Snake Hill Facts

  We had a fixed-rate, interest-only mortgage loan from a lawyer`s firm over two investment properties.

  Three months into the loan, the lender breached the contract by incorrectly increasing our interest rate.

  Although we disputed this, the lender threatened to foreclose on the properties straightaway if we didn`t pay the higher rate. We paid the higher rate, but continued to dispute it, although they ignored us.

  The mortgage loan was then extended a few times. Please note the dates and overlapping terms of these loan contracts. The last extension said the loan would end on 30th September 2000.

  In early 1999 we signed Contracts of Sale for the properties, but could not complete the sales as the lender refused to give us a correct (or even approximately correct) payout figure.

  After extensive negotiations (even involving the prospective purchaser) the lender reduced the payout figure to $114,000. They refused to refund the money they had overcharged us.

  This was still much more than we owed, as the principal amount was $106,630, and the overpayments with interest came to over $8,000.

  The lender then told the prospective purchaser that we could not sell the properties as they were about to take them from us, claiming that we were so far behind with our mortgage payments.

  The lender did eventually admit to having overcharged us and promised to refund that money to us, but said it could only refund the money as credit toward future mortgage payments.

  This meant that our mortgage was prepaid until mid April 2000, but the lender sued us (without serving any documents on us ) in October 1999 and started to take the rents from 1 March 2000.

  Our loan was due for repayment or extension on 30th September 2000, but they ignored that fact. This and several other documents from the lender proves they were once aware of that date.

  Under NSW Property Law, a lender must serve a Section 57(2)(b) Notice outlining a default once a borrower`s payments fall into arrears, and then they may file a Statement of Claim with the Court.

  We did not receive such a Notice, and the lender`s solicitor later said they had put it under "some door" in our suburb.

  We did not receive a Statement of Claim, and the first we knew of this was in May 2000, when we received an Amended Statement of Claim by fax, when we expected a payout figure to enable us to finally settle on a refinance of this mortgage. We had repeatedly asked for that payout figure since early February.

  The lender had served documents on our tenants which were untrue and defamatory according to the lender`s own statements and letters, and an Affidavit.

  These documents included our full names and address and untrue details regarding the mortgage loan.

  This admits they overcharged us and promises to credit us.

  The third paragraph is interesting as the credits prepaid our loan until mid April 2000.

  The last paragraph is also interesting as they had already admitted to the extension of our loan term until 1 Oct 2000.

  Their refusal to refund the overpayments in any way except as credit toward future mortgage payments actually created a new contract in itself.

  They admitted that they had overcharged us, but their calculation of $3993.75 differs from the other figures of those calculations.

  The last 2 paragraphs are interesting as we had signed Contracts of Sale for those properties about 6 months before this letter, and the lender`s refusal to let us discharge the mortgage, and their refusal to refund to us these overpayments, and their failure to provide us with a correct payout figure ($106,630 minus $8033) kept us in the loan against our will.

     According to this statement, the lender stated our payments were $5615.60 ahead  in May 1999.

  This letter and epitome show that the mortgage is not in arrears or default, but the principal amount at the top of the page includes their legal fees for having sued us in case we might default.

  They were already helping themselves to our rents (almost twice the mortgage payment each month).

  This "payout figure" tries to charge again for money they already admitted to having received.

  It does not include the rents they had already taken from our properties, which was almost twice the mortgage payment each month.

  Please note the paragraph at "A", and their calculation of our refund as $412.69.

  These calculations were verified by an independent accountant, and the lender`s barrister admitted in Court that they agreed with this figure.

  This Affidavit states that our payments were ahead when they sued us.

  How could they charge "enforcement expenses" to that credit when the mortgage was not in default?

  The mortgage could not have been in default while they held our money in their account as credit (caused by them earlier incorrectly overcharging us and refusing to refund it to us in any way except as credit to future mortgage payments). This kept us in the loan against our will. 

  This Affidavit contrasts with the Affidavit attached to the Amended Statement of Claim. Both were sworn statements made by the same man, who also signed all of the letters overcharging us and then admitting to having overcharged us.

  We had offers of up to $300,000 per unit, but the lender stopped us from selling. They were awarded both units, against the evidence. They sold them and kept all of the proceeds.

  Not such a bad reward for filing a few documents.

  This Residential Tenancy Lease for one of our properties lists the lender as the Landlord.

  That is interesting as the Tenancy Agreement was moved to this Real Estate Agency without our knowledge or consent.

  This Lease was dated 28th September 2002.

  The date of the Court Hearing for possession was 6th February 2003.

  This is part of an Affidavit filed by the other party`s solicitor regarding the Police investigation into this matter.

  This email was sent to us almost a year after the Court Hearing which we lost.

  These are just a few of the documents relevant to our litigation, but they show the overall picture quite well. 

  All of these documents came to us from the lender and/or their solicitor, or the Police`s Fraud Squad, except the calculations which were verified by an independent accountant.

  We trust that this information explains why we were not and are not satisfied with the litigation that we endured, and why we will never agree with the Judgment that gave our properties away.

  This litigation, in which we felt helpless, and their threats to take our remaining properties, and the realisation that we were not protected by any laws at all, led to our secession.