![Image](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23658414_542806632737419_7827551805242869736_n.png?oh=f25f87825686c2e4dbc74f51d55517e7&oe=5A9E448C)
![Image](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23658713_542806712737411_3358607611943859523_n.png?oh=7a0fa9b25e5fba295d85b626264212d8&oe=5AA16973)
![Image](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23843390_542806766070739_6202716204644272549_n.png?oh=77eb7a6b9eecc81b9f30d17380545d81&oe=5A9DBA99)
![Image](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23658660_542806799404069_5378827885020153225_n.png?oh=1a4538b661ea3450b46a42b1cee91c96&oe=5AAC4BE1)
![Image](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23659460_542806829404066_215704451112423093_n.png?oh=89943fbc87f71dd860c6470b0fd180a4&oe=5AA91E73)
![Image](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23659691_542806869404062_2284049395400338357_n.png?oh=b43553fd4fa7cac90aa5d28dd7bf3da2&oe=5A8ECAFB)
![Image](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23659139_542806909404058_948421751555213649_n.png?oh=1346789a52bfed4c17d3cffe4f5f3e2c&oe=5AA02EFA)
![Image](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23754851_542806926070723_8699892286762989428_n.png?oh=660a4afaa88b259a33e7d89264795bce&oe=5A8C63F2)
![Image](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23658832_542806966070719_6528261693934266311_n.png?oh=72f7fa3000ae87e4ebc83a1c91a5f094&oe=5A9ACC04)
![Image](https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23659395_542806992737383_5786215237646156176_n.png?oh=cf759cf17ce5dbf9947636c79633ce8c&oe=5AA48738)
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
The footnote referred to reads;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,
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.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
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.Wakeman52 wrote: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.
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 wrote: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.
Yes, very likely, I agree.ArthurWankspittle wrote: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 wrote: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.
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.Siegfried Shrink wrote:I submit that this case is simply a human tragedy that does not really merit the Quatloos treatment.
"Why the bankruptcy"Siegfried Shrink wrote: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.
I wonder if this is the same Professor G Higman?ArthurWankspittle wrote:...as far as I can make out the only deceased party is Professor G Higman.
Likely - the five sons part fits.Hercule Parrot wrote:I wonder if this is the same Professor G Higman?ArthurWankspittle wrote:...as far as I can make out the only deceased party is 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
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 gurusSiegfried Shrink wrote: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.