Priority, amending and releasing security

Real estate lawyers will often be involved in registering legal charges at HM Land Registry. In some cases, they will also simultaneously be involved in registering deeds of subordination, deeds of priority, intercreditor deeds or deeds of substitution. In most refinance transactions, real estate lawyers will deal with the release of existing security and the registration of that release or discharge at HM Land Registry.

Priority

Competing security interests arise when more than one creditor has taken security over the same asset(s). Determining the order of priority between those security interests decides the order in which each of the secured creditors can claim on the secured property in an enforcement or insolvency scenario.

The 'first in time' general rule

The basic starting point in relation to priority of security is that a creditor who is ‘first in time’ with a security interest in an asset takes priority over all subsequent security interests in that same asset. However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule:

  1. a legal security interest takes priority over an earlier equitable security interest in respect of the same asset if certain

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Insolvency, declarations of trust, loan agreements, artificial asset protection, sham transactions, transactions defrauding creditors, interspousal asset transfers, change of position defence and wife’s entitlement to share of husband’s assets (Sayers v Dixon)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that six declarations of trust (DoTs) executed by the transferor (Mr Dixon) in favour of his wife (Mrs Dixon) constituted transactions defrauding his creditors within the meaning of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and that two of them, purporting to transfer all his future assets and income to Mrs Dixon, along with an accompanying loan agreement, were shams which were void and ineffective. It set aside the DoTs and ordered Mrs Dixon to restore the value of three transferred properties (which had been converted into £551,589 cash) to Mr Dixon’s trustees in bankruptcy (trustees) together with interest of £101,726. It also ordered an account to be taken of the funds that had been transferred to Mrs Dixon or on her behalf by Mr Dixon over the seven years between the date of the DoTs and his bankruptcy. The court dismissed Mrs Dixon’s defence of change of position to the trustees’ claim for restoration, finding that even if such a defence were generally available (which is unclear), she had not acted in good faith and could not rely on it. It also dismissed her defence that, having been married to Mr Dixon for many years, she was entitled to half his assets and/or an entitlement to a share of them by virtue of a right to be maintained. Written by Jonathan Lopian, barrister at New Square Chambers, who acted for the successful claimants.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents