Services

Get help with your work from LawTeacher

Get it right the first time & learn smarter today

Place an Order

This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Published: Fri, 02 Feb 2018

Free Law Essays – Property Law

In 1990 Jo obtained a loan of 300,000 from Sharx plc.
The loan was secured by way of legal mortgage on Jo’s business premises. The
premises valued at 500,000 comprised two business units. The mortgage deed
stated that: 1. the loan must be repaid by monthly installments over twenty
five years, and 2. no part of the property must be leased. In 2001 Jo granted a
5 year lease of the first floor unit to Sue at an annual rent of 10,000.
Although Sue is paying her rent regularly, Jo is now in arrears with his monthly
repayments. Furthermore, the value of the property has dropped to 280,000.
Sharx plc is concerned about the arrears.

Advise Sharx plc of the action it can
take against Jo.

The present factual scenario calls attention to the law
surrounding mortgages, and most particularly to the law surrounding the rights
of the mortgagee. In the present factual scenario, the mortgagor has fallen
into arrears and has breached the terms of the mortgage. This essay proposes to
analyse the way in which the law protects the position of the mortgagee in
these situations.

There are several options available to the mortgagee.
One of the oldest and perhaps the most draconian of all the measures open to
the mortgagee is foreclosure. In fact this was the traditional remedy by which
a mortgage was enforced. The mortgagee cannot therefore seek the remedy of
foreclosure until the contractual obligation to repay the mortgage debt has
been breached. Quite clearly, in these circumstances, Jo has indeed breached
these obligations, and to that extent, therefore, is liable to be the victim of
such a remedy.

The effect of foreclosure is to vest the mortgagor’s
property, which is the subject of the mortgage security, in the mortgagee in
full settlement of the debt. In this case, we can see that the value of the
property is now 280,000. We do not know for certain, however, at how much the
mortgage debt currently stands. We know that in 1990 it was 300,000, but from
then till the present date one could assume that more than half the debt has
been paid as the debt was to be paid in full within twenty five years.
Therefore if the full interest in the house, now worth 280,000, was fully
vested in the mortgagee, presumably there would be a surplus sum remaining. How
is this surplus dealt with in foreclosure proceedings? Unfortunately for Jo,
this answer to this is that the mortgagee is not liable to pay the balance in
value to the mortgagor. This makes it, very often, an extremely unfair remedy
to the mortgagor. For this reason a court order is needed to seek foreclosure.
Moreover, on hearing an application for foreclosure, the court will give the
mortgagor, in this case Jo, a period in which he can redeem the mortgage.
Normally the mortgagor would be in financial difficulties and is therefore
unable to redeem the mortgage; this is quite clearly the situation in the
present case. As a result the mortgagor is given the right to ask for an order
of sale instead of foreclosure. This is of course not as beneficial to Stark,
as in this case they would only be able to keep the value of the debt plus
interest, and they would have to return the remainder to Jo. Moreover, in Palk
v Mortgage Services Funding plc
([1993] Ch 330) it was held that an order
for sale may also be appropriate in any case if it produces a better result for
the mortgagor. The present case, it is submitted, would qualify. As a result it
is doubtful whether in the present situation the court was grant an order for
foreclosure.

Moreover, even if foreclosure is granted, the court may
later choose to reverse the proceedings and allow Jo to redeem after all. The
criteria which the court will take into account when deciding such an
application to effectively reverse the order for foreclosure are: the
mortgagor’s reason’s for failing to redeem before foreclosure, the speed of the
application and the nature of the property. All in all in the present
circumstances I would advise Stark that it is neither likely that the courts
will grant foreclosure, nor for that matter advisable, as it is a remedy which
fails to provide them with appropriate protection.

