Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[TheNewSaint]

Not to be all negative and revisionist, but weren't all the last run of UK showings that people were expected to pay for, canceled??? I was kind of the opinion that even paying they couldn't get butts in the seats??

They offered the movie "cinema on demand," and nobody demanded it.

[grixit]

Their score on Rotten Tomatoes is []

[Hercule Parrot]

....but this time, the bank's solicitors have not even been able to raise any objections, for one plain and simple reason.

On this occasion, the evidence we have submitted includes a witness statement from the woman who illegally attested to the mortgagors' signatures on four mortgage deeds in question, who has admitted that she was not present when they were signed.

How would misconduct by the borrower cause any problem to the rights of the lender? He's regurgitating failed arguments again, as noted by (sadly missed) Bones here http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 80#p230495

30. I have however come to the conclusion that there was no statutory intention to exclude the operation of an estoppel in all circumstances or in circumstances such as the present. The perceived need for formality in the case of a deed requires a signature and a document cannot be a deed in the absence of a signature. I can detect no social policy which requires the person attesting the signature to be present when the document is signed. The attestation is at one stage removed from the imperative out of which the need for formality arises. It is not fundamental to the public interest, which is in the requirement for a signature. Failure to comply with the additional formality of attestation should not in itself prevent a party into whose possession an apparently valid deed has come from alleging that the signatory should not be permitted to rely on the absence of attestation in his presence. It should not permit a person to escape the consequences of an apparently valid deed he has signed, representing that he has done so in the presence of an attesting witness, merely by claiming that in fact the attesting witness was not present at the time of signature. The fact that the requirements are partly for the protection of the signatory makes it less likely that Parliament intended that the need for them could in all circumstances be used to defeat the claim of another party.

Shah v Shah & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 527 (10 April 2001)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/527.html

[Siegfried Shrink]

The points made and linked above seem to be entirely reasonable to me, not a lawyer. He borrowed money and signed for it. He should pay it back.

I can see why paying it back is unattractive to him and why therefore any straw is to be clutched at, but I must say I am not nearly so confident as he is that things will turn out as predicted. More cash down the drain to m'learned friends and doubles all round in the Wig and Pen.

[Siegfried Shrink]

How would misconduct by the borrower cause any problem to the rights of the lender?

I think the alleged misconduct was by the lender, it was their witness to the signature,
although the cited cases render this moot.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

There is no legal requirement for the lender to countersign the loan itself. Acceptance of the money constitutes acceptance of the charge.
This is a more recent one: Bank of Scotland PLC v Waugh & others [2014] EWHC 2117 which also involves the 'trick' of intercepting mail so that he could claim his wife never received them
http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/arc ... valid-deed
(It references the previously mentioned Shah v Shah, so it's clear that that is deemed as current case law)

[notorial dissent]

Wasn't the argument that the trustees didn't properly sign the deed, and didn't the judge say it was largely irrelevant and ordered them to go back and properly sign and get witnessed the document?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It seemed from my first reading that it was the mortgage company that hadn't got the witnessing of the deeds correct, therefore the borrower (trustee) was trying to overturn the loan. The ruling appeared to say that this was irrelevant with respect to the charge against the property. I'll take another look.

[Penny Wise]

The Deed was signed by the trustees but was not witnessed (the deed that was the subject of the BOS v Waugh case)

There was no attestation clause (no where for a witness to sign). This is why it was found to be void at law.

Had there been an attestation clause and it was signed (even not at the same time as the deed was signed by the borrower) shah v shah would apply

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/493.html



As taken from the Waugh Case

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2117.html

iii) Shah v Shah shows, of course, that a person can sometimes be estopped from denying due attestation. The document with which the Court was concerned in that case appeared, however, to be valid. Accordingly, Pill LJ said that failure to comply with the formality of attestation should not in itself prevent a party into whose possession “an apparently valid deed” has come from alleging that the signatory should not be permitted to rely on the absence of attestation in his presence. He also spoke of “an apparently valid deed” in the next sentence of his judgment;

[Siegfried Shrink]

All authorities seem to agree that even if the loan is flawed in law, there is no doubt that it is a debt in equity,and the borrower does owe the money. I can't see the point of legally nitpicking the details of the paperwork when it is not disputed that the BoS did lend them pots of money, and they have not repaid pots of money.

