THE JUDGMENT EXPLAINED BOOM!#!#!#!#!#!#!#!#!#
Other Quatloosians have made the essential point: that Mr Ebert claims (based on what?) that Tom paid all his arrears, so the possession order should not have been made. But Tom didn't argue this in court. If he had paid all his arrears, why didn't he bother to mention this?
In detail:
Para 85: Mr Ebert doesn't realise that some arrears were capitalised but others weren't. He is correct that possession can't occur on the basis of capitalised arrears. But the last capitalisation was in 2006. (Para 42). The possession is based on later arrears that were not capitalised.
Para 89:
Mr Ebert wrote:And you [Tom] paid all the arrears ...
No. See 99:
Godsmark wrote:There was no dispute that there were qualifying arrears.
Under 99:
Mr Ebert wrote:In 2012 the Crawfords were two months in arrears and the B&B took them to court over the two month's arrears. The court decided to give the Crawfords the opportunity to pay the arrears, and they did pay them.
The court was more generous than that: the order was suspended for as long as Tom continued to pay the monthly interest. He wasn't required to pay the arrears. He stopped paying the interest in September 2013. Thus, more arrears would accrue from that date.
Also under 99:
Mr Ebert wrote:But the Crawfords did not have to pay the capital because the endowment had to pay it -- that's what the judge is saying.
No. The judge says the endowment policy had been cashed in many years previously.
Under 104:
Mr Ebert wrote:The warrant must identify all the questions or all this assumption. The warrant should be written, must be written -- the amount, how much paid, how much not paid, and all the accounts attached.
A warrant for possession should be written, yes. But they do not need to have any accounts attached. There is no reason to attach any accounts.
Also under 104:
Mr Ebert wrote:Does he [the judge] say that the possession is based on two month's arrears? Can you [Tom] prove that the two months has been paid? Yes.
If Tom could prove that, why didn't he in court? According to the judgement, Tom didn't even claim he had paid the arrears, let alone prove it.
Other Quatloosians have explained the reason B&B didn't apply for costs.
Mr Ebert wrote:Now, when you come to court, you walk in, and sit on your place. The judge will come in, and say 'Good morning', and will say 'I'm handing down the judgement. I'm going to make the order which I specified' or whatever it is. And you know already what the order is - he wrote it. And he'll ask you 'Have you got anything to say, Mr Crawford?' You stand up, and say 'Thank you very much, my lord. You gave a fantastic judgement, you identified all the problems which we went through precisely in the last ten years. Thanks, bye.'
The puppet-master spoke, and the puppet obeyed.
The video from 31m 18s has a letter headed "REQUEST, REVIEW AND REVISE", from the Crawfords, to the court. My response to the four points:
1. To me, the order accurately reflects the unapproved judgement.
2. This seems to argue the judgement was wrong.
3. If there really is nothing that needs appealing, the Crawfords need not be concerned that permission to appeal is denied.
4. This seems to want the order changed, to read that "the notice of eviction is lifted". I can see that Tom would like this change. But it won't happen.
