Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Hello, and thank you for your question. I am your Expert and I will provide the answer you require.
1. The first thing is that you will be able to recover against the bank for the sale of your property portfolio at an undervalue. Essentially, where there is a liquidator sale, the liquidator owes an equitable duty to obtain the best price possible. So, here, if the liquidator had a fire sale without seeking the best price possible, then you can recover the difference between the true value and the fire sale value at which the properties were sold.
2. In your question, you state that there are still monies outstanding because the bank is pursuing you for monies still owed. Here, you can claim for any reduced value the properties were sold at and set this against the monies allegedly owed by you.
3. However, the one thing I would say to you is that most loans without a defined term of years, such as an interest only loans, are callable at will by the bank, without giving a reason. So, whilst the bank might here have made a mistake, and they accept they made a mistake, their loan documentation would preclude a claim against them, unless you can show some agreement that your loan was to run on an interest free basis for a term of years. However, be aware that most borrowers fail at this hurdle, as bank documentation is always written to allow the bank to call in the loan at any time, and without giving a reason. For this reason, I don't see you recovering damages against the bank, generally, for calling in the loan. You will recover the undervalue of the fire sale but you won't recover damages generally for breach of the Loan Agreement you had with the bank.
4. Be aware that it makes no difference to the fact that a bank loan is call-able at will that you were up to date with all payments and had done nothing wrong. Essentially, the law allows the bank to call in the loan even though you were fully up to date with every aspect or requirement the bank demanded of you. If you want to tease out any further issues, I will be happy to help further. Thank you for using the website and Please Rate or Accept the answer as unless you do so your Expert will remain unpaid by the website despite you paying for the Question.
5. Please note that I am not in a position to offer the Live Phone Service but I am happy to continue with this thread and answer your further queries.
6. The first thing I would say to you is that arguments that the bank owed you a duty of care in these circumstances to continue with an interest free arrangement indefinitely or to offer you a Capital & Repayment option will not cut any ice in court. Essentially, all these types of cases founder on the rocks of the bank's documentation which basically allow the lender to do what they want and offer credit on whatever terms they want. Additionally, all loans held with banks are call-able on demand. So, you cannot foist a duty of care on a financial institution when they can remove your credit at will where you signed up to this situation at the very beginning and continued with this throughout the loan relationship. If you are in legal proceedings arguing this point, I would suggest you think again and settle the litigation on terms advantageous to yourself and not pursue it to trial.
7. I appreciate there was confusion from the loan documentation as to whether this loan was an interest only or a Capital & Repayment loan. However, in either case, neither situation would allow you to continue with the loan arrangement where the bank decided to call in the loan.
8. Thank you for your question. If you have any further queries, I will be happy to help further. Please Rate the answer.