Brotherly love

[Gob]

Back to the OP

A successful businesswoman could lose her £750,000 home after her ex-husband allegedly forged her signature to obtain a six-figure loan.

Lauri Ann Stanbridge said that after their divorce last year, John Stanbridge secretly mortgaged the three-bedroom house in Battersea in which she was living with her children.

Mr Stanbridge used the £135,000 for 'personal living and entertaining expenses' and then began defaulting on payments, London's High Court was told.

Mrs Stanbridge, 49, had received the house in her divorce settlement and saw it as a safe haven for her children after the breakdown of her marriage, Judge Marc Dight heard.

She said she had 'the shock of her life' when she learnt that her former husband and business partner had electronically faked her signature.

But the company that loaned out the money said it believed Mrs Stanbridge knew about the faked signature and is jointly liable to repay the money - which could mean selling her West London house.

Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd have brought a High Court action against Mr and Mrs Stanbridge to that end.

Mrs Stanbridge is bringing a counter-claim, seeking a declaration that she is not liable to repay the loan.

She told the court that Mr Stanbridge had 'cut and pasted' her signature on to the loan documents from the computer system of their tax and legal consultancy business.

She said she had had no idea what he was up to before she discovered the truth in May 2010.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1fnFtqruJ

[liberty]

Back to the OP

A successful businesswoman could lose her £750,000 home after her ex-husband allegedly forged her signature to obtain a six-figure loan.

Lauri Ann Stanbridge said that after their divorce last year, John Stanbridge secretly mortgaged the three-bedroom house in Battersea in which she was living with her children.

Mr Stanbridge used the £135,000 for 'personal living and entertaining expenses' and then began defaulting on payments, London's High Court was told.

Mrs Stanbridge, 49, had received the house in her divorce settlement and saw it as a safe haven for her children after the breakdown of her marriage, Judge Marc Dight heard.

She said she had 'the shock of her life' when she learnt that her former husband and business partner had electronically faked her signature.

But the company that loaned out the money said it believed Mrs Stanbridge knew about the faked signature and is jointly liable to repay the money - which could mean selling her West London house.

Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd have brought a High Court action against Mr and Mrs Stanbridge to that end.

Mrs Stanbridge is bringing a counter-claim, seeking a declaration that she is not liable to repay the loan.

She told the court that Mr Stanbridge had 'cut and pasted' her signature on to the loan documents from the computer system of their tax and legal consultancy business.

She said she had had no idea what he was up to before she discovered the truth in May 2010.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1fnFtqruJ

I find it unbelievable that a government any government federal, state, foreign or domestic would assist a con man in stealing property. What if someone steals your car and sell it to a second party; does that person now own your car or is he in possession of stolen property?

However in the above case the bank has more of case in that the husband presumable owned half of the property.

[loCAtek]

Didn't sound like it from your snippet there.

Yes, yes, we've said this all before, which is why I don't understand why you and Gob get so butthurt about it. If you're ignoring me and/or ingesting large quantities of sodium, then be happy with that. I am.

[BoSoxGal]

liberty, if the house was awarded to the wife in the divorce settlement, then it didn't belong to the husband any longer and if proven he's guilty not only of fraud by forgery, but also contempt of the family/divorce court, I'd imagine.

[liberty]

liberty, if the house was awarded to the wife in the divorce settlement, then it didn't belong to the husband any longer and if proven he's guilty not only of fraud by forgery, but also contempt of the family/divorce court, I'd imagine.

Your right, I missed that part. But can people sell property they don't own. If a pawnshop owner buys stolen property such as jewelry is he then the rightfully owner of that property?

[The Hen]

Yes, yes, we've said this all before, which is why I don't understand why you and Gob get so butthurt about it. If you're ignoring me and/or ingesting large quantities of sodium, then be happy with that. I am.

I had mentioned to Andrew that I felt he was right in his reasoning for not ignoring people and I stated then I would no longer be doing it.

