How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Clare Your Own Question
Clare, Solicitor
Category: Bankruptcy Law
Satisfied Customers: 34910
Experience:  I have been a solicitor in High Street Practice since 1985 with a wide general experience.
Type Your Bankruptcy Law Question Here...
Clare is online now

Good morning a property was put 50pc in my name 3 aug 2005

This answer was rated:

Good morning a property was put 50pc in my name 3 aug 2005 to reflect an business relationship that was in place at the time of the transfer. There was no direct monies passed hand for the first transfer but consideration was crystalised a few years later as a direct result of this transaction. 21 non 2006 the other 50pc was transferred and this time direct compensation was paid. My partner then went bankrupt 26 jun 2009. Fast forward to march 2015 the bank that has first legal charge for the mortgage called me and asked about a charge that had appeared on the title deeds at the land dept. The trustee in bankruptcy for my now expartner was called and he served me with papers that relate to her the 6 year rule was due to expire 26 jun 2015 they went ahead and got an interium charge blocking me from selling the property which I now want to do.This is blocking an investment that will yield about 12pc.Assuming that case is knocked out who is liable to pay this? They quote section 341 of the insolvency act and go back from 26 jun 2009 to say that the 3rd of aug 2005 transfer was for no value and therefore the court should overturn the transaction. In section 341 it states an issue of 3 year and 5 years in some rather odd type of English. My expartner (XP) claims at the time of the first transfer she was not insolvent and the transfer did not change that situation therefore under section 341 3 years apply which then means the first transfer is timed out. Is the xp correct? The other side has refused to show the other creditors to my xp who suspects that due to timed out issues rushed this application thorough. Before they started on me should they have had proof that the xp was insolvent/the transaction caused insolvency . In addition the 2nd transfer included extra monies that were agreed so that the xp could clear all outstanding service charges. The xp at the time was working as a assistant at a firm of lawyers took in the total amount paid off the old mortgage then claims has no idea what happen to the monies over and above the loan repayment. Is this fraud/neg on xp/firm involved? I would aslo point out that the firm was struck off by the sra for accounting issue. pls advise
I've been working hard to find a Professional to assist you with your question, but sometimes finding the right Professional can take a little longer than expected.
I wonder whether you're ok with continuing to wait for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will continue my search. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you.
Thank you!
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
ok can wait
We will continue to look for a Professional to assist you.
Thank you for your patience,
I apologise as we have not yet been able to find a Professional to assist you. Do you wish for me to continue to search for someone to assist you or would you like for us to close your question at this time?
Thank you for your patience,
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
please find the answers for me you need an insolvency expert
We will continue to look for a Professional to assist you.
Thank you for your patience,

Thank you for your question

My name is Clare

I shall do my best to help you but I need some further information first

Was this a Residential or a Commercial property?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.

Who was living there throughout the period involved?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
no I was not living there

Was your partner living there?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.

So why did your then life partner give you half of the home she was living in?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
it was a reflection of our partnership at the time

How much did you pay in total - and how much was the property worth in 2006?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
valued 400k 3 aug 2005 with the mortgage 172,026.38 and a charge for 10785.15 22 dec 2006 200k was paid and the property was transferred 100pc to me

Did you also take over the mortgage?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I did paid it off and transferred to my bank

For clarity was that as well as the £200,000?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
will give you the dates
1. 3 aug 2005 5opc of the property was transferred to my name the trustee is claiming net of the loan 108594.23
2. 21 nov 2006 property valued at 430 and the balance of the property was transferred to my name for which 200k was paid to the solictors on my partners instruction which was to pay off any arrears and redeem the loan. the loan was repaid and transferred to my bank and the arrears were not paid

What happened to the arrears - and how could the loan have been redeemed if they were not paid off?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
a stat demand was issued for the arrears 9 aug 2009 then my partner was made bankrupt 21 aug 2009 I ask the same question and was told that due to the stat demand any arrears was transferred into the bankruptcy. going on from this my partner has come in to large amount of money via a relative that has passed away am I right that section 341 of the insolvency act 1986 5 year back tracking from the 26 jun 2009 only applies as per part 2 a. if insolvent or b. becomes insolvent as a consequence of the transaction and is not the or misleading the court if he did not have proof that a/b did not apply?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
not seen reply
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
the or made an application to take my property back on the basis of an under valued transaction section 341 point 2 say it would have to make the person insolvent would he need proof of the insolvency before starting his crusade ?

What evidence do you have that your ex was NOT insolvent at the time of the first transfer?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
this is what I am being told.they have failed to come up with further creditors and at the point of the first transfer they was 100k equity still with my ex partner and the stat demand was from 17k . the question remains they have started proceeds against me without having the full facts is this no a basis to have the case struck out.? they have refused to give tha bankrupct a list of creditors which further indicated they are hiding the real position.why should be done ?

No I am afraid that they do not have to either provide the evidence nor the list of Creditors.

I am sorry to be blunt but the fact is that there appears to be no reasonable explanation for the transfer of 50% of the property to you for no payment other than the fact that your

ex partner was trying to protect the property from a future bankruptcy.