By now Waugh should know he has not got a 'get out of debt free' leg to stand on and further litigation is futile.

However, when has this ever stopped someone in their charge to perdition.

[notorial dissent]

Here in the US that probably come under "errors and omissions", basically, if everything else is valid there is a right to make corrections, no harm no foul.

As I recall, the mortgage was validly made and taken out, the trustees ALL signed the document and got the funds, it just wasn't witnessed, but otherwise it was all valid. If he wanted to void the transaction, all he needed to do was return the borrowed money. Oh. Wait. He couldn't pay it off and he couldn't return the money either, he didn't have it. Of course, the real point of al this was that he DIDN'T want to return the money.

He's basically a whining liar and a Fraud.

[Dr. Caligari]

He's basically a whining liar and a Fraud.

Or, in the words of one of my long-ago law school classmates, "a prevaricating liar."

[notorial dissent]

He's basically a whining liar and a Fraud.

Or, in the words of one of my long-ago law school classmates, "a prevaricating liar."

Yeah, that too, not to mention really really BORING.

[Hercule Parrot]

How would misconduct by the borrower cause any problem to the rights of the lender?

I think the alleged misconduct was by the lender, it was their witness to the signature,
although the cited cases render this moot.

Waugh used the term mortgagor, which I understood to mean the borrower.

But yes, as so many other posters have remarked, and a few judges, none of this wriggling makes any difference in the end. They sought and accepted a substantial loan, which the lender is entitled to recover.

IANAL, but it also seems to me that Waugh's continuation of AP1 applications to the Land Registry have a whiff of collateral attack about them.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Waugh used the term mortgagor, which I understood to mean the borrower.

Correct.

mortgagor [ˌmɔːɡɪˈdʒɔː]
NOUN
the borrower in a mortgage, typically a homeowner.

mortgagee [ˌmɔːɡɪˈdʒiː]
NOUN
the lender in a mortgage, typically a bank, building society, or savings and loan association.

[NYGman]

I always thought that in his head, he just tuned out after the part in the judgement that said the note was not valid in law. That is the selective portion of the ruling he hangs on to. I believe in his mind, if under the law, and it is found invalid, it is no longer enforceable. Thus the repayment part of the judgement must ipso facto, e pluribus unum, pizza pizza, nunc a toonk toonk, wet ink, seals, snakes and ladders, be void ad infinitum, in perpetuity, and he doesn't owe the money anymore.

It's rather obvious, isn't it?

[HardyW]

I always thought that in his head, he just tuned out after the part in the judgement that said the note was not valid in law. That is the selective portion of the ruling he hangs on to. I believe in his mind, if under the law, and it is found invalid, it is no longer enforceable. Thus the repayment part of the judgement must ipso facto, e pluribus unum, pizza pizza, nunc a toonk toonk, wet ink, seals, snakes and ladders, be void ad infinitum, in perpetuity, and he doesn't owe the money anymore.

It's rather obvious, isn't it?

Defending the British idiots again, e pluribus unum belongs over there not over here. Mutatis mutandis you could have honi soit qui mal y pense maybe, nemo ne impune lacessit for the Scots, inter alia.

[NYGman]

Isn't much borrowed for the US anyway, what's some latin between friends.

[notorial dissent]

I always thought that in his head, he just tuned out after the part in the judgement that said the note was not valid in law. That is the selective portion of the ruling he hangs on to. I believe in his mind, if under the law, and it is found invalid, it is no longer enforceable. Thus the repayment part of the judgement must ipso facto, e pluribus unum, pizza pizza, nunc a toonk toonk, wet ink, seals, snakes and ladders, be void ad infinitum, in perpetuity, and he doesn't owe the money anymore.

It's rather obvious, isn't it?

I think that pretty well sums it up. Basically selective listening, as in ONLY hearing what he wanted to hear.

[NYGman]

I think that pretty well sums it up. Basically selective listening, as in ONLY hearing what he wanted to hear.

I think this theory is based on stories or mortgages being invalidated, during the height of the financial crisis, where there was some unscrupulous practices that did in fact lead to some mortgages void, without a requirement to repay. Although on those cases, I am not sure if they got to keep a house, more likely allowed to walk away without having to be liable any more. A far cry from Michael's desired outcome. I'm his mind, they got free money because of a void loan document, he should too.