Things about to get very serious and much more real? / Felicitas Letters

[eek]

Not via Felicitas, my point is any monies received came from another source so surely court would want Felicitas to prove they loaned monies? I'm no legal guru just asking.

If you look at the posts over the past 9 months you will see a continual theme that Felicitas need to prove that they have the documented papertrail showing that Felicitas own / manage the trust and the debt.

But that really only becomes an issue if an when Felicitas takes someone to court outside of a undisputed statutory demand

[WJK]

Understand eek, Iv not long found the site and not trawled through all the pages and comments. Like those possibly affected you feel the need to reach out.

[DealorNoDeal]

Suppose a Mr Jones lends money to a Mr Bloggs.

There's a written loan agreement. It's unsecured, interest free, and there's no repayment schedule. Mr Jones gives Mr Bloggs a verbal undertaking that it will never have to be repaid but there's nothing in writing. (Mr Jones says the loan agreement is just to make it look like a loan on his books )

10 years later Mr Bloggs receives a letter from a Mr Trump who says he's acquired the loan from Mr Jones. In the letter, Mr Trump says he's calling in the loan but bizarely will accept a small % to forget about it.

Mr Bloggs has evidence that Mr Jones only obtained the money in the first place due to work that Mr Bloggs carried out for someone else.

Now you might say a court will only look at the loan agreement and disregard everything else but I wouldn't want to be in Mr Trump's shoes in front of a judge.

[eek]

Suppose a Mr Jones lends money to a Mr Bloggs.

There's a written loan agreement. It's unsecured, interest free, and there's no repayment schedule. Mr Jones gives Mr Bloggs a verbal undertaking that it will never have to be repaid but there's nothing in writing. (Mr Jones says the loan agreement is just to make it look like a loan on his books )

10 years later Mr Bloggs receives a letter from a Mr Trump who says he's acquired the loan from Mr Jones. In the letter, Mr Trump says he's calling in the loan but bizarely will accept a small % to forget about it.

Mr Bloggs has evidence that Mr Jones only obtained the money in the first place due to work that Mr Bloggs carried out for someone else.

Now you might say a court will only look at the loan agreement and disregard everything else but I wouldn't want to be in Mr Trump's shoes in front of a judge.

But as we've also continually stated that depends on how far the judge wishes to look into the case. Your 4th paragraph (and the second half of the 3rd) could be completely irrelevant to the court (it is in the UK if say it's a bankruptcy /liquidation).

And if you have disputed the debt the only place to go to court is the IoM and I don't want to second guess how an IoM court will view things.

[DealorNoDeal]

• 
  But as we've also continually stated that depends on how far the judge wishes to look into the case. Your 4th paragraph (and the second half of the 3rd) could be completely irrelevant to the court (it is in the UK if say it's a bankruptcy /liquidation).
  
  And if you have disputed the debt the only place to go to court is the IoM and I don't want to second guess how an IoM court will view things.

  If a lawyer representing Mr Bloggs claims (a) the money was remuneration rather than a loan and (b) the loan agreement was sham, then a judge would have to consider that. A judge is not going to enforce a debt order if they're not satisfied that it was a bonafide loan.
  
  The judge can't just take Mr Trump's word for it because Mr Trump acquired the loan from someone else.
• -
  At the end of the day, the court isn't going to care if Mr Trump acquired fake loans.

[NotAllThere]

DealorNoDeal - sorry, tried to merge your two posts, but the forum software just deleted them instead. I've recovered one, but your deathless prose has vanished.

[DealorNoDeal]

DealorNoDeal - sorry, tried to merge your two posts, but the forum software just deleted them instead. I've recovered one, but your deathless prose has vanished.

No worries. I don't think I'm adding much value here anyway.

[DavidD]

No, you are adding a lot of common sense here and your points are very valid.

I also think that the judge would have expected Mr Trump to do the very minimum and basic due diligence i.e. checking that the loans were real, legitimate, they were not made up entirely of bad debts, there was no trust implications attached to the loans, they were not a convoluted tax avoidance scheme and he would actually be able to call them in...(the list goes on and on). The ultimate position being Mr Trump is hoping to squeeze a few bucks from a failed tax avoidance scheme (which I don't think the judge will look favourably on).

<modsnip>

[DealorNoDeal]

No, you are adding a lot of common sense here and your points are very valid.

In which case, I'll repeat the other example I gave which got accidentally deleted.

DealorNoDeal offers to give eek £1000. He says he needs to make it look like a loan otherwise he'll get earache from his missus. But he assures eek that he'll never ask for the money back. He draws up a loan agreement, with no interest and no repayment terms, which eek signs.

A few years later, eek receives a letter from TheDogsNads claiming he has acquired the loan from DealorNoDeal. In the letter he says he wants repaying but alternatively he'll accept £50 to forget about it. eek refuses to pay.

TheDogsNads takes eek to court.

I know who my money would be on to win.

[eek]

In which case, I'll repeat the other example I gave which got accidentally deleted.

DealorNoDeal offers to give eek £1000. He says he needs to make it look like a loan otherwise he'll get earache from his missus. But he assures eek that he'll never ask for the money back. He draws up a loan agreement, with no interest and no repayment terms, which eek signs.

A few years later, eek receives a letter from TheDogsNads claiming he has acquired the loan from DealorNoDeal. In the letter he says he wants repaying but alternatively he'll accept £50 to forget about it. eek refuses to pay.

TheDogsNads takes eek to court.

I know who my money would be on to win.

That would depend on what evidence appeared in court.

If TheDogsNads turned up with

• paperwork signed by DealorNoDeal where TheDogsNads bought the loan (with say evidence that some consideration had been paid to DealorNoDeal)
• and had original loan paperwork stating the terms under which the loan was to repaid
• those terms were triggerable and
• had been successfully triggered

then the case would play out very different from a case where TheDogsNads didn't have that paperwork

And you will note that we don't know exactly how many of those 4 points above are things Felicitas have and how many are merely things they claim to have

The issue of course (and the only thing we can be certain of) is that the one thing Felicitas are doing is delaying going to court as much and as long as possible