EVICTION IN PLYMOUTH - JULIA LANGMAID

[letissier14]

[Siegfried Shrink]

Even when only one side of the story is presented, hints of the other side peep through.

It appears from the above that the widow had at one time been in a relationship with a WJH, and had two children. The grandparent of the children paid half the purchase price of a house for them to live in. The son was entered on the deeds as a co-owner of the property. The relationship ended acrimoniosly in 1991. What ever the widow (of whom, it's not stated and presumably irrelevant) understood about the status of the payment by Prof H, it would appear to have been a lifetime gift to his son and was applied to the house purchase.
It now appears that Prof H has died, and attempts were made to clear up his estate. At this point the jointly owned property would not fall as part of his estate for probate, as he had survived for more than the statutary number of years after making the gift.

This changed situation may have released WJH from self or father imposed restraint, possibly considering the grandchildren, and he has come after the legally owned half share in the house.

All else woud appear to follow. The widow has resisted the claim, seemingly with no success but at considerable expense. She may have been badly advised as there does appear to be a prima facie case for posession of half the market value at present.

Here is where it explodes into the unfathomable. Why the bankruptcy, if she had considerable assets that could have been used to settle the claim and costs? Are the other properties a fantasy? This is a cockup of Crawfordian proportions by the widow.

The various claims of this that and the other are largely fluff on the bones of this case.
The essense seems to be that she did not want her ex-partner to have anything and it is not unknown for people in this position to ignore rational advice and plunge into pointless and doomed litigation to their utter financial downfall.
The eviction may be due to an order for posession and sale of that specific house due to the claim by the ex-partner. If she wanted to continue living there she should have come to some arrangement for payment of the half share at a far earlier stage. Such as when it first cropped up.
It may be desirable for a mod to remove the name from the title of the thread.

[Burnaby49]

No reason to remove the name any more than Tom Crawford or Rheka Patel's names.

As far as "Old Lady" goes sixty-one is hardly considered geriatric nowadays. I myself remember those youthful halcyon days of my early sixties.

[exiledscouser]

I suspect the lady in question has been ignoring the reality of the situation. From the Insolvency Register;

Case Name JULIA LANGMAID
Court County Court at Plymouth
Type Bankruptcy
Number 0000051
Case Year 2016
Order Date 26 September 2016
Status Discharge Suspended Indefinitely See Footnote
Case Description Julia Langmaid, Occupation Unknown,

The footnote referred to reads;

Order suspending bankrupt’s discharge under Section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 until the fulfillment of conditions as specified in the Order made by the Court and effective from 10 April 2017

A bit of co-operation with the Insolvency Practitioner would probably have resolved this as there is automatic discharge after 12 months (in most cases) but the above note says to me "I've been a bit of a difficult bastard" which has left the IP no choice but to up his game.

A bunch of crusties appearing outside the address will solve nothing - she needs to get proper advice and assistance from m'learned friends.

[SteveUK]

With the esteemed Danny Bamping QC in charge, what could possibly go wrong ?

[Wakeman52]

To be fair, this looks like a classic case of good intentions leading to a bad outcome. Property disputes between partners can be a minefield, requiring good advice to be sought & most importantly taken at all times.

If Ms Langmaid and her former partner are tenants-in-common on the deeds to the property & if there was no clause requiring agreement to a joint sale, then he has a 50% share & I believe is entitled to realise it, whatever the late Professor had in mind. The gifting of 50% of the purchase price would, as said earlier, not be relevant to the late Prof's estate's IHT bill, as it was more than 7 years before his death. I don't think she's a widow.

I agree with Siegfried. This probably could & should have been settled by negotiation / mediation / arbitration in 2008. My guess is that bankruptcy was resorted to because she refused to do so and her former partner persisted with his claim.

The house is showing as being for sale @ GBP239,950 on Zoopla https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property-histo ... x/45269079

[Pox]

I can't see the property on Rightmove and as there are no internal photos of it on zoopla, it is either a tip inside or the occupant has refused access to the estate agent. I suspect the latter.

[ArthurWankspittle]

To be fair, this looks like a classic case of good intentions leading to a bad outcome. Property disputes between partners can be a minefield, requiring good advice to be sought & most importantly taken at all times.

If Ms Langmaid and her former partner are tenants-in-common on the deeds to the property & if there was no clause requiring agreement to a joint sale, then he has a 50% share & I believe is entitled to realise it, whatever the late Professor had in mind.

I too was looking for the tenancy type as that has massive implications. It also makes sense from the professor's point of view to have the tenancy as in common because that allows the son to get it back if needed, which is effectively what is happening because of an inheritance.
I suspect property and related law doesn't have the "vulnerable" exception that debt collection law has, so this lady's defenders can shout "vulnerable" all they want, it is not applicable.
I'm also wondering how much has been spent in court and legal fees if this has been going on for nearly a decade. Plus maybe some not so cheap mortgages and loans.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I can't see the property on Rightmove and as there are no internal photos of it on zoopla, it is either a tip inside or the occupant has refused access to the estate agent. I suspect the latter.

