Mortgage Corporation v Lambert & Co and another
Series: Estates Gazette ; [1999] 42 EG 138-142(5)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: 30 April 1999 L provided a valuation of a property for M, stating the value at £250,000. M lent the borrowers £176,631.73, secured on the property. M also claimed the true value of the property was only £150,000. Throughout the period of the mortgage, the borrowers remained in arrears of payments and in March 1996 M repossesed the property. In August 1996, the property was sold for £100,000. L denied negligence and alleged that M's claim was barred by the Limitation Act 1980, as before 15 October 1990 (when M first suffered losses) the value of the owner's covenant to repay instalments was worthless. The plaintiff had received valuation reports prior to 3 years ending with the issue of the writ, enabling M to question the valuation. The preliminary issue of the trial was whether the claims in contract and tort were statute-barred. "Held" From the date of the first default until 4 October 1990, the owner's covenant to pay instalments was worthless and would not have been sufficient to make up the shortfall between the amount lent and the true value of the property.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS61738 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 103179-1001 |
30 April 1999 L provided a valuation of a property for M, stating the value at £250,000. M lent the borrowers £176,631.73, secured on the property. M also claimed the true value of the property was only £150,000. Throughout the period of the mortgage, the borrowers remained in arrears of payments and in March 1996 M repossesed the property. In August 1996, the property was sold for £100,000. L denied negligence and alleged that M's claim was barred by the Limitation Act 1980, as before 15 October 1990 (when M first suffered losses) the value of the owner's covenant to repay instalments was worthless. The plaintiff had received valuation reports prior to 3 years ending with the issue of the writ, enabling M to question the valuation. The preliminary issue of the trial was whether the claims in contract and tort were statute-barred. "Held" From the date of the first default until 4 October 1990, the owner's covenant to pay instalments was worthless and would not have been sufficient to make up the shortfall between the amount lent and the true value of the property.