I am awake at this hour because a friend of mine is very upset. We were talking about why I moved into a rental and that's when she told me about her situation. I was stunned to say the least.
I'm not even sure if I can explain this correctly, but here goes.
She and her hubby bought a home in 1994. All was well then.
In 2001 after trying everything to get out of debt they filed for bankruptcy. The house had the beneficial interest bought and they remained in the house.
She then receives a letter from the former trustee stating that the house has increased in value and there has to be an equity release of the property in the house in order to pay the past creditors. Here is the part that really confuses me. She went to a solicitor and was informed by the solicitor that this action can be taken against them.
How can this be? What is happening here? Could she be confused by all of this somewhere? I am aware that in 2004 bankruptcy laws changed. Why are they not covered by the new bankruptcy laws of 2004 if this is the case? Also, what about the countless others who filed for bankruptcy before 2004 and owned homes is this the norm if the beneficial interest was bought?
I also have a question. You all know of my situation so I am not going to reiterate. If I buy another house in the distant future could this happen to me? Out of the blue, I receive a letter stating I have to sell/remortgage to pay past creditors from 2007 because I own a home in 2012? Gosh, I hope this post makes sense to someone who understands the complexities of home ownership being involved in past bankruptcy proceedings.
Any and all answers are appreciated.
All I have left is my humour.
View my blog
http://www.debtdummybankruwoman.blogs.iva.co.uk.
