ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Land Law - Mortgages (Part 1)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ส.ค. 2024
- The key to mortgages is striking a balance between two parties; the mortgagor (often a homeowner) and the mortgagee (often a bank). Beyond this mortgages are also about balance between the strictness of contract law and the flexibility provided by equity. Often the mortgagee is in the stronger bargaining position and will try to enforce a strict adherence to the contract however if this is unconscionable then equity will step in to protect the mortgagor (Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd v Byrne [1939]).
The key equity is the right to redeem the mortgage and this is essentially the right of the mortgagor to pay back the mortgage (including costs and interest) to the mortgagee at any time after the date of redemption. Under the 'clogs and fetters' doctrine any attempt to interfere with this right of the mortgagor is liable to be altered or struck down by the court. Such clogs or fetters generally fall under one of three categories:
1) Exclusion/postponement of the right
In theory the mortgagor can redeem the mortgage at any time between the date of redemption right until the mortgagee can foreclose on the property. The case of Samuel v Jarrah Timber [1904] is a good example of how this right can be curtailed. The mortgage agreement included a clause that gave the mortgagee the right to buy the property at any time in the first 12 months of the contract. This meant that the mortgagor could potentially pay back the mortgage and yet still lose the property! Even though this was contractually agreed the House of Lords reluctantly stepped in and regarded this clause as a fetter to the right of redemption. Interestingly though this is in contrast to the case of Lewis v Frank Love Ltd [1961] where the mortgage contract and the option were two distinct documents and therefore allowed by the courts. This, however, should not be taken as a hard and fast rule as the case of G&C Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat [1914] requires a judge to look at the reality of the situation.
On the other side of the coin the mortgagee does have the right to postpone the earliest date of redemption and while this can be unreasonable it is not allowed to be unconscionable.
2) Unfair collateral advantages
When the mortgagee tries to gain some other advantage outside of the actual mortgage agreement the courts will always view this with suspicion. According to Lord Parker in G&C Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat [1914] these will be struck down if they are:
Unfair and unconscionable; or
A penalty that clogs equity of redemption; or
Inconsistent with the right to redeem
The most common type of collateral advantage exists in the commercial sphere in the form of solus agreements where the mortgagee requires a certain product to be exclusively stocked in a commercial property. Cf Esso Petroleum v Harper’s Garage [1968]. For more information on these topics it is also important to consider the law around restraint of trade as well as EU competition law under Art 101 TFEU.
3) Oppressive interest rates and charges
The UK is somewhat unusual in that the mortgagee does have discretion in terms of the interest charge on a mortgage as most clearly seen in the case of Paragon Finance v Nash [2002] where a variable rate was allowed and Wednesbury unreasonableness was considered. However this does not mean that interest rates can be oppressive as in the case of Cityland & Property (Holdings) Ltd. v Dabrah [1968].
Another important and often overlooked area for mortgagors is consumer protection law. s. 140A(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 allows the court to intervene where the relationship between the creditor and debtor is unfair to the debtor. Meanwhile s. 62 of the new Consumer Protection Act 2015 sets out in full the requirement for contract terms to be fair.
Protection for the mortgagee is also important where the complainant has been “misled” as to the facts of the transaction or has had their will “overborne or coerced” as per RBS v Etridge (No. 2) [2002]. Misrepresentation can cause financial transactions to be voided (Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien [1994]) while undue influence founds an equity in the complainant to void a transaction. According to Lord Browne-Wilkinson in the O'Brien case there are two types of undue influence: actual (such as threats or violence) or presumed (arising out of a relationship). Within presumed undue influence there are two sub-classes: (A) certain designated relationships; and (B) where the complainant places trust and confidence in the other person. In the first instance the burden is on the complainant to establish the relationship but after that the burden is on the other person to try and disprove undue influence. As in Papouis v Gibson-West [2004] this can often be done by showing that the person got independent, professional advice.
Undue influence is also a concern for the lender who can be put on inquiry if they have actual or constructive notice of undue influence.
wish I could transfer my tuition fee into your account because honestly you deserve it more
I was once an ADHD drop out... now I'm starting level six modules on my LLB law course, with an average that puts me in the running for first-class honours... I owe you and your lectures largely for this, be it Criminal, Tort, Land or Contract law... you have always been there to explain every area of law that I am stuck with. Hats off to you sir, and thank you.