Another, more realistic, remedy is that of possession.
This, in most cases, is little more than a prelude to the sale of the property,
but in many cases the mortgagee opts for leasing out the property in order to
pay the mortgage debt off from the rent. In such cases, however, we shall see
that the mortgagee normally prefers to appoint a receiver. In the majority of
cases involving possession, however, the mortgagee opts for possession to make
the sale less problematic as it is easier to sell a property that is vacant. It
is interesting to note, however, that the mortgagee has the right to possession
of the mortgage property from the moment the mortgage is created. In fact,
Harmann J, in Four Maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall Properties Ltd ([1957] Ch
317), held that The mortgagee may go into possession before the ink is dry on
the mortgage unless there is something in the contract, express or implied,
whereby he has contracted himself out of that right. Of course, this is almost
always the case, and no doubt the mortgage contract between Stark and Jo
contains a term that possession will not be taken whilst Jo pays the mortgage
instalments. Of course, that term has been breached, and as a result Stark can,
in theory, take possession of the property straight away. However, they have to
obtain an order for possession from the court so as not to be in breach of Section
6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 which applies where the property is occupied.
If, however, peaceable entry is possible without resort to the court this is
perfectly acceptable (Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc [1999] 1 QB 263).
If this were possible, I would advise Stark Ltd to proceed in this manner, as
it is a way of avoiding the protection available to the mortgagor when an order
for possession is sought in court. For one, the court may postpone possession,
although it has been held that this power is to be used sparingly. Further
protection is given if the property is a dwelling house by virtue of section 36
of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. However, it is clear from the facts
that the mortgage property is Jo’s business premises which is quite clearly not
a dwelling house, and as a result the further protection afforded by section 36
is irrelevant to Stark.

Moreover, it was granted in Bristol and West
Building Society v Ellis
[1996] 73 P&CR 158, that a possession order
will be granted where the mortgagor cannot discharge the arrears by periodic
payments and whose only prospect is the sale of the property.

Moving on to the remedy of selling the property, then,
it is first of all worth taking into account the fact that the power for the
mortgagee to sell the land is, by virtue of Section 101(1)(i) of the Law
Property Act 1925 (LPA), implied into every mortgage made by deed. It is also
interesting to note, however, that the power arises when the debt becomes due
(either when the contractual date for redemption has passed or the mortgagor
fails to pay the mortgage instalments as in the present case), but can only be exercised when one of the following conditions, prescribed in Section 103 LPA, has been
met:

a)      A
notice requiring payment has been served on the mortgagor and the default has
continued for three months thereafter; or

b)      Some
of the interest payable is at least two months in arrear; or

c)      There
has been breach of a covenant in the mortgage deed (other than that relating to
the payment of money) or of some provision of the LPA 1925.

In the present case there is no evidence that conditions (a)
and (b) apply, but quite clearly Jo has breached the covenant not to lease the
property by leasing the first floor unit to Sue, and it is submitted that this
satisfies condition (c). As a result, I would advise Stark, that they would be
entitled to sell the property without leave of the court.

I would warn Stark, however, that if they choose to
sell the property and the court decides that the conditions in Section 103 were
not met, then Stark is liable in damages to Jo if they have sold the property.

I would also warn Stark that they must act in good
faith and take reasonable care to obtain the true market value of the property
when they sell (see Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd [1971] Ch
949. I would also warn Stark that they cannot sell the property to themselves.
If, however, they sell to a company in which they own a share, there seems to
be no rule against this, but the mortgagee must show that the sale was in good
faith and that they took reasonable precautions to obtain the best price (see Tse
Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen
[1983] 1 WLR 1349.

I would advise Stark that they would be entitled to
exercise the right to sell at any time, and that it is irrelevant that a better
price would be obtained by delaying the sale. It is also worth noting that
under Section 92(2) LPA, the court has jurisdiction to order sale at the
request of either the mortgagor or the mortgagee even if the other party
proposes sale.

Finally, as regards sale, I would have to advise Stark
that if he sells the property he becomes a trustee of the proceeds of sale
under Section 105 LPA and holds the proceeds of the sale to:

  • Discharge prior incumbrances
  • Pay expenses of sale
  • Discharge money due to the mortgagee under the mortgage
  • Pay balance to the next mortgagee or the mortgagor.