I fully appreciate that this was not actually the case but the onus is on you to prove that this was not the case.

I do understand that this goes against the usual way of things - but the Trustee in Bankruptcy has wide powers in this area

Given the involvement of a firm of solicitors which has since been struck off you may need to consider carefully the actions of your ex in this matter

Please ask if you need further details

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Good morningI am looking at section 341 of the 1986 insolvency act section 341 "relevant time" she went bankrupt 21 aug 2009 and the first transfer was done 3 aug 2005 so the 5 year time limit is working back from 21 aug 2009 is 21 aug 2004. she claims at the time of the transfer she was solvent and as the service charges related to the property was 17.5k and she therefore had (as per the other side) net equity of 108594.23 .Assuming that she is correct and at the time of the first transfer she was solvent and reading part 2 of section 341 what is the time line as it clearly states that she has to be a.insolvent at the time b .become insolvent? also she claims that once she was made bankrupt on 21 aug 2009 no further debts are valid in her bankruptcy apart from the or/lawyers fees that relate to her case is this true? she also claims that any assets that come her way which she has not been released from bankruptcy can be claimed by the official receiver is this true? as her auntie died 3 july 2013 and she claims she has received and the or has frozen 780000 gbp. if this is true does this not mean at the start of this nightmare for me that the orginal transaction did not cause / was already insolvent?

The fact that she went bankrupt within 5 years and this was a transfer without any monetary exchange makes it reversible.

I am not sure what you mean about debts - but anything she owed (other than Child maintenance arrears) at the time of the Bankruptcy is no longer recoverable.

I would have expected her to have been discharged from her bankruptcy prior to her Aunts death so those funds are hers

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
can you look at the insolvency act 1986 section 341 relevant time point 2 which states when the transaction is made she had to be insolvent or this caused he to be insolvent my question is as the estate is now in her bankruptcy does this now mean the first transaction is outside there grasp?

No it does not - because of the relationship between you and the fact that there is no explanation given for the transaction OTHER than that relationship you are caught by this provision (also at part 2)

but the requirements of this subsection are presumed to be satisfied, unless the contrary is shown, in relation to any transaction at an undervalue which is entered into by an individual with a person who is an associate of his (otherwise than by reason only of being his employee).

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
presumed scary word in the legal world. does the inheritance change the whole picture as 780k comes into her bankruptcy?

That is not relevant to your current position I am afraid

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
as they have pulled in the 780k inheritance does it not mean at the time of bankruptcy the estate was solvent and section 341 2 insolvent at the time b. becomes insolvent in consequence of the transaction now apply? also the bankruptcy lawyers have written to them asking for
a. details of any other creditors
b. schedule of costs fees and expenses
c. current receipts and payments a/c
d. list of assets held to the trustees order
e. details of the insurance policies entered into by the trustee
which one of these if any can they refused to give and re e what would this covered relate to?
pls advise
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
related to this case 200k was paid on the bankrupts instruction while she worked at the lawyers who were later closed down by the sra 170k was used to pay off the loan and was completed and the other 30k was to partly pay off any arrears and the balance was for the seller of the property . who should I ask to a/c for this money the firm that took it in(there partners) or the bankrupt who induced me to sent the money and there failed/hide the fact there were service charges that were in fact not flatted which has resulted in this mess?

I am sorry but no they do not have to give any of that information at all - and since she did not have the inheritance at the time of the transaction

that is not relevant.

However it is possible that if you can show that there are ample assets to discharge all the debts WITHOUT your property being taken into account

that could be a way forward and that is where your effort should be concentrated

The person who has to account for the money you paid is your ex.

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
i can see the point of not having the extra money at the time of the bankruptcy but they have pulled it into her estate as a direct result of the 21 aug 2009 date and she still not being discharged need to see some case law on the pointre the list of points above her lawyers have requested the info what if any can they refuse to supply?re the 30k she claims as it was paid to the client a/c its is the lawyers money to a/c for who is right?

The solicitor has to account to HER for the money - no one else

Actually of she is requesting the information she should receive all of it - after all it is her Bankruptcy.

However frankly there appears t be a great deal she is not being honest with you about so i would not rely on anything she has said

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
1. I was the client and paid there client a/c 200k with the specific instruction to pay off the loan and all service charges. why would you think they the law firm would not be guilty of negligence? she worked and the law firm and from there property dept called on the 200k2. still can not work out this section 341 and I need to be directed to the part of the act that deals with or there is case law ie point 2 a/b if the or can pull in to her bankruptcy which dates back to 21 aug 2009 and pull into her estate which due to her dishonesty still not been discharged why if they can do that does it not effect the first transfer on 3 aug 2005

1. If her mortgage was being paid off then she was the client.

Unless of course you instructed them to deal with the transfer and had a formal contract with them.

2. Fo give me I am not sure what your argument is on this. The OR will always look first at any dealing at undervalue with an associated person which happened in the previous five years. They are by definition regarded as suspect. Hence the wording

"but the requirements of this subsection are presumed to be satisfied, unless the contrary is shown, in relation to any transaction at an undervalue which is entered into by an individual with a person who is an associate of his (otherwise than by reason only of being his employee)."