It does say internal viewing by appointment. I'd guess this is the listing from after the court possession had removed her but it is now pulled because she has moved back.

[Pox]

I can't see the property on Rightmove and as there are no internal photos of it on zoopla, it is either a tip inside or the occupant has refused access to the estate agent. I suspect the latter.

It does say internal viewing by appointment. I'd guess this is the listing from after the court possession had removed her but it is now pulled because she has moved back.

Yes, very likely, I agree.

[Burnaby49]

This came up just in time to fill the void soon to be left by Rekha. Rekha, in her turn, replaced Tom. It's like the changing of the seasons.

[Siegfried Shrink]

In this case the rocket has soared and burst, the stars have dimmed and died, and the empty case and stick are plummeting to earth. This topic does not seem to involve elements of soc-cittery or FMOTL. just stubborness that may have arisen from a misconception of the situation in the first place and some bad advice, or disregarded advice along the way.

I submit that this case is simply a human tragedy that does not really merit the Quatloos treatment.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I submit that this case is simply a human tragedy that does not really merit the Quatloos treatment.

I can see that the case for this can be made. However, there are a few SovCit type phrases in that declaration and the assistance of Mr Bamping and a call to arms of a few "activists" we are aware of, leads me to let it ride at present. This will either fade quickly or be an ongoing case which will keep our interest.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Here is where it explodes into the unfathomable. Why the bankruptcy, if she had considerable assets that could have been used to settle the claim and costs? Are the other properties a fantasy? This is a cockup of Crawfordian proportions by the widow.

"Why the bankruptcy"
I put out the following scenario: WJ Higman, following the death of his father in 2008 claims half J Langmaid's house. I'll ignore the to-ing and fro-ing and the rights and wrongs of what went on, but at the end of the day he gets £120,000 (half the current value of the house) and there is £92,000 in costs, presumably awarded against J Langmaid. J Langmaid has perhaps been ignoring some court works she should have taken more notice of. WJ Higman petitions for bankruptcy to get his money. Again, J Langmaid initially ignores this. (Statement above says she has "now fully complied" with the OR.) WJ Higman only knows about the residential home and tells OR this is major asset. J Langmaid's other properties are status unknown. (For instance, she says she has an interest in another property. This may not be recorded anywhere publicly for instance.) So the obvious target for the OR is the residential house.
"Are the other properties a fantasy"
Now J Langmaid is talking to the OR, I would hope this could be sorted by the sale of another property. But I could have doubts of the valuations, especially at forced sale/auction prices and considering she has been trying to sell somewhere for two years.
" the widow"
Slightly confused about that. Bamping calls her a widow but as far as I can make out the only deceased party is Professor G Higman.

[Siegfried Shrink]

That is how I see the probable events.
Let's hope she has at least enough sense or proper advice to ignore the woo.

[Hercule Parrot]

...as far as I can make out the only deceased party is Professor G Higman.

I wonder if this is the same Professor G Higman?
Deceased 2008, at the age of 91, spending his final years in a nursing home.
If so, he was old enough to be Ms Langmaid's grandfather.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar ... igman.html

[ArthurWankspittle]

...as far as I can make out the only deceased party is Professor G Higman.

I wonder if this is the same Professor G Higman?
Deceased 2008, at the age of 91, spending his final years in a nursing home.
If so, he was old enough to be Ms Langmaid's grandfather.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar ... igman.html

Likely - the five sons part fits.

[mufc1959]

Looks like she's into the alien woo. She was a director of a company called Crown Veritas Trust (UK) Ltd - now dissolved. According to companycheck.co.uk, the nature of its business was "99000 Activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies".

[wanglepin]

Plymouth!!!!1!!!? Isn`t this the home of that lawful rebellious British Constitution Group; the "non-profit limited company - a non-party-political organisation with members from across the social and political spectrum". ? Of course it is :-
British Constitution Group
Suite A2,
Phoenix Mill Business Park,
Plymouth,
PL6 7PY
https://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/about-us
I am just wondering where are those two famous freedom fighting bandwagon jumpers, Brian (linguistically programmed) Gerrish and Roger (I am not bankrupt) Hayes are in all this? Surely they wouldn`t miss out on fighting the just cause of this poor little old lady,JULIA LANGMAID ?

[letissier14]

In this case the rocket has soared and burst, the stars have dimmed and died, and the empty case and stick are plummeting to earth. This topic does not seem to involve elements of soc-cittery or FMOTL. just stubborness that may have arisen from a misconception of the situation in the first place and some bad advice, or disregarded advice along the way.

I submit that this case is simply a human tragedy that does not really merit the Quatloos treatment.

Have a look who is behind her legal case. One Mr Danny Bamping and then look who is mentioned in his original post, names such as Chrisy Morris, Brian Gerrish, Michael Doherty, Adriano De Sousa, Paul Webster, Chris Jones etc etc ... it's a who's who of fmotl gurus