The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[Skeleton]

Ok legal eagles, question for tonight is :-

Will the final bill be made out to both Tom and Sue as it was a joint mortgage? Followed by they see the bill coming and they sign the house over to Amanda for example? Would that save SMH?

I am being serious, I really did not think they would go this far, quite shocked this is the way it works TBH, Tom's fault or not. He screws up but his whole family lose out.

[NG3]

Ok legal eagles, question for tonight is :-

Will the final bill be made out to both Tom and Sue as it was a joint mortgage?

Joint mortgage, joint liability, joint bill.

Followed by they see the bill coming and they sign the house over to Amanda for example? Would that save SMH?

No, see Hercule Parrot above, ownership could be reversed, and it could get them into trouble.

I am being serious, I really did not think they would go this far, quite shocked this is the way it works TBH, Tom's fault or not. He screws up but his whole family lose out.

That's why at every stage we have not only laughed at the incredible stupidity on display, but also groaned and tried to explain a better way (in some cases, with some people, directly to Tom).

Every step has been wrong, every step has cost money, and every step has hurt people, himself, his family, the neighbours, the community, the city, the tax payers footing the bill for the police involvement.

It's what's so particularly nasty about this virus, not everybody gets infected, but everybody gets effected.

[PeanutGallery]

Ok legal eagles, question for tonight is :-

Will the final bill be made out to both Tom and Sue as it was a joint mortgage? Followed by they see the bill coming and they sign the house over to Amanda for example? Would that save SMH?

I am being serious, I really did not think they would go this far, quite shocked this is the way it works TBH, Tom's fault or not. He screws up but his whole family lose out.

If both names were on the mortgage each would be jointly and severally liable for any outstanding amount. This means that Tom and Sue both owe UKAR whatever is outstanding, Tom can't take this debt on himself and try to keep Sue out of it, she's been in it from the beginning. In practice this means they will go after both of them and could well bankrupt both Tom and Sue.

Should they sign the house over to Amanda this could be reversed by UKAR, unless Amanda paid them a fair market value for the property (as explained above). Basically their is not much Tom and Sue can do about this. They likely have already lost Sue's mothers house, although like when they lost Fearn Chase that penny has not quite dropped yet.

In regard to being shocked at this, it is worth remembering that Tom had the full support of his family throughout his attempts to protest the mortgage, they knew or should have known that the consequences would be costly and they didn't dissuade him from doing so. It therefore cannot be said to be just Tom's fault, Sue supported Tom's case, as did Craig and as did Amanda. Tom did not screw this up by acting alone. Had Tom behaved in a reasonable manner, in the way a great number of people who find themselves in mortgage difficulties do, he could have walked away from this in a reasonably good position, not a great position but certainly nowhere near as bad as the one he is in now.

Tom may have been the public face, but he was not acting alone and at any time his wife or his children could have counselled him that he was making an error. From what we have seen, from their actions, postings and musings they did not, they believed as much as he did and no doubt encouraged him towards his downfall. We shouldn't feel sorry for Craig and Amanda and Sue because their actions have brought this on themselves. It is possible that we can have some sympathy for, is it Nicole? (the other daughter) as we do not know her views on this matter and she may well have been the one dissenting voice, and obviously Betty who is an innocent and hopefully in a better place. Finally it should also be pointed out that they are all adults and their are plenty of adults who will never inherit property or funds equivalent to what the Crawfords have lost because of their collective attempt to take what they had not paid for.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Raises the possibility of only bankrupting Sue, a path I'd not previously considered.

[Skeleton]

Peanut and NG thank you, wise words as always. Peanut I take your point that his family were not along for the ride, Amanda and Craig may have have found our late on what their parent's had done but they did little to help them.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I am being serious, I really did not think they would go this far, quite shocked this is the way it works TBH, Tom's fault or not. He screws up but his whole family lose out.

Why do you think the supposedly corrupt, Zionist, NWO, whatever-you-want-to-invent, judges go out of their way to keep people in their houses? We have laws. You can read them for yourself or get help about how they work off people who have learned how they work. Or you can believe they mean something other than what they do to nearly everyone else, find some people who believe the same or similar and go and lose in every court you have or choose to enter.
The regulars on here (some of whom are lawyers) fully understand this, which is why we knew Tom was a trainwreck waiting to happen. It wasn't if he'd hit something, it was what, when and how often.

