Sovrun Paraleguls

[Siegfried Shrink]

Should NOT be using the Term vehicle...it's an Automobile or privately owned convenience

There is nothing like a privately owned convenience when you are caught short.

[rosy]

Only two hours or so until the great Land-Grab, which as we all know will bring the system crashing down around the ears of the elite.

[Comrade Sharik]

I have this fantasy where the court listens in stunned silence to Mr Macrae's arguments about how they're a dissolved fake, and the judge steps down saying 'And we would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids.'

Before explaining on the way out that, as they've been rumbled as having no power or authority, they are unable to grant possession to his 'client'....

[noblepa]

I have an 84 year old widow right next door who won't know what hit her when I show her that I remortgaged my house and her address 'accidentally' ended up on the document legally making her house my property.

The last thing I remember hearing about that neighbor is that you paid her a visit and returned home with a bunch of busted ribs. I would suggest you think twice about trying to cheat her out of hearth and home.

I'll leave the other neighbour be. He has some biker friend

Now you're thinking. A few biker friends might be able to take on the poor widow for you.

Or maybe the bikers LIKE the widow and will step in to defend her. They might force-feed you a case of Molson's.

[noblepa]

I don't know how it works in teh UK, but here when we buy a property we have to get what is called title insurance to guarantee that the title is actually good, and if it turns out down the road it isn't then they are on the hook to either defend it or get your money back, and I suspect something like this would fall under that, since they are in essence saying your title is no good.

FWIW I'm hoping for a really nasty and extremely expensive outcome to her little attempt at fraud come the 'morrow.

Burnaby, I would be careful, some of the 84 year old widows I've known would eat you up and spit you out and not even work up a sweat doing it, they didn't get to that age by being soft or easy marks.

In the US, tltle insurance is often required by a lender. However, many buyers have a misconception about it. It protects the LENDER, not the BUYER. If I buy a house with a mortgage, and someone comes along and proves a superior title, he gets the house, the lender collects on the title insurance, and I'm left out in the cold, probably losing my down payment, closing costs, etc.

I can buy my own title insurance, with myself as the beneficiary, but very, very few buyers ever do that.

[longdog]

No news yet on the success of the St Austell Land Grab. I assume Ms Gardiner and her legal team are still celebrating being awarded a free house.

Incidentally Steve... And I know you read this... Your motto "Scio te quis sis" doesn't mean what you think it does

[King Lud]

Yes, I was thinking Mr 'I've never lost a case' is very quiet. I suppose champagne does go to your head quite quickly!

[Burnaby49]

No news yet on the success of the St Austell Land Grab. I assume Ms Gardiner and her legal team are still celebrating being awarded a free house.

Incidentally Steve... And I know you read this... Your motto "Scio te quis sis" doesn't mean what you think it does

Free house? it's obvious that you have no concept of what occured here. There's nothing involving a free windfall in their perfectly legal paid-up purchase of the property adjacent to their own home. 17 is now clearly recorded on the mortgage deed. That means they acquired it when they purchased 17A. Putting 17 on the mortgage deed was just a correction of the past mistake when the full description of the property purchase was inadvertently left out of the documents. I'm sure that the court will rectify the original error and kick out the freeloading squatters who currently live in 17.

[longdog]

Free house? it's obvious that you have no concept of what occured here. There's nothing involving a free windfall in their perfectly legal paid-up purchase of the property adjacent to their own home. 17 is now clearly recorded on the mortgage deed. That means they acquired it when they purchased 17A. Putting 17 on the mortgage deed was just a correction of the past mistake when the full description of the property purchase was inadvertently left out of the documents. I'm sure that the court will rectify the original error and kick out the freeloading squatters who currently live in 17.

I am, as ever, indebted to m'learned freind

[TheNewSaint]

I wonder if this will have to go to Chancery Court. Rekha Patel's case did, even though her actions to muddy the title were laughably transparent.

