Muintir Skibbereen Credit Union -v- Crowley & Anor [2016] IECA 213 (13 July 2016)

Muintir Skibbereen Credit Union -v- Crowley & Anor [2016] IECA 213 (13 July 2016)

The Court refused to order sale of the family homes because the innocent co-owning spouses had not consented to the loans, were not parties to the debt, and would be left unable to purchase alternative accommodation; the court's discretion under s.31 of the 2009 Act must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional protections for the family home and the objectives of the Family Home Protection Act 1976.

Citation
[2016] IECA 213
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Muintir Skibbereen Credit Union; Defendant/respondent: Cornelius Crowley; Notice Party: Breda Crowley; Defendant/respondent: Brendan Hamilton; Notice Party: Breda Hamilton
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Partition and Sale of Co Owned Property, Judgment Mortgages, Family Home Protection, Court Discretion Under Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009
Property Law Family Law Civil Procedure Partition and Sale of Co Owned Property Judgment Mortgages Family Home Protection Court Discretion Under Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muintir Skibbereen Credit Union

Plaintiff/appellant

Cornelius Crowley

Defendant/respondent

Breda Crowley

Notice Party

Brendan Hamilton

Defendant/respondent

Breda Hamilton

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court should order the sale of jointly owned family homes to satisfy a judgment debt against one spouse under s.31 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to order sale of the family homes because the innocent co-owning spouses had not consented to the loans, were not parties to the debt, and would be left unable to purchase alternative accommodation; the court's discretion under s.31 of the 2009 Act must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional protections for the family home and the objectives of the Family Home Protection Act 1976.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no order for sale of the family homes; Credit Union entitled to well-charging orders only.