Considered Be Largest Asset An Individual †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: How To The Considered Be Largest Asset An Individual? Answer: Introducation Home is usually considered to be the largest asset of an individual thus sold as a mortgage. The mortgagee according to laws, is entitled to certain powers and obligations. It is advisable to understand these capabilities before buying any house on mortgage. In this situation, Pty Ltd has several legal duties and powers. Foremost, Pty Ltd has a constitutional right to sue Mr. Henry for default in payment. Mr. Henry must have agreed on monthly payment according to the personal covenant' document that guides entry into this kind of agreement. Pty Ltd can take the security of the Torrens Title property by either taking back the building or directly selling the house. However, according to the laws, he can decide to settle this case with Henry in a court of law[1]. It is also possible that Pty Ltd can decide to sub-mortgage the building. In this case, Henry will be allowed only a section of the property while another person or people will have to be in charge of a different section. This is most appropriate in the situation where Pty Ltd feels that Henry defaults in payment maybe because he cannot afford to pay the monthly bill that is required. It is however advised that this kind of an agreement be settled in a court of law or after mutual consensus. It is a fact that Henry may not be comfortable with this new arrangement but Pty Ltd has all the rights to force this or to leave it for another option[2]. However, before making any of above decisions, Henry must be served with a notice as described in the Property Law Act. This is according to the legal requirements. It is not to just decide to do something as mortgagee with informing Henry promptly. Usually, this communication is done a month before the real day. For example, if Pty Ltd wanted to sell the property to another person they would have to give Henry at least a one-month vacation notice. Before the vacation notice, however, he must be issued with cautionary notice[3]. This notice warns him of the possible implications of failing to pay the mortgages as agreed at the point of entering into this agreement. During this period Henry can settle the outstanding balance. He can as well appeal against this decision a move that must be taken in a court of law. Change of the interest rates is only done when it is oppressive. However, there must be other evidence of exploitation such as unequal bargaining for the court to agree to lo wer the interest rates charged. In fact, Henry can use this loophole to ensure that he pays less to Pty Ltd to be able to keep up with the monthly payments. Henry must pay the mortgages even after defaulting. If he keeps up with payment, there will not be a need for Pty Ltd to withdraw the agreement and enter into a new agreement with another person[4]. After issuing the notice, Pty Ltd would be free to mortgage the property to anyone they wish. This would be a new agreement that would have different terms and conditions. The terms of this new agreement must be agreed upon by all the parties involved. The greatest issue of concern, in this case, would be interest rate which can change depending on the decision of Pty Ltd. It is possible for Pty Ltd t to sell to Sly provided that Sly acts on his own and not on behalf of the company. This a special provision that Pty Ltd can undertake. All that matters is that Sly agrees to act as per the provision of the company[5]. Failure to abide by the terms of the agreement would have the company sue Sly just like any other person. In some instances. Failure to comply with the terms of the mortgage can even have Sly loss her job. In this situation, the deputy of Sly would have to act on behalf of the director while dealing with Sly. Part two My answer would not be different if the loan secured by the registrar of the mortgage were made by Sly personally. The greatest concern in this situation is to ensure the security of loans. It is always challenging to give loans to people in situations where their financial accounts cannot be easily accessed in case of default[6]. Sly, in this case, works for Pty Ltd, to mean that the company is responsible for his monthly payment. It is, therefore, possible to have favorable terms of payment between Sly and the Company in this situation. Unlike Henry who possible would be going to make a monthly payment at the bank, Sly can allow the Pty Ltd to be deducting a portion of his monthly wage to cater for the mortgage[7]. Sly and Slick being kept out of the business of providing finances gives me more reasons to trust my decisions. The fact that someone else would be handling the money provide the person to question in case Sly fails to corporate[8]. On the other hand, it gives direction to the people who should follow up and ensure that Sly complies with the terms of payment. The dangerous part of this agreement is the fact that it was an arrangement between Henry and Sly. It is not clear whether Sly was acting on behalf of the company but assuming that was not the case then there is lots of need to worry. If Sly works on his volition then it is not possible to abide by the act that guides this kind of agreement[9]. This kind of understanding requires the presence of witnesses and agreement between Sly and Henry. The company would not be liable to any challenges faced by Sly because of the move to engage Henry on his own. In fact, the company may sue Henry or Sly if they drag the name of the company into their agreement. Sly can only sell the property to Henry if she has already bought it or in situations where the ownership is transferred to her by a third party[10]. References Brotman, Helen L. "Insurance--Effect of Mistatement of Ownership on Rights of Mortgagee under Standard Mortgagee Clause."St. John's Law Review6, no. 1 (2014): 16. Dixon, Bill. "Mortgagee's failure to take reasonable care to sell at market value."The Queensland Lawyer34, no. 4 (2014): 151-153. Patterson, Dennis. "Waiver Problem in Maine Real Property Foreclosure Law: A Commercial Paper Perspective." (2014). Tabb, Charles J. "The Bankruptcy Clause, the Fifth Amendment, and the Limited Rights of Secured Creditors in Bankruptcy."U. Ill. L. Rev.(2015): 765. Welling, Henry. "Construction of Inconsistent Provisions in a Bond and Mortgage."St. John's Law Review5, no. 2 (2014): 12 [1]Welling, Henry. "Construction of Inconsistent Provisions in a Bond and Mortgage."St. John's Law Review5, no. 2 (2014): 12. [2] Brotman, Helen L. "Insurance--Effect of Mistatement of Ownership on Rights of Mortgagee under Standard Mortgagee Clause."St. John's Law Review6, no. 1 (2014): 16. [3] Tabb, Charles J. "The Bankruptcy Clause, the Fifth Amendment, and the Limited Rights of Secured Creditors in Bankruptcy."U. Ill. L. Rev.(2015): 765. [4] Dixon, Bill. "Mortgagee's failure to take reasonable care to sell at market value."The Queensland Lawyer34, no. 4 (2014): 151-153. [5] Brotman, Helen L. "Insurance--Effect of Mistatement of Ownership on Rights of Mortgagee under Standard Mortgagee Clause."St. John's Law Review6, no. 1 (2014): 16. [6] Tabb, Charles J. "The Bankruptcy Clause, the Fifth Amendment, and the Limited Rights of Secured Creditors in Bankruptcy."U. Ill. L. Rev.(2015): 765. [7]Patterson, Dennis. "Waiver Problem in Maine Real Property Foreclosure Law: A Commercial Paper Perspective." (2014). [8] Tabb, Charles J. "The Bankruptcy Clause, the Fifth Amendment, and the Limited Rights of Secured Creditors in Bankruptcy."U. Ill. L. Rev.(2015): 765. [9] Dixon, Bill. "Mortgagee's failure to take reasonable care to sell at market value."The Queensland Lawyer34, no. 4 (2014): 151-153. [10] Tabb, Charles J. "The Bankruptcy Clause, the Fifth Amendment, and the Limited Rights of Secured Creditors in Bankruptcy."U. Ill. L. Rev.(2015): 765.