Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
im confused
heard today that i won a case in a land reg tribunal, the claimants spplication to enter a restriction to claim beneficial interest was cancelled. in the judges decision however he stated that he thought the claimant was correct in that a conversation took place between me and the claimant that i would pay him some more monies 6 month after the transfer when i was to receive some inheritance (this was not true)-i did state at the hearing that i had already received this inheritance before the transfer as this money enabled me to buy the property and the only way the claimant could now persue was to take it to court for a non secured debt as the claimant was well aware that on transfering the property he transfered both title and interest, this does not make sense to me if the adj thought we had had that discussion howcome he never gave him a beneficial interest??
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jaycee401. 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.
Well done on winning your case. As I recall, you have posted on here several months ago, so this is a long running case.
I'm going to have to replay what I think your question actually is: -
You won the case. In making judgement, the Adjudicator commented that the claimant believed you had earlier promised to make him a payment 6 months after the land transfer. It was thus understandable why the claimant sought to enter a restriction on your property.
You are asking why the Adjudicator said this?
In giving judgement, the Adjudicator is merely summarising the evidence given by both sides and this was what the other side was claiming. The Adjudicator didn't believe him - you won.
I'm going to have to replay what I think your question actually is: -
You won the case. In making judgement, the Adjudicator commented that the claimant believed you had earlier promised to make him a payment 6 months after the land transfer. It was thus understandable why the claimant sought to enter a restriction on your property.
You are asking why the Adjudicator said this?
In giving judgement, the Adjudicator is merely summarising the evidence given by both sides and this was what the other side was claiming. The Adjudicator didn't believe him - you won.
thanks buildersmate, it just confused me because the way in which the adjudicator said in his written decsion was that he actually believed that a conversation did take place beween me and the claimant regarding me gving him some monies after the transfer, but cannot regard it as a beneficial interest as he gave up all that when he sold it to me, and is now saying that the only way the claimant can persue any further monies is by taking me to court for an unsecured debt, its very confusing cos not only did the claimant want more money from he from the equity he also wanted me to pay half of his debt he has on personal loans and credit cards, none of these debts are in my name nor were they used to benefit me in anyway - which if necessary cab be proved.
lol thanks bednobs ive managed to speak with my solicitor now and she has explained things to me, still very complicated and confusing but i understand it bit better now :) the bottom line is he has no beneficial interest and cannot enter a restriction on my property :) :), so im off out celebrating with some friends over a few bottles of wine!
just giving a bit of an update here, after several nuisance calls and texts from an unknown number (I know it was ex) and an anonymous letter to my husband about what a bad person his wife is (all given to police who were going to give him a telling off but never managed to get hold of him, so they gave up - cheers pc's) I have now since June received 3 solicitors letters (not the solicitor he used for the tribunal) stating if I do not pay £15k then he will seek the full £31k through court as per the adjudicators finding that he could proceed to claim an unsecured debt. Where these figures come from is beyond me. I have ignored all 3 letters as I have never accepted to owing him any money. This 3rd letter came today. The first one stated he would take me to court, so come on bring it on!!! I have proof he has in the past committed mortgage fraud. He rented out a property and never declared it. He lied at the tribunal saying it was not his signature on a letter he gave me stating how much he was selling me house for ...... things could get nasty............!!
1 to 7 of 7
