Mortgage Professional America forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

2500 Government Foreclosures up for sale, in bulk

Notify me of new replies via email
  • Erfan | | 29 Nov 2012, 08:10 PM Agree 0
    Mortage possession costs are a bit of an uuaunsl area. If you read your mortgage terms and conditions, you will (almost inevitably) find a clause entitling the mortgage company to add any legal costs to your account. Most now say that the costs have to be reasonable, but not all!So, the starting point in mortgage possession cases is that the lender has a contractual right to their costs. That being so, (a) there needs to be a good reason for the court to depart from that position (see the case of Gomba Holdings) and (b) this is why mortgage companies don't ask for costs orders at the end of the hearing. They don't need one.You'll immediately appreciate the potential unfairness here. The hearing gets adjourned because, say, the mortgage company cannot show that the "letter to occupiers" was sent. The mortgage company are at fault, but the borrower still pays the costs of the hearing.The court does have a power to prevent the lender from adding their costs to the mortgage and can, of course, order the lender to pay costs, but, unless you raise it with the DJ, it is pretty unlikely that they'll do anything off their own bat.The lender can also apply for an account to be taken in respect of the costs, but, again, this is fairly rareThe UTCCR argument is usually applied so as to attempt to strike the costs clause from the contract. If you've got access to the Journal of Housing Law then there is a very good article about this in the 2005 edition.
Post a reply