Nicole represented the Defendant in a case where, prior to her involvement, the Claimant had secured a final charging order in relation to her client’s property. The Claimant was now seeking to enforce the final charging order by applying for an order for sale of my client’s property.
She first successfully applied for an adjournment of the initial hearing, since the Claimant had not provided up-to-date information regarding the outstanding mortgage balance and valuation of the property. This meant that she it was impossible to confirm whether there was sufficient equity in the property to discharge the creditors.
When the matter returned to court, Nicole submitted that there was insufficient equity in the property to discharge the mortgage creditor and then the claimant, and that an order for sale should therefore not be made.
She proposed instead that a payment plan should be implemented which would allow for her client to repay the claimant in full and also remain in their home. The Claimant, however, argued that there was sufficient equity.
The Judge found that there was sufficient equity in the property to discharge both mortgage creditor and the claimant and therefore granted an order for sale of the client’s property. However, this would be delayed by three months, allowing the Defendant the opportunity to repay by the end of that period, in which case the order for sale would be cancelled.