[longdog]

I wonder if this will have to go to Chancery Court. Rekha Patel's case did, even though her actions to muddy the title were laughably transparent.

Given the fact that in the 'undertakings' section of the court forms Ms Gardiner or Mr Expertinfuckall crossed out the undertaking to pay costs if she lost I wouldn't be at all surprised if the case was chucked out before the judge even listened to the facts of the case.

Bringing this farce of a case has cost Ms Gardiner £355 plus whatever her shyster 'legal expert' has charged her so I wonder how much she's willing to pay to continue this utter fiasco.

[NYGman]

Listing to her rant about the IRS, UCC, 1042S, 1099 OID, US Supreme Court cases, you would think she was going to court in the US. That will go down will in UK court, if they ever get there.

If the case is chucked for the invalid form (striking costs) does that count as a loss, as you didn't even get in? Now I wonder if this was done to preserve the perfect record?

[Hercule Parrot]

Awfully quiet on McCrae's FB, and the ExpertInFuckAll website, and everywhere else. Perhaps they're busy supervising the neighbours getting their chattels out of Helen's new house?

[The Observer]

Awfully quiet on McCrae's FB, and the ExpertInFuckAll website, and everywhere else. Perhaps they're busy supervising the neighbours getting their chattels out of Helen's new house?

I am sure they were just absolutely stunned with the ruling in their favor and are still attempting to get their heads around this miraculous victory that on a subconscious level they knew could never happen.

[SteveUK]

I'm sure the bailiffs and removal vans are parked out there now.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth.....

[rosy]

I wonder if this will have to go to Chancery Court. Rekha Patel's case did, even though her actions to muddy the title were laughably transparent.

Given the fact that in the 'undertakings' section of the court forms Ms Gardiner or Mr Expertinfuckall crossed out the undertaking to pay costs if she lost I wouldn't be at all surprised if the case was chucked out before the judge even listened to the facts of the case.

Bringing this farce of a case has cost Ms Gardiner £355 plus whatever her shyster 'legal expert' has charged her so I wonder how much she's willing to pay to continue this utter fiasco.

Plus both parties now have to declare this dispute if they ever want to sell their respective properties.

[notorial dissent]

I don't know how it works in teh UK, but here when we buy a property we have to get what is called title insurance to guarantee that the title is actually good, and if it turns out down the road it isn't then they are on the hook to either defend it or get your money back, and I suspect something like this would fall under that, since they are in essence saying your title is no good.

FWIW I'm hoping for a really nasty and extremely expensive outcome to her little attempt at fraud come the 'morrow.

Burnaby, I would be careful, some of the 84 year old widows I've known would eat you up and spit you out and not even work up a sweat doing it, they didn't get to that age by being soft or easy marks.

In the US, tltle insurance is often required by a lender. However, many buyers have a misconception about it. It protects the LENDER, not the BUYER. If I buy a house with a mortgage, and someone comes along and proves a superior title, he gets the house, the lender collects on the title insurance, and I'm left out in the cold, probably losing my down payment, closing costs, etc.

I can buy my own title insurance, with myself as the beneficiary, but very, very few buyers ever do that.

I don't know if it is required in my neck of the woods, but both the lender and the buyer have to have/get title insurance, I've never been to a closing where that wasn't the case.

[rosy]

I made the mistake of watching Ms Gardiner in the video on the Expertinfuckalllegalmatters website. She's really not wrapped too tight, is she. Burbling on about US legislation as if it matters a damn in the UK, and making it plain that she doesn't care about anybody but herself.

I guess she and Steve are far too busy celebrating their massive victory over her next door neighbours to update facebook or the website.

[Burnaby49]

I doubt they are celebrating yet. They'll be too busy clearing out the squatter's rubbish and moving in. They'll probably have a combined housewarming and victory celebration once they're all settled.

[Gregg]

I have been waiting all day to hear how this train wreck went. PLEASE someone tell me all the juicy details!