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
1. I was the the client I paid the 200k to pay off the loan then transfer to my bank and I paid 30k over the amount to pay off the mortgage(170K) to pay off any arrears.she is saying it went into there client a/c and it was down to there property department to avoid what I am going through now2. how can an asset of 780k be grabbed in relation to a bankruptcy and then not be part of that bankruptcy the question is does that then mean that without any other assets she was not a BR at the time of the first transfer. they can not have it both ways

1. Did you have a written agreement with the firm. If so then you can take action against them.

2. Unless you have seen the bankruptcy accounts then you simply do not know what is happening.

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
1. understood
2. I need to know a point of law ie does an asset acquired while a bankrupt has still not been discharged and claimed by the OR from the bankruptcy date of 21 aug 2009 then mean assuming there are no other liabilities then bring the 3 aug transaction into the 341 a/b conditions ie was solvent I notice you mention above as shown to the contrary .
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
good morning the crook is now claiming she has documents that the service charges were paid and therefore there was no starting point for the 9th aug 2009 stat demand and the 21 aug 2009 BR
1. Is she now timed out from putting in an application
2. As the property 9 aug 2009 should not have the stat demand been issued on the registered holder of the property ie me as the registered holder assumes any service charges if they have not been cleared which I put my lawyers in funds to do so
btw when I was called by my bank due to the charge being put on the property last year I offered the 17500 to pay the stat demand

May I ask - what information have you received directly from her Trustee in Bankruptcy regarding why the matter has not been concluded

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
The trustee has an charge on the property and there is a trail set for nov to have the property taken away from me . sHE has not be discharged so the case is on going hence my questions on points of law as above

Have YOU raised the issue of the Inheritance with the OR yourself?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I have seen a copy of probate for her auntie and details of payments for 780k into her name from 29/6/14 to 23/01/15 she claims the lawyers found out about the a/c a froze the 780k re raising the issue I need to know the law on the subject as above then I will
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
you mentioned that a trade is assumed to good re 341 2 a/b unless proven otherwise in the BR act 1986 where does it say that?

Have you asked the PR about the monies received from the Inheritance?

I am not sure what you last question referred to?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
9/6/16 04:25 need reply
9/6/16 04:23 780k in her estate re 341 2 a/b?

Sorry - but the inheritance did not come to her until 2013 is that not correct?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
date of death 3 july 2013 date of grant 12 may 2014 and the BR claims that the OR has frozen the a/c that had 780k paid into it I am assuming has the BR has not been discharged then they have the power to do this .

Have you asked the OR about that?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Good morning1. 09/06/2016 04;25 REMAINs open
2. I do not want to go to the OR Without knowing the law. I am assuming that because the BR had not yet been released any further assets she would amass would be part of her would logically follow as this is all about time lines that the 780k would then form part of her estate which would flow back from the 21 aug 2009 date meaning the 3 aug 2005 transfer 341 2 a/b would then not apply to this nightmare and I would have the ability to defeat there claim.pls advise

Ah I see.

i am afraid that that is simply not how it works.

It is not backdated in any way.

The relevance of the Inheritance is whether or not there are sufficient assets to repay ALL the Creditors within the Bankruptcy and pay the bill of the Trustee in bankruptcy.

If there is end of matter.

If there is not then the case will go forward.

Given that the Trustee in Bankruptcy does not take this form of action just for fun I can only question the honesty of your ex

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
One thing you have highlighted is this woman is about the most dishonest I have ever come across.
1. not seen a reply to 09/06/2016 04.25
2. are you saying that if this 780k from her aunt covers all the various costs and liabilities then she can be discharged from her bankruptcy and this first transaction re the property in question is nothing to do with them? assuming correct who is liable for my fees?


1. I think the answer you are looking for is - yes it is too late to challenge it now

2. You I am afraid

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Good morningno 2 I do not understand your reply

Sorry - you will be responsible for your own fees.

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Good morning
a. 04.17 I am unclear what you mean by "you I am afraid"
b. assuming they drop the case against me due to the 780k are they liable for my fees?

a and b. If the money does mean your ex's debts are paid and the case is dropped then you will be responsible for your fees - the OR is NOT liable for them

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
To claify am I right that if the 780k results in the estate being solvent the OR has no case against me because 341 2 a/b neither was she bankrupt at the time or b.became insolvent in consequence of the transaction ?RE the fees I have paid so far as a direct result of these people harassing me are you sure they can start an action hopefully walk away from it and I have no recourse to recover my costs? I have seen a letter from the BR going to the OR asking for details of the insurance policy they took out before the start of the case? what would this be to cover?

If the £780K can be used to pay all the debts then the case will not continue as all the debts can be paid from those funds - nothing whatsoever to do with S341.

Yes they can walk away - their job is to liquidate assets and pay the debts - that is all - you have no recourse to any costs order.

Clare, Solicitor
Category: Bankruptcy Law
Satisfied Customers: 34910
Experience: I have been a solicitor in High Street Practice since 1985 with a wide general experience.
Clare and other Bankruptcy Law Specialists are ready to help you