[NG3]

It wasn't if he'd hit something, it was what, when and how often.

& he's managed to hit nearly every branch on the tree on the way down, so far...

Raises the possibility of only bankrupting Sue, a path I'd not previously considered.

That could change things around a little.

[Normal Wisdom]

Ok legal eagles, question for tonight is :-

Will the final bill be made out to both Tom and Sue as it was a joint mortgage? Followed by they see the bill coming and they sign the house over to Amanda for example? Would that save SMH?

I am being serious, I really did not think they would go this far, quite shocked this is the way it works TBH, Tom's fault or not. He screws up but his whole family lose out.

If both names were on the mortgage each would be jointly and severally liable for any outstanding amount. This means that Tom and Sue both owe UKAR whatever is outstanding, Tom can't take this debt on himself and try to keep Sue out of it, she's been in it from the beginning. In practice this means they will go after both of them and could well bankrupt both Tom and Sue.

99.9% certain that it was a joint mortgage. As can be seen in Tom's last video (at approx. 5.25 onwards) the documents were signed by both Tom & Sue and the offer was made to them both.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx57G54gkWQ

[PeanutGallery]

It wasn't if he'd hit something, it was what, when and how often.

& he's managed to hit nearly every branch on the tree on the way down, so far...

And we know there's still plenty of tree left.

]Raises the possibility of only bankrupting Sue, a path I'd not previously considered.

That could change things around a little.

Maybe she'll be able to forge a new career in the guru game too? She'd be getting all the learning on a (train) crash course.

[Losleones]

My understanding is that the figure of £98k is legal fees only.

All costs are recoverable under the mortgage conditions and once you add VAT (which he probably can’t recover) the bill for all the additional costs (bailiffs/removal/clean-up/storage/security) is likely come in at about £250k. With £98k added they could be looking at £350k.

I seriously doubt the Crawfords antics have added £250k to their ever increasing debt but it's sure to be over £100k.

Regarding SMH we don't even know if Sue is the sole beneficiary, the current market value or whether the corrupt Bank in question is still awaiting repayment of the original loan. For that matter, Tom may have a Jimmyesque war chest or perhaps entrepreneurial Craig may at last be of some use. It's pure speculation as to the 2nd unfolding of events but i would wager a bet the return of the rooftop 6.

[NG3]

It wasn't if he'd hit something, it was what, when and how often.

& he's managed to hit nearly every branch on the tree on the way down, so far...

And we know there's still plenty of tree left.

Does he though?

His reaction to additional costs suggests that none of his "supporters" were drilling home the potential consequences to him, and we certainly know they were aware of those consequences eg. by reading here, as we know some do.

Before the rooftop protest, for example, did Haining speak to Tom and say "Look, are you really sure about this because it's entirely possible that if this ingenious plan of mine doesn't work you might be liable for more costs, or losses. Oh and by the way if this kebab plays havoc with my insides I'll be taking a dump in your attic/Craig's bedroom/the masturbation chamber."?

[Gregg]

I think that Tom, fairly early on, was fully conscience that he hadn't paid for the house and had no moral right to not pay for it, but at the same time thought that he could never pay for it through any honest means. In his tiny little mind he began to entertain that B&B, being no longer a real, ongoing business and more a government program, and the amount of money, £43,000 not much to big evil corporations, they might let it go. The whole "Hi, this is a stupid hat and I had cancer once and they won't let me have my house without paying for it" campaign grew out of this and somewhere along the line, Tom began, as a friend of mine says, "smoking his own dope" and now the senile old fuck is honestly stunned like a a duck who had his beak smacked that they honestly DID take his wee little shithole bungalow.
Anyhow, stupid as he is, he's to the point of mental illness now, every time some point of law or fact that makes the issue so plain that houseplants should comprehend it, he changes the subject or direction or emphasis of his mewing.

