header-logo header-logo

11 November 2022 / Cecily Crampin , Tricia Hemans , Imogen Dodds
Issue: 8002 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Mortgage receivership: Playing second fiddle?

100249
Priority in mortgage receivership: Cecily Crampin, Tricia Hemans & Imogen Dodds examine distribution of funds & multiple receivers
  • Priority between those potentially entitled to a proportion of funds coming into the hands of a receiver.
  • Issues of priority arising where there are multiple lenders and multiple receivers.

Playing second fiddle can be awkward at the best of times, but in the world of mortgage receivership, the creation of multiple charges and being one of two receivers appointed in respect of debts secured over the same asset can generate both practical and legal conundrums. This article considers the issues of priority between those potentially entitled to a proportion of funds coming into the hands of a receiver, and also issues of priority arising where there are multiple lenders and multiple receivers.

Priority when distributing funds

Distribution of income

The receiver’s obligations in respect of monies received as income will depend on the source of the power which led them to receive the money and the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll