Banfield & Anor v Leeds Building Society

Banfield & Anor v Leeds Building Society

The appeal was dismissed because, even if the second endowment policy had been surrendered and credited to the mortgage account in 1996, the mortgagors would still have been in arrears at the time possession proceedings were commenced. The mortgage guarantee was for the benefit of the lender only, and the mortgagors had no right to credit for sums paid under it. The mortgage was properly classified as an endowment mortgage until converted to a repayment mortgage. The lender's failure to surrender the second policy or to disclose certain documents did not affect the right to possession, as the arrears were established on the evidence.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Lawrence St John Banfield; Appellant/defendant: Beaulah Avonda Banfield; Respondent/claimant: Leeds Building Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgage Possession, Endowment Mortgage, Mortgage Guarantee, Arrears, Set Off, Disclosure Obligations
Property Law Mortgage Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Possession Endowment Mortgage Mortgage Guarantee Arrears Set Off +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence St John Banfield

Appellant/defendant

Beaulah Avonda Banfield

Appellant/defendant

Leeds Building Society

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mortgagors were entitled to credit for sums under mortgage guarantees or indemnity policies
  2. 2 Whether the mortgage was properly classified as an endowment or repayment mortgage
  3. 3 Whether the lender's failure to surrender a second endowment policy affected the right to possession or arrears calculation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, even if the second endowment policy had been surrendered and credited to the mortgage account in 1996, the mortgagors would still have been in arrears at the time possession proceedings were commenced. The mortgage guarantee was for the benefit of the lender only, and the mortgagors had no right to credit for sums paid under it. The mortgage was properly classified as an endowment mortgage until converted to a repayment mortgage. The lender's failure to surrender the second policy or to disclose certain documents did not affect the right to possession, as the arrears were established on the evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Possession order and costs order of the lower court affirmed