"but Mr. Crawford, the mortgage was not changed at all, the one they are foreclosing upon is the original one you entered into in 1988" he responds "but they never told me the endowment expired, they just took that money"...they reply "Mr. Crawford, YOU were the one supposed to pay the endowment, again, that began with the original contract in 1988" and he "but I never was informed that I had to pay that, afterall I have paid 3 times what I borrowed" they then point out that he, or Sue anyhow, paid the endowment for some time, so they certainly knew about it and knew they were responsible for it, and if they just forgot and quit paying it for a decade or two with no adverse reaction, they thought they were getting over on someone...until the B&B asked them, "umm, have you not paid the endowment lately? Can we help you here? If you don't so something, you know, you're going to owe a big payment at the end of the mortgage....." and on and on and on.... he knows every one of these points as well as any of us, he's had each one pointed out to him and no one with enough sense to breathe through their nose is so stupid as to miss ALL of them, he's just gotten so pathetic that he can't HEAR them and whenever one is brought up "but they have given any account and they're operating as a fraudulent company!" He's too weak to hear the truth. Or that's what I think...which along with a dollar will get you almost anything you want from the McDonald's value menu!

[Jeffrey]

Oh and by the way if this kebab plays havoc with my insides I'll be taking a dump in your attic/Craig's bedroom/the masturbation chamber."?

Or as it's known in classier circles, the mastorbatorium.

[Gregg]

...and obviously Betty who is an innocent and hopefully in a better place.

Betty (Original Recipe) is working as a server at Dante's in Key West, no less than 2 moderators on this board have see her. Really, see my facebook page from the first week of August for pictures!

[YiamCross]

Things are a bit quiet in Crawford land.

Amanda Pike
4 hrs
awww i forgot about this group smile emoticon
Like Comment Share
Seen by 16
Comments
Yiam Cross
Yiam Cross So has everyone else. Did you want a copy of the transcript of your dad's High Court appearance? We'll be chatting about it tomorrow morning at about 10am, you can listen in on YouTube or you could participate if you want. Let me know
Like · Reply ·

Any guesses at what response I might get?

[FatGambit]

Did you get told to have sex with yourself?

The only thing that could save SMH assuming it was actually owned by her, is if SM had left it to one of the kids specifically in her will, bypassing Sue and Tom completely. It's what my mum and dad did during my financial problems and the Solicitor who drew it up said no receiver could over-rule it.

We are of course, assuming she owned the property, and it wasn't social housing or some such and they've simply taken over the tenancy.

[YiamCross]

She couldn't resist.

Amanda Pike why on earth would you think decent people like us would have anything to do with people like you? you don't even have the testicles to identify yourself....why?.....because you're clearly scared, and that's simply because you know what you're doing is wrong. So If thats how you want to enjoy yourselves and what you want to spend your pennies on then you fill your boots enjoy yourselves!
Like · Reply · 1 min

Yiam Cross
Yiam Cross We will. One day you should look decent up in the dictionary and find out what it means. My testicles exploded ages ago, remember? Must have been your private dance.
Like · Reply · Just now

[Pox]

Did you get told to have sex with yourself?

The only thing that could save SMH assuming it was actually owned by her, is if SM had left it to one of the kids specifically in her will, bypassing Sue and Tom completely. It's what my mum and dad did during my financial problems and the Solicitor who drew it up said no receiver could over-rule it.

We are of course, assuming she owned the property, and it wasn't social housing or some such and they've simply taken over the tenancy.

Again assuming that there is any equity in SMH, would a deed of variation work for them - usually utilised for Inheritance Tax purposes (doubt they qualify IHT) but worth a chance?

http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-500-3058

[Pox]

She couldn't resist.

Amanda Pike why on earth would you think decent people like us would have anything to do with people like you? you don't even have the testicles to identify yourself....why?.....because you're clearly scared, and that's simply because you know what you're doing is wrong. So If thats how you want to enjoy yourselves and what you want to spend your pennies on then you fill your boots enjoy yourselves!
Like · Reply · 1 min

Yiam Cross
Yiam Cross We will. One day you should look decent up in the dictionary and find out what it means. My testicles exploded ages ago, remember? Must have been your private dance.
Like · Reply · Just now

Just love your reply re the onesie dance but the irony may be lost on her

[YiamCross]

Again assuming that there is any equity in SMH, would a deed of variation work for them - usually utilised for Inheritance Tax purposes (doubt they qualify IHT) but worth a chance?

http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-500-3058

Nope. Would instantly be seen as an attempt to hide an asset and result in more than a slapped wrist. Plus of course the court would reverse it. The only hope they have is if Sue's mum changed her will to benefit the grandchildren.

As someone has pointed out, we don't know how any assets left by Sue's mum will be disposed of, there may be other beneficiaries. One thing is for sure, though, anything Sue was due will go straight to UKAR. I'm sure they will be aware of the situation and will know the moment probate is granted and what's available to repay their assuredly massive debt.