Tweet
Re: CO SOLD TO DCA AFTER 6 YEARS OF NO CONTACT.
who asked (DCA name?) and as planB said - DO NOT say!!
However pay attention to Yorkshire Bank v Mulhall (CoA) - it's from 2008
--> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1156.html
layman version:
Originally posted by unclebobbybee
View Post
However pay attention to Yorkshire Bank v Mulhall (CoA) - it's from 2008
--> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1156.html
layman version:
In Mulhall, the defendant had guaranteed a company loan by the Bank. The company defaulted and the Bank demanded payment from the defendant under the guarantee. Judgment in default was obtained against her and a charging order in respect of the judgment was secured on her property. The Bank did nothing to enforce its security for 16 years, at which time the defendant applied to set the judgment and charging order aside on the basis of the Bank's delay in enforcement which meant that they had no continuing right under it by reason of the lapse of time. She argued that the charging order was statute barred under s20(1) Limitation Act 1980 which provides for a 12 year limitation period for any action to recover "any principal sum of money secured by a mortgage or other charge on property".
Refusing the defendant's appeal, the Court of Appeal held that S 20(1) does not apply either to the making of the charging order nor to any of the normal steps by way of enforcement of it. The charging order provides security for a judgment debt and judgment debts are, on the whole, outside the scope of the limitation legislation. A charging order gives the judgment creditor the rights of a secured creditor which can not be defeated by a claim to adverse possession.
Different time limits apply in relation to a charging order as opposed to a legal mortgage. With a charging order, the creditor already has a judgment. There is no need to protect the defendant from stale claims on the basis that the delay may make it difficult for him to obtain relevant evidence. The parties' rights have already been established by court proceedings and it is only the question of enforcement that remains outstanding.
Refusing the defendant's appeal, the Court of Appeal held that S 20(1) does not apply either to the making of the charging order nor to any of the normal steps by way of enforcement of it. The charging order provides security for a judgment debt and judgment debts are, on the whole, outside the scope of the limitation legislation. A charging order gives the judgment creditor the rights of a secured creditor which can not be defeated by a claim to adverse possession.
Different time limits apply in relation to a charging order as opposed to a legal mortgage. With a charging order, the creditor already has a judgment. There is no need to protect the defendant from stale claims on the basis that the delay may make it difficult for him to obtain relevant evidence. The parties' rights have already been established by court proceedings and it is only the question of enforcement that remains outstanding.
Comment