Do I Message Him Or Let Him Message Me?
Family & Relationships10 mins ago
Why Should The House Be Handed Over To The Ali's To Sell?
77 Answers
http://
After all they could sell it to one of theirs at a knock down price.
After all they could sell it to one of theirs at a knock down price.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
"I think there's more to this than has been reported."
I think you are absolutely spot on, alba. It makes for a good headline:
"Family are ordered to GIVE their £600,000 home to their neighbours after losing eight-year legal row..."
As with most court proceedings, the papers only print a highly condensed version of matters which probably stretched over a number of days. We don't know all the ins and outs and so do not know why the ruling was made.
I think you are absolutely spot on, alba. It makes for a good headline:
"Family are ordered to GIVE their £600,000 home to their neighbours after losing eight-year legal row..."
As with most court proceedings, the papers only print a highly condensed version of matters which probably stretched over a number of days. We don't know all the ins and outs and so do not know why the ruling was made.
NJ, would it be possible/conceivable that when the Judge made their ruling that the Constantins had to pay the Ali's bill, their lawyer said 'they don't have that sort of money unless they sell their house?'
And the judge, being a wise old so-and-so, said, ok, they'll have to sell their house then.
Just wondering.....
And the judge, being a wise old so-and-so, said, ok, they'll have to sell their house then.
Just wondering.....
There is a clue in the article. It mentions a Charging Order.
Undoubtedly the Court gave judgement against the family and included costs of over £130,000. When they did not pay, an interim charging order was applied for (this is a common way of enforcing judgements because it ensures that it is secured over property). Thereafter, when payment was still not made, the Judge has made a Final Charging Order. He or she will have specified the minimum price the house must be sold for (based on a valuer's recommendation). Once it is sold, the costs of sale will be discharged, the final charging order, any other charges and the balance paid to the family.
Undoubtedly the Court gave judgement against the family and included costs of over £130,000. When they did not pay, an interim charging order was applied for (this is a common way of enforcing judgements because it ensures that it is secured over property). Thereafter, when payment was still not made, the Judge has made a Final Charging Order. He or she will have specified the minimum price the house must be sold for (based on a valuer's recommendation). Once it is sold, the costs of sale will be discharged, the final charging order, any other charges and the balance paid to the family.
There you go. So they have not been ordered to "give" their house to their neighbours. But it would not have made such a good (or concise) headline if it read:
"Family who were ordered to pay costs ignored a charging order and were ordered to sell their house for a minimum amount in order to discharge their liabilities"
It doesn't carry the same drama.
"Family who were ordered to pay costs ignored a charging order and were ordered to sell their house for a minimum amount in order to discharge their liabilities"
It doesn't carry the same drama.
I'm just glad my own principles were leavened with some reality.
A neighbour deliberately demolished our hedge ("it fell into the trench by accident") when preparing the footings for a disputed extension - with the hedge gone there was no way of proving that he'd pinched a few inches - so we were at daggers drawn for a while.
But ultimately neither of us wanted to enrich the lawyers - so we sat down and thrashed out a compromise that allowed him some (but not all) of what he wanted, in return for some give and take in our favour further along the garden boundary.
Ultimately they became very good neighbours indeed - not close friends, but reliable and helpful.
A neighbour deliberately demolished our hedge ("it fell into the trench by accident") when preparing the footings for a disputed extension - with the hedge gone there was no way of proving that he'd pinched a few inches - so we were at daggers drawn for a while.
But ultimately neither of us wanted to enrich the lawyers - so we sat down and thrashed out a compromise that allowed him some (but not all) of what he wanted, in return for some give and take in our favour further along the garden boundary.
Ultimately they became very good neighbours indeed - not close friends, but reliable and helpful.
I'm not sure that trespass was the wrong thing to claim. The problem is almost always one of boundaries which are very difficult to determine at that level. I suspect (and I cant be sure because I havent read the judgement) that the Judge found as a fact that there was no encroachment onto the Constantine's land.
Most boundary disputes just concern a few inches. SD has the right attitude. Compromise at an early stage and never ever litigate over something so small. Whilst there might be a principle involved, principles cost a LOT of money.
Most boundary disputes just concern a few inches. SD has the right attitude. Compromise at an early stage and never ever litigate over something so small. Whilst there might be a principle involved, principles cost a LOT of money.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.