Thanks so much and all the best of success to you!
ADHD here wondering if you would ask my trunk ajar sensor why it keeps alerting when it's latched.
The eeevil banker. I love it! always get these mixed up - and it doesn't help that my lecturers do as well!
Hallelujah for Marcus. Land law weighs as heavy as Sisyphus' rock. Cannot wait for this module *cough, punishment, to end. Thank you!
Marcus I want to thank you for the time you take to do these videos, especially mortgages and covenants I hope that I don't ever have to see a property paper again lol.
I know that feeling =/
Super!! Really appreciate this. Listened to all your lectures applicable to my areas of study and it has helped so much. THANK YOU!
What a lovely comment! Thanks for taking the time to drop by :)
I love your work, thank you so much
Thank you for breaking down the concepts! Really appreciate your videos.
Thank you so much!
I also agree with Julia Babiarz's comment below - I had great lecturers but I'd give Marcus my tuition fees over anyone else!
Very nice thresea
Not all heroes wear capes ❤
@1:15 Regarding trying to remember the difference between mortgagOR and mortgagEE. I believe the terms can be remembered more easily if you think about it linguistically. A lot of law words have this dynamic of OR/ER and EE, lesser, lesse, for example. Just think of 'or/er' as the 'doer' and 'ee' as the receiver.
A mortgage - noun.
A mortgagOR - the 'doer' of the mortgage, the person giving it.
A MortgagEE - the 'receiver', the person who receieves the mortgage.
The logic then works for any other legal word.
A lease - noun
A leaser - the 'doer' of the lease, the person who gives it to the...
Lesee - the person who 'receieves' the lease.
That's how I learnt it!
Hi Marcus, your an absolute life save for these videos. I was wondering if you would be covering more topics under land law(Easement, Unregistered ®ister land, leases). It would be really helpful as I'm currently in my final year. Thank you.
Beautiful
Thank you! I always enjoy watching your vidoes!
It's also referred to as a conditional acceptance
Marcus, you explain things very clearly
Thanks so much Marcus!!
You are more than welcome!!
Thank you so so much
I like u shephra
keep the videos coming
I was wondering where you had gotten too. lol Thank you Marcus.
Like waiting for a bus, all of a sudden two come at once! Fingers crossed back to a normal schedule now =/
Hey your videos are amazing! Could you do one on co-ownership?
You mentioned that in Lewis v frank Love ltd (1961) with the two separate agreements, that it wasn’t a clog or fetter but the court did actually fall on the side of Samuel v Jarrah and not Reeve v Lisle with this case (Lewis v Frank Love) and the two documents had to be read together and there was a mortgage containing a term clogging the equity of redemption - the option was therefore invalid
Thank you Marcus. My understanding is that UK mortgages are not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, how therefore can someone rely on section 140a of the act in court?
‘The law on mortgages is unjust, harsh and does not strike the appropriate balance between the interests of lenders on the one hand, and vulnerable parties on the other.’ Discuss.
What are good arguments for and against?
So I tried to remember the terms of mortgagee and mortgagor so borrower end with an er so is the mortgagor ends with or.
I'm Australian and if you want to view bank barstardry looking the RMBS industry here. The loan initiator sells the entire asset securities to a trust entity ie perpetual trustees (BNY Malion) then takes the roll as servicer whilst but continues to claim mortgagee status on court records in foreclosure. Any ideas here sir thankyou.
Hi - do you have a god structure for mortgage problem questions ? I’m thinking
Definitions: what is a mortgage; who are the relevant parties; who is claiming here (mortgage mortgagor)
Identify what type of mortgage (insurance/repayment legal or equity)
Rights: depending on whom we are advising
Remedies: **
The original bank lost the mortgage contact The new bank took over without a contract and changed terms and conditions, without a new contract, dicuss please
At 3:34 you seem to miss a slide?
Oh yeah! What awful editing. Not too important - just lists the three clogs/fetters I talk about anyway and that the threshold for equity intervening is unconscionability.
hi