So you have an audience of at least one Lo.

You have still been trying to cause ruckus on the Board I see.

Have you wondered why you find it so hard to find peace?

[Sue U]

Back to the OP

A successful businesswoman could lose her £750,000 home after her ex-husband allegedly forged her signature to obtain a six-figure loan.

Lauri Ann Stanbridge said that after their divorce last year, John Stanbridge secretly mortgaged the three-bedroom house in Battersea in which she was living with her children.

Mr Stanbridge used the £135,000 for 'personal living and entertaining expenses' and then began defaulting on payments, London's High Court was told.

Mrs Stanbridge, 49, had received the house in her divorce settlement and saw it as a safe haven for her children after the breakdown of her marriage, Judge Marc Dight heard.

She said she had 'the shock of her life' when she learnt that her former husband and business partner had electronically faked her signature.

But the company that loaned out the money said it believed Mrs Stanbridge knew about the faked signature and is jointly liable to repay the money - which could mean selling her West London house.

Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd have brought a High Court action against Mr and Mrs Stanbridge to that end.

Mrs Stanbridge is bringing a counter-claim, seeking a declaration that she is not liable to repay the loan.

She told the court that Mr Stanbridge had 'cut and pasted' her signature on to the loan documents from the computer system of their tax and legal consultancy business.

She said she had had no idea what he was up to before she discovered the truth in May 2010.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1fnFtqruJ

This is certainly not an unheard-of, or even particularly rare, situation; I used to do occasional real estate work, and even with that limited experience I have seen family and ex-family members attempt to sell or mortgage property they don't actually own, or property that is subject to a lien or judgment. That's one of the main purposes of title insurance, which is SOP here in the US (but I see checking Wiki that it's not commonly used elsewhere). It's the title company that searches property records and court judgments, and it's the title agent who conducts the real estate closing and is responsible for ensuring the identity of the parties on behalf of its insureds. A few hundred bucks for title insurance would have either revealed the deception or given the defrauded mortgagee a source of recovery, rather than throwing a single mom and her kids out of their house because they were (presumably) collateral victims of the mortgage fraud. Alternatively, if the mortgage company failed to adequately determine exactly who it was lending money to and whether the borrower actually had title in the property, then it can blame itself for its shoddy business practices.

[Lord Jim]

It seems to me that libs got a legitimate point here...

If it were any other kind of property; a ring, a a car a piece of art, etc.,

It's the person who bought the stolen merchandise, (even if they did so innocently) who's SOL, not the rightful owner....

Why should the laws be structured to make this any different?

ETA:

Could it possibly be that the laws are written this way because in this case it would be the banks who lent the money (and hold the mortgage) who would be left holding the bag?

Oh, say it ain't so.....

[Guinevere]

Alternatively, if the mortgage company failed to adequately determine exactly who it was lending money to and whether the borrower actually had title in the property, then it can blame itself for its shoddy business practices.

Who lends that kind of money, secured by real property, without checking the title to the property? Sounds to me like the bank made a big mistake and is now trying to shift the liability for that mistake to someone else.

[Guinevere]

Could it possibly be that the laws are written this way because in this case it would be the banks who lent the money (and hold the mortgage) who would be left holding the bag?

Oh, say it ain't so.....

OK LJ, get yourself down to the Occupy SF camp, immediately

[Scooter]

That sounds an awful lot like a, shhhh, CONSPIRACY THEORY to me.

sorry, couldn't resist

[Lord Jim]

OK LJ, get yourself down to the Occupy SF camp, immediately

Maybe I'll do that Guin...

Of course first I'll have to not shower or shave for four days....

I don't want to be spotted as a newbie....

I think Tati's got a tambourine around here somewhere I can take with me....

[dales]

Smoke a blunt first, Jim.

[Gob]

Of course first I'll have to not shower or shave for four days....

Why break the habit of a lifetime?