Hi Daisy Daisy.

The money goes into the pool of funds from which the trustee draws their fees and then distributes the remainder to the creditors.

The net effect is therefore possibly a bigger return to the creditors.

Did you already pay a sum, perhaps £500, for the trustee to give up their interest in the property?

Hi TDA thanks for your prompt reply on a Sunday.

So the more that gets paid into the pool of funds the more the IP gets? or do the creditor get it all? You mentioned "possibly a bigger return to the creditors" Can you advise me what is the legislation on how this is divided?

Yes £500 per property to buy out IP interest with no equity in it.Thank you.

Hi again Daisy Daisy.

It's hard to say exactly how the money will get split on any particular case.

However, the money goes in the pot from which the trustee draws their fees then pays the rest to creditors. If the fees were already covered by now the extra money should go to the creditors.

Hi TDA thanks for that.

Hello Daisy Daisy.

The trustee's job is primarily to gather in as much as possible for the benefit of creditors. The more assets there are, the more work a trustee may have to do to realise the funds and therefore the higher fee they are likely to seek. All fees have to be agreed by creditors, though.

So in answer to your question - I think you will find that the majority of the £2000 that you are being asked for will go to creditors, with a portion of it probably retained by the trustee for their fee.

I'm confused again on this issue. I understood the fee where it is charged was to remove the IP interest in the property, is this payable in addition to the sum of equity?

Hi RBSB.

I was confused initially for the same reason, but my reading now is that there are multiple properties.

Aaah, £500 being asked for on -ve equity property but not on the one with £2000 equity?

That's my reading and assumption.

Hi there are a number of properties, all in negative equity but one at the time of the valuation had equity of 2K. l was told at that point it wouldn't make any difference as if the IP had to sell the property there wasn't enough money in to realise any significant amount for the creditors and the fee of £500 would still apply. Seems unfair to be told one thing and then another happens. Thanks

I think it's going to matter what was agreed at the outset - if valuations were done etc. If the IP and you agreed any particular property was in -ve equity and further agreed a fee would be paid to remove it from the equations, I think that should stand.

What was agreed timescale for £500 to be paid?[?]

Just re-reading DaisyDaisy's questions;

Is there ever a case for seeking the valuation at entry to sequestration, (retrospectively) when there's a potential change to be reflected?

Is there an amount of equity which is recognised as not worth pursuing due to selling and marketing costs?

I'm guessing the equity payments need to come from property sale if a 3rd party cannot assist with funding it?

Hi RBSB.

I'm not sure I understand your first question.

If you're speaking with a particular firm (I think you are) I'd check with them about their view on a threshold for selling costs.

Selling the property may be the only option if the equity value cannot be raised otherwise.

Thanks TDA;
Re. 1st question;
For my own situation, yes-I am working with Mark on getting an application in to AIB, that's all ok and I expect to have those details worked through soon. (Car/equity etc)
I was referring to and trying to understand the scenario described by DaisyDaisy.
It's thought -by DaisyDaisy - the value at the onset of the Sequestration feb '12 (if reported on) would be lower than the earlier one used. Would the trustee be likely to seek the valuers comment on the likely change between the two dates? As I understand it, equity was seen as negligible due to sale costs etc but has now been asked for, some months into the sequestration and this has made the change in the market more important?

2nd question - I take it this is a variable figure as opposed to a set amount?

3rd question - A sale which doesn't achieve the expected funds to add to the pooled fund for distribution won't leave the sequestrated individual (sounds sore) having to find someone to provide those monies?