[kegi]

I have made the comment at least four times that in my view once the contract you signed with the original lender was split into two parts this makes it impossible for any of the parties involved in the securitisation deal to repo you.[Legally that is] To be able to do so the two parts, title deed plus receivables must be owned by the same person which at this time is not the case.And in my view this could now only apply to the investors if at all.

I am curious as to why no one has took this on board?

Unless the view is that a person who owns the charge deed can go to court and repo you based only on that fact alone[ ignoring the matter of any money owed.]and a judge would allow this.

 

Also is there anyone on this thread who started off with LMC and have since received notice of a change in ownership

 

kegi can't wait for 2012:eek:

[ryde]

kegi

Look at the prospectus re enforcement and the irrevocable power of attorney,the originator/legal title holder enforces under this attorney the power to repo you on behalf of the spv.

Still cannot decipher what is going on here.

1)sppl shows attia as active director fsa register ,yet CH shows appointment terminated in april.sppl still active on both registers.

2)LMC no apparent directors same as sppl active on both registers except listed under spml on fsa register and seperately on CH register.

So why the panic notice to noteholders by the spv???re sppl ;do they know something we don,t , they surely cannot be acting on hearsay.? or the mere word of Lord Cagger himself or/and his merry men?(if so he needs elevating to the House)

Can anyone decipher what is actually going on??

Edited January 2, 2010 by ryde

[supersleuth]

kegi

Look at the prospectus re enforcement and the irrevocable power of attorney,the originator/legal title holder enforces under this attorney the power to repo you on behalf of the spv.

Still cannot decipher what is going on here.

1)sppl shows attia as active director fsa register ,yet CH shows appointment terminated in april.sppl still active on both registers.

2)LMC no apparent directors same as sppl active on both registers except listed under spml on fsa register and seperately on CH register.

So why the panic notice to noteholders by the spv???re sppl do they know something we don,t,they surely cannot be acting on hearsay.? or the mere word of Lord Cagger himself?(if so he needs elevating to the House)

Can anyone decipher what is actually going on??

 

Hi Ryde,

 

Could you post up the section of the prospectus to which you refer? The reason I ask is: that the Irrevocable Power of Attorney that the originator grants to the SPV is a document which grants and vests all powers of the legal owner to the SPV irrevocably. Note that the granting of the legal powers of the legal owner to the SPV is IRREVOCABLE. You see, this is the concealed manner in which the SPV can be assured that it has all the legal powers of the legal owner without telling you!

 

Moreover, if the Originator is claiming in a representative capacity (as you suggest), then the Originator is not making a claim AS THE LEGAL OWNER, rather it is making a claim ON BEHALF OF THE LEGAL OWNER, which we know is really the SPV. The Civil Procedure rules mandate that you must declare to the court the CAPACITY in which you claim. Therefore, the Originator, if claiming ON BEHALF OF THE LEGAL OWNER, is making a claim against you in a representative capacity and NOT - as the legal owner. Thus they lie on their claim form. That is called perjury and perjury is a criminal offence. As I keep saying, they are criminals who are evidently above the law.

 

However, the IRREVOCABLE power of attorney is not the POA that grants the originator the power to bring action against you. Now there may be an additional power of attorney (which is a REVOCABLE power), that the SPV grants to the ADMINISTRATOR to give THE ADMINISTRATOR the power to bring a repossession action on the SPV's behalf, but I think that if such a further Revocable Power of Attorney exists, then it will be granted to Capstone as the Administrator and not the Originator. So we're back to the same issue. The Originator is NOT the legal owner, in your cases, not the Administrator, and is only on the LR because they have committed the criminal offence of suppression and concealment of their disposition of their legal title to the SPV. Incidentally, they are also suppressing and concealing the information from the Court! As the Originator is relying of its alleged REVOCABLE power of attorney, it must produce that document in court and must give assurances and undertaking that the power of attorney has not been REVOKED. But hey ho, our courts don't bother about incoveniences like the RULE OF LAW and nor do the lawyers and bankers.

 

Rhetorical question: have you seen these powers of attorney? No, of course not, they allegedly will not be "relevant", but as we all know, they truly are RELEVANT!...especially IF the Originator is really relying on the POA as the source of his alleged LEGAL RIGHT...AND... the court will be complicit in assisting the concealment of these relevant documents. The court will deny you disclosure of these relevant documents in violation of Article 6 right to a fair trial, it will deny you the right to advance YOUR DEFENCE.

Edited January 2, 2010 by supersleuth

[ryde]

see exactly where you're coming from super will do it when I get back after 4pm.

[kegi]

kegi

Look at the prospectus re enforcement and the irrevocable power of attorney,the originator/legal title holder enforces under this attorney the power to repo you on behalf of the spv.

Ryde yes I go along with that I have said in previous posts its my view that the O/L GRANTED this power [ie the title deed]to the others to act on its behalf in the case of repo's SUPER in the last post believes that the O/L is acting on behalf of the SPV [the true owner in his /her view ]I could go along with that also

The point I am trying to get at is that you don't owe any money to the O/L nor do you owe any to the SPV you owe money to the investor so to my mind you can only be repoed on his behalf .[if the power of attorney extends to him]THIS is what I want someone to correct me on if I am wrong:) CAN YOU BE REPOED BY SOMEONE YOU DO NOT OWE MONEY TOO

 

Still cannot decipher what is going on here.

1)sppl shows attia as active director fsa register ,yet CH shows appointment terminated in april.sppl still active on both registers.

2)LMC no apparent directors same as sppl active on both registers except listed under spml on fsa register and seperately on CH register.

So why the panic notice to noteholders by the spv???re sppl ;do they know something we don,t , they surely cannot be acting on hearsay.? or the mere word of Lord Cagger himself or/and his merry men?(if so he needs elevating to the House)

Can anyone decipher what is actually going on??

IT WAS SAID ON HERE THAT LMC was took over by SPML that they were took over by SP something or other no5, there is also a post somewhere that said SPPL loans were bought by SPML THERIN LIES THE PROBLEM.

Hearsay is not evidence.

 

kegi

I shall wait for the offical notice in regards to LMC and then act

[mrsiphone]

Does this help anyone

 

Registration of mortgages and charges

 

1. What are mortgages and charges?

 

A charge is security for the payment of a debt or other obligation that does not pass 'property' or any right to possession to the person to whom the charge is given.

 

A mortgage is security for the payment of a debt or other obligation that passes 'property' but no right to possession to the person to whom the mortgage is given.

 

About Us - Guidance

[wot2do?]

wot2do

 

There are two documents at issue. First the mortgage loan agreement and second the mortgage deed.

 

A mortgage loan agreement is a debt. That is the CONTRACT under which you are obliged to pay interest etc. That MORTGAGE LOAN AGREEMENT is a chose in action. The mortgage loan agreement is subject to LPA s.136. It is the alleged breach of the terms of this contract on which they bring action against you....

 

BUT

 

It is the The MORTGAGE DEED that they seek to enforce. It is the mortgage deed that you gave them in exchange for the LOAN. It is the mortgage deed which is a disposition of an interest in LAND. The enforcement of a mortgage deed is a possession in action. The mortgage deed is not subject to LPA s.136. It is the document under which they seek POSSESSION.

 

Thus, they say you breached the mortgage loan agreement BUT that is not the document that they are enforcing. They enforce the mortgage DEED

 

Does it not seem logical that a REPOSSESSION action is an POSSESSION IN ACTION? - or - would you say that a REPOSSESSION action is a chose in action?

 

Thank you Super,

 

so it is only the security for the loan and not the contract/agreement that has been sold to the spv