Tweet
http://news.sky.com/info/supreme-court
Taylor and another (FC) (Appellants) v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and another (Respondents)
Case ID: UKSC 2012/0104
Case summary
Issue
Under an equity release scheme, does the mortgagee’s right to possession have priority over any right of the Appellant to remain in occupation of the mortgaged property, in circumstances where the right asserted by the Appellant is prohibited by the terms of the mortgage?
Facts
These appeals concern "equity release schemes". Under such schemes the owners of registered land sell their homes to purchasers, who promise the vendors the right to remain in their homes after the sale. Each of the Appellants sold their home pursuant to such an arrangement. On the day of the sale the purchaser simultaneously executed a mortgage over the property and purported to grant a lease back to the Appellant. However under the terms of the mortgages, the purchaser was prohibited from granting the rights of occupation which they had promised to the Appellant.
The purchasers defaulted on their mortgage payments and the Respondent lenders sought possession of the mortgaged properties. The question in these appeals is whether the mortgagee’s right to possession has priority over, or is subject to, any right of the Appellant to continue in occupation, in circumstances where the right asserted by the Appellant is prohibited by the terms of the mortgage.
In November 2010 the High Court held that the Respondents’ rights to enforce their security had priority over the rights of the Appellants to remain in occupation of their homes. In these circumstances, there is no legal defence to the Respondents’ claims for possession. In January 2012 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
Parties
Appellant name
Alison Taylor
Lee Taylor
Respondent name
Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd
Intervener's name
The Mortgage Business plc
Appeal
Justices allocated names
Lady Hale
Lord Wilson
Lord Sumption
Lord Reed
Lord Collins
Hearing date
3 to 5 Mar 2014
Schedule
3 March 2014
Taylor and another (FC) (Appellants) v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and another (Respondents)
Case ID: UKSC 2012/0104
Case summary
Issue
Under an equity release scheme, does the mortgagee’s right to possession have priority over any right of the Appellant to remain in occupation of the mortgaged property, in circumstances where the right asserted by the Appellant is prohibited by the terms of the mortgage?
Facts
These appeals concern "equity release schemes". Under such schemes the owners of registered land sell their homes to purchasers, who promise the vendors the right to remain in their homes after the sale. Each of the Appellants sold their home pursuant to such an arrangement. On the day of the sale the purchaser simultaneously executed a mortgage over the property and purported to grant a lease back to the Appellant. However under the terms of the mortgages, the purchaser was prohibited from granting the rights of occupation which they had promised to the Appellant.
The purchasers defaulted on their mortgage payments and the Respondent lenders sought possession of the mortgaged properties. The question in these appeals is whether the mortgagee’s right to possession has priority over, or is subject to, any right of the Appellant to continue in occupation, in circumstances where the right asserted by the Appellant is prohibited by the terms of the mortgage.
In November 2010 the High Court held that the Respondents’ rights to enforce their security had priority over the rights of the Appellants to remain in occupation of their homes. In these circumstances, there is no legal defence to the Respondents’ claims for possession. In January 2012 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
Parties
Appellant name
Alison Taylor
Lee Taylor
Respondent name
Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd
Intervener's name
The Mortgage Business plc
Appeal
Justices allocated names
Lady Hale
Lord Wilson
Lord Sumption
Lord Reed
Lord Collins
Hearing date
3 to 5 Mar 2014
Schedule
3 March 2014
