Tag Archives: deed

Something to think about ...

Would you do this?

Would you fill in an application form for a loan …

and then give a bank your money only for them to give it back and call it a loan?

Oh and then they charge you interest on your money?

Oh and pledge the house that you thought that you just bought?

No, you wouldn’t would you, or we would like to think that 11.2 million people in the country wouldn’t either.

Would you believe it for one moment that this in all likelihood is happening every time a “Loan” is carried out?

There may well be some tiny differences to this in practice but this is what is really happening.

Quite simply…Why would you borrow your own Money?

This would be classed as Mutual Intent. You never intended to borrow your own Money.

Stayed tuned for more info like this.

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

 

Something to think about ...

Deed Vs Contract Argument or S1 vs S2

The legal profession are at their wits end to obfuscate the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/contents LPA MP 1989

Its obvious why to the percentage who make their money out of house possessions.

It becomes a little more interesting when you realise that most people in the legal profession are likely to have a “Mortgage” themselves and do not deal with conveyancing.

Why then do they not join in if they could save themselves and their families and the rest of the 11.2 million people in the country a lifetime of debt called a Mortgage or Death Pledge.

Most of the arguments from court transcripts suggest that all mortgages are done by deed and that only Section 1 of LPA MP1989 applies.

They neglect to read the full sentence of the act, ie they all only read this bit …

2 Contracts for sale etc. of land to be made by signed writing.

when in fact it clearly says this,

“A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.”

They have made it a Deed vs Contract argument when in fact clearly both can and should apply.

It would be incumbent on all conveyancing solicitors to actually read this bit and get the entity who is to provide the alleged loan to comply with signing the deed.

If you do not then you are you are not giving best advice to the client who is entering into this debt obligation. You should get the entity who is to provide the alleged “loan” to sign their part first before presentment to the prospective “Mortgagor”.

So next time you do not provide best advice please be warned in advance you will be setting yourself up for all sorts of claims.

Its even more incredulous that with so much information widely available from reputable sources that solicitors and accountants cannot grasp this amazingly easy to comprehend fraud that is being perpetrated against the people of this country.

Please see this links for further info Something for Nothing and  Creation of Money

You have been told and the information is out there!

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Something to think about ...

THE Deed equals THE Document

The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 clearly sets out some rules that need to be adhered to by professionals when it comes to “Dispositions” of property.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/contents

The elephant in the room is that the legal profession clearly think that a deed as part of the “Disposition” called a “Mortgage” does not need two signatures ie from both parties.

This may well be the case in all other circumstances but Section 2 clearly states:

S2(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition …

and

s2(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract. (see below 1)

The “Disposition” known as a “Mortgage” clearly comes under these sections.

Therefore THE DOCUMENT containing THE DISPOSITION (ie Mortgage) is called what exactly?

You see the fact is that there are TWO DISPOSITIONS going on.

One Sale and Purchase Agreement and one Mortgage Agreement. Both are done by deed.

Again, from LPAMP1989 s2(2)

“The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document.”

All the information (elements) leading up to THE Mortgage (DISPOSITION) are where exactly?

Which ACTUAL DOCUMENT is being referred to?

There is only one that contains all this info and it is this document that is referred to at a possession hearing and is the one used at/for the Land Registry. This now being called a “Charge”

By the process of elimination therefore,

“THE DEED EQUALS THE DOCUMENT”

Also,

All DEEDS are Documents but not all Documents are DEED’S

(1) A deed is a speciality contract.

“Halsbury’s Laws of England/CONTRACT (VOLUME 9(1) (REISSUE))/1. INTRODUCTION/(3)
CLASSIFICATIONS/616. Contracts made by deed.
616. Contracts made by deed.
At common law, contracts by deed (specialties) were made under seal 1 , though not all deeds amounted to
specialties 2 . The separate promises made in such a contract are frequently termed covenants 3 .”

A discussion on this point will be available on the

VOIDMORTGAGE KNOWLEDGEBASE here at www.gerbilstuff.com/knowledgebase link asap

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Case Law, Definitions

Unjust Enrichment

English unjust enrichment law is part of the English law of obligations, alongside contract and tort, and property. A claim in unjust enrichment requires benefits that have been obtained by someone to be given up if it would be “unjust” to retain them. The enrichment must be “unjust” if no valid legal transaction is present, such as a contract, trust, gift or estoppel. “Restitution“, or restoration of the unjust gain, to the party to whom the enrichment came from is the main right that follows from an unjust enrichment. English courts have recognised that to found a claim there are four steps: (1) someone has to be enriched, (2) at the expense of someone else, (3) the enrichment must be unjust, and (4) there must be no defence, such as the defendant changing its position on the strength of the enrichment. Around 10 major “unjust factors” are typically recognised in English law, many of which are typically understood in contract as “vitiating factors”. If someone receives an enrichment at another’s expense, and this is a mistake, it happens with the claimant’s ignorance of the transfer, after a failure of consideration, under duress, under undue influence or exploitation, through legal compulsion, out of necessity, when the transaction is illegal, or the claimant lacks capacity or acts ultra vires, then this will found a claim, so long as no defence operates. Unjust enrichment is an action based on strict liability to return the enrichment, and may frequently work concurrently with a claim in tort. For example, if someone is forced to make a contract to transfer property, the “unjust factor” of duress will vitiate the contract. The claimant will be entitled to have their property returned, and will also have a claim in tort against the one who made the threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_unjust_enrichment_law

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12 is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment English law as the third pillar of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipkin_Gorman_v_Karpnale_Ltd

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE