Home linked to Lynn included in repossession cases

What is this gap Homeboy?

Surely the fact that this case of fraud has been exposed in court and accepted by a judge means there is a case to answer?

This is an outrageous case. What a scumbag.

I don’t know exactly what the problem is legally, HCMh - I just know from media reports that Gardai couldn’t issue an extradition warrent in Europe for him.

My point is:

If a similar situation arises with another Michael Lynn type rogue solicitor nothing has changed - he/she can abscond with millions of other people’s money and continue to enjoy a jetset lifestyle anywhere outside Ireland.

There is no legal issue.

The fact is that he has been charged with NO OFFENCE !!

I can’t understand why the Garda/DPP don’t charge him with one of the less complex offences he has been accused of, say making false declarations or whatever they call it. On the strength of that they can issue a warrant & extradite him.

Once he’s back in Ireland they can drop a metric tonne of paper on him & lay the rest of the charges at their leisure.

Surely if Lynn or a minion “did” the conveyancing/title check then they would have a claim against him as a solicitor and by extension the Law Society and its compensation fund, even if Lynn was fraudulent in his non-solicitor role, which seems to be the get-out clause the Law Soc is using to evade their responsibilities?

If Lynn was NOT their solicitor - then surely they have an expectation that their own solicitor’s check of the title would have ensured they had ownership (and that there was no outstanding mortgage)? If not - don’t they have a claim against their own solicitor or the Law Soc?
The reason these @rseholes get paid their outrageous fees is to ensure Joe Public, who is assumed to have difficulty understanding legalese, can pay over money without being defrauded.
If this is not the case then there is NO reason to use solicitors - for anything - ever.
db

Thanks for that pllyanna. BUT surely in a situation where the vendor acts for themselves, telling the buyer’s solicitor “don’t worry, you give me the cash and I’ll send you the deeds real soon now” is not really acceptable. Should their solicitor not have checked that the mortgage was in fact satisfied? In any case, the deeds should surely have been forwarded to the buyers’ solicitors, which obviously did not happen. It sounds to me like their solicitor has some questions to answer at the very least…

Edit: this sounds to me like the old scam where someone “rents out” an apartment to a whole bunch of people and takes their deposits. What a wanker.

I read somewhere that one of the conditions of extradition under a European Arrest Warrant was that the suspect could only be tried on the charges on the warrant and that nothing extra could be added later. If this is the case better to wait until you are sure of the main charges and get them all on the warrant.

Al, on closing Lynn was handed the cash and in return he gave the title deeds plus an undertaking to discharge the mortgage in favour of BoSI, the purchaser’s solicitor would have relied (as solicitors continue to do every day) on this undertaking. Thye would have had the title deeds, what they needed was a vacate of the mortgage.

They may have followed up and probably did (this is when you receive the vacate from the bank directly) but that isn’t the point here, once Lynn failed to honour his undertaking there was little they could genuinely do.

Yup, they need to have the kitchen sink included.

A couple of things need to happen here. The system of solicitors undertakings which was bought in to save money for banks and purchasers needs to be changed. No doubt the banks have saved more in fees than they have lost to Michael Lynn. That is ok for them as they are big enough to bear it. However, it is not fair on the innocent purchaser who is not big enough to bear it. The bank’s counsel was totally wrong when he said the bank was an innocent party. The banks lobbied for and designe this system.

The Law Society needs to say that it will not stand by a system which is for the benefit of the banks, if the banks are going to penalise purchasers. Solicitors have nothing to gain out of the undertaking system:
it increases liabilities as the solicitor now has an additional client - the bank,
it exposes solicitors to pressure from clients to brush over flaws which causes relationship breakdown when the solicitor refuses,
it exposes their client to greater risk
it exposes the solicitor to greater risk
it put solicitors out of work as one solicitor does the work of two solicitors for no extra fees
it has caused a hugeincrease in the insurance premiums to be paid by solicitors.

If the Law Society stumped up for this unfortunate purchaser and then withdrew from the entire undertaking system then I don’t thin kanyone could hold it against them.

In the long run, electronic conveyancing will eliminate the transaction cost of a solicitor for the banks. Indeed, the Land Registry system of electronic discharges is nearly up and running which will help save purchasers and banks money in doubling up the legal protection.