It was mentioned before that there are cases where the
mortgagee may have the power to appoint a receiver. This power may be expressly
granted in the mortgage deed or it will be implied into the mortgage deed by
virtue of section 101 LPA as long as the mortgage is created by deed. It is a
useful remedy where the mortgagee does not wish to sell the property or take
possession of it. The power to appoint a receiver arises and becomes
exercisable in exactly the same way as the statutory power of sale (see above).
The receiver is deemed to be the agent of the mortgagor. The duty of the
receiver is to collect all the income and to apply it in the following way:

  • pay outgoings of the land
  • make payments which rank in priority to the mortgage
  • pay his/her own commission and insurance
  • pay interest due under the mortgage
  • pay capital if directed in writing by the mortgagee
  • pay the balance to the mortgagor.

I would also remind Stark, that as the mortgage is a loan,
Stark could sue on the personal covenant to repay as this term has been
breached. Even after a sale, therefore, Stark can sue Jo if they have suffered
monetary loss as a result of Jo’s failure to repay.

Remedies Available to Equitable Mortgagor

It was held in the case of Tebb v Hodge ((1869) LR 5
CP 73), that a contract to create a legal mortgage also takes effect as an
equitable mortgage provided it is a contract for which the courts can order
specific performance. On the facts it is likely that the present contract
qualifies as presumably the mortgage money (the 500,000) has already been
advanced. As a result there are a number of equitable remedies available to
Stark as the equitable mortgagee. These remedies, however, are of little
relevance in situations where the mortgagee can rely on legal remedies, as
these are available as of right whereas the mortgagee to an equitable remedy
may obtain the same remedy only after the trouble and expense of obtaining a
court order. Moreover, equitable remedies, due to their equitable nature, will
always be discretionary. In the present case, therefore, the remedies may be of
little interest to Stark as it is submitted that they should be entitled to
their remedies under the legal mortgage, but nevertheless they should be in a
stronger position if they know where they stand as regards the equitable
mortgage as well.

Foreclosure, of course, is an equitable remedy and
therefore operates in the same way in an equitable mortgage as it does under a
legal one.

As regards possession, there is some controversy as to
whether an equitable mortgagee has a right to possession without a court order.
In terms of obtaining a court order, the position is exactly the same as for a
legal mortgage.

As we have seen the statutory power of sale under
section 105 LPA applies only to mortgages made by deed, and therefore an
equitable mortgagee will have no such power. However, under section 91(2) LPA
he may still apply to the court for an order of sale.

Finally, the power to appoint a receiver under section
101(1)(iii) LPA applies only to equitable mortgages which are made by deed, but
any equitable mortgagee may apply to the court for the appointment of a
receiver, under section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

As we have seen there are a number of remedies
available for Stark Ltd in the present situation. We are told that on the facts
Stark and Jo created a legal mortgage, and plainly this provides better
protection to Stark as mortgagee. Under a legal mortgage Stark has a number of
rights whereas under an equitable mortgage any remedy is subject to the court’s
discretion. Having advised Stark as to their different remedies, it remains for
them to decide which remedy which be most beneficial or most worthy of pursuing
in the present situation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

  • Mackenzie, J and Phillips, M, Textbook on Land Law (9th edn), Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2002.
  • Pascoe, S, Land Law, Bell & Bain, Glasgow: 2002.

Cases

  • Palk v Mortgage Services Funding plc [1993] Ch 330
  • Four Maids Ltd v Dudley Marshall Properties Ltd ([1957] Ch 317
  • Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc [1999] 1 QB 263
  • Bristol and West Building Society v Ellis [1996] 73
    P&CR 158
  • Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd [1971]
    Ch 949
  • Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] 1 WLR 1349
  • Tebb v Hodge (1869) LR 5 CP 73

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the Law Teacher website then please click on the link below to request removal:



More from Law Teacher

Law Teacher can show you how to write great academic work with our 4.1 star rated services

Reviews.co.uk Logo
Place an order or Learn about our services