Released every month our debt collection blog contains news, stories and tips to keep you informed.
Julie Hoskin, a councillor in Bendigo Victoria, has won her fight with the Sheriff following the sale of her family home.
Cr Hoskin was issued with a Warrant to Seize Property by the Sheriff after failing to meet repayments on a $386,819.53 debt to Ask Funding following a family law matter which arose 10 years ago. In an Affidavit submitted to the Court Cr Hoskin indicated that she struggled to repay the loan because of a chronic fatigue diagnosis that kept her out of employment until 2013. This was followed by foot injuries in 2015 and shortly thereafter deep vein thrombosis.
The Sheriff originally scheduled the sale of the property in May 2017 however Cr Hoskin was able to negotiate a 3 month moratorium while attempting to secure finance to repay the debt. With her application being declined to refinance the Sheriff proceeded with the auction and sold the property on 23 November for $389,000. Cr Hoskin however refused to hand over the property and argued in Court that the sale price was unfair.
Cr Hoskin said in an Affidavit that the sale price of $389,000 was significantly less than the valuation of $750,000 to $825,000. It is alleged that the Sheriff obtained 2 kerbside valuations from the Valuer-General that priced the property at $450,000 in 2015 and $470,000 in 2017.
Justice Michelle Quigley, of the Supreme Court, ruled in favour of Cr Hoskins saying that the process followed by the Sheriff was fundamentally flawed and led to a sale significantly undervalue. She found that the Sheriff breached their duty to act reasonably in the interests of the Creditor and Cr Hoskin in which to obtain a fair price for the property. Justice Quigley went on to say, "Stopping the Final Auction would have been a reasonable step to take in all the circumstances and would represent a balance of the best interests of both the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor."
While Cr Hoskin is asking that the sale of the property be set aside, Justice Quigley will hear further submissions before handing down a Decision.
Source: Bendigo Advertiser - May 2018
A Sheriff attempted to seize goods from the Commonwealth Bank in Sydney. According to the Australian Financial Review, the NSW Office of the Sheriff attempted to seize paintings, furniture, lounges and televisions from the Sussex Street office. The NSW Supreme Court had ordered the CBA to pay Mr O'Brien's legal fees over a disputed failed Queensland property development.
The bank apparently refused to oblige the Officers, with the Officers unsuccessful in his attempt to remove the goods. The bank claims the legal costs are offset by another amount the bank is pursuing Mr O'Brien for.
The LPI has made changes to the application forms of Writs and Caveats. These changes outlined below take effect from 1 February 2014.
A new requirement before a writ can be recorded is that an affidavit must be sworn verifying that the judgment debtor named in the writ is identical to the registered proprietor of the land. The affidavit must record the steps taken to confirm the identity and demonstrate that the judgment debtor and proprietor are the same person.
This new requirement is to reduce the risk of writs being incorrectly recorded against registered proprietors with the same name as a judgment debtor. It should be noted that when you perform a title search and have a name match, no date of birth is provided in the search.
The statutory declaration included in a caveat application now requires confirmation that the registered proprietors address is correct. This is to ensure that the LPI can notify a registered proprietor when a caveat has been entered.
This information was sourced from the Land & Property Information Circular No 2013/07 August 2013.It was widely reported in December 2010 in the Sheriffs auction rooms (Carlton, Melbourne) a six bedroom house was sold at auction for $1,000 after being seized by the sheriff.
Before going any further, it is important to deal with a possible misconception surrounding the $1,000 sale price. Under this sale process by the sheriff, the person who purchases the property also assumes the mortgage associated with it. In this case, the mortgage had an outstanding mortgage debt of approximately $465,000. If you factor in this mortgage, if the purchaser was to pay this out, the total cost of acquiring the property is actually $466,000 (plus any applicable stamp duties etc). The property was valued at around $620,000. So the real gain to the purchasers would have been approximately $160,000 (on the assumption it sold at the valuation figure).
The auction performed by the sheriff was set aside on appeal by Justice Vickery, noting that the sale price was so unfair that the sheriff did not act reasonably in accepting it.
Justice Vickery noted;
"It is important to note that, although the order of Associate Justice Mukhtar expressly authorised the sheriff to conduct a sale of the property without a reserve price, this was not an unfettered authority to sell at any price which could be obtained. The order expressly directed that any such sale must be conducted in a manner which did not “derogate from, or relieve the sheriff of a duty at law to the owner of the land when exercising power of sale”
“Whatever may be the inclination of the court to support a public officer in the unprecedented circumstances of this case, the sale as a matter of law cannot be allowed to stand,” it was ruled.
“Because the sale was not one which was properly concluded under Division 5 of the Sheriff Act for the reasons which have been explained, s 25(1) of the Sheriff Act cannot apply and [buyer Ronald] Kousal does not gain good title to the property under it."
“As to the breach of the common law duty, at the time of the second auction the value of the equity in the property was approximately $165,000.
“This was known to the sheriff’s officer conducting the sale, who announced the amounts owing on the property to the bidders prior to commencing the auction.
“The sheriff’s officer also had in his possession the kerb-side valuation of the Valuer General placing the market value of the property at $630,000.
“There was some $465,000 owing on the property.
“Nevertheless, it was knocked down to the highest bidder on the day, Mr Kousal, for $1,000.
“This price bears no relationship to the evident market value of the property or the Zhou’s equity in the sum of approximately $165,000 which was put up for sale.
“In my opinion, and after taking into account all of the relevant factors to which I have referred, this price was so unfair that the sheriff did not act reasonably in accepting it.
“The transaction cannot remain in place at common law.”
Currently the Public Service Association (PSA) have work bans in place re the actioning of writs by Sheriffs.This means that letters are sent but visits not being made to seize goods.
This affects only NSW. Not all sheriffs are adhering to these bans.
The purpose of these bans is to achieve better pay and personal security for NSW Sheriffs.
In addition the PSA believes that policies introduced by the current government have adversely affected the provision of services.
Currently in NSW only one visit to a defendant is covered on the cost of a writ and other visits are charged per visit.
The PSA believes the fee for a writ should be slightly increased but should cover a letter and then 3 visits by the sheriff.
This would be of great benefit to LCollect and its clients.
This should be resolved shortly .
Prerequisites |
Judgment |
Execution Method |
Execution by the Sheriff |
Valid for |
12 Months |
Official Name |
Writ for Levy of Property |
Notes for New South Wales;
Sheriff cannot seize:
Prerequisites |
Judgment |
Execution Method |
Execution by Sheriff |
Valid for |
12 months |
Official Name |
Warrant to Seize Property |
Notes for Victoria;
Sheriff cannot seize:
Prerequisites |
Judgment |
Execution Method |
Execution by Bailiff |
Valid for |
12 months |
Official Name |
Warrant of Seizure & Sale |
Bailiff cannot seize:
Personal clothing, bedding & Tools of trade
Prerequisites |
Judgment |
Execution Method |
Execution by Sheriff |
Valid for |
12 Months |
Official Name |
Warrant of Sale |
Sheriff cannot seize:
Personal clothing, bedding & Tools of trade
Warrants of Sale are executed against personal property prior to proceeding against real property
Prerequisites |
Judgment |
Execution Method |
Execution by Bailiff |
Valid for |
12 months |
Official Name |
Warrant to Seize & Sell Property |
Prerequisites |
Judgment / Means Inquiry |
Execution Method |
Execution by Bailiff |
Valid for |
12 months |
Official Name |
Property (Seizure and Sale) Order |
Prerequisites |
Judgment |
Execution Method |
Execution by Bailiff |
Valid for |
12 months |
Official Name |
Warrant of Seizure & Sale |
Prerequisites |
Judgment |
Execution Method |
Execution by the Sheriff |
Valid for |
12 Months |
Official Name |
Seizure and Sale Order |
1
Our Services
Read Our Blog
Client Resources
Contact Us