J T Rea - Mortgage Arrears
House Purchase
In August 1920, a House Purchase loan was made to Mr J T Rea to purchase a combined shop and two houses at 185 to 189 Stoney Lane, Sparkbrook. Mr Rea subsequently made no repayments and his case came before the Bank's House Purchase Sub-Committee on a number of occasions, and a Receiver was appointed in respect of the property.
The Receiver appointed was Frank Wilde, the Bank's Valuer, who reported to the Bank in March 1921:
I regret to report that this man [J T Rea] has not kept his promise and although I have made repeated applications at Stoney Lane and at his place of business in Jennens Row he has paid nothing for the last two weeks having failed to keep definite undertakings to pay at certain times.
I have reason to believe that the second Mortgagee has not received his interest and I suggest that I endeavour to discover his name and address and see if he is prepared to take over your Mortgage. Failing this, I am of opinion that the property would sell if we had possession of the portion occupied by Rea, and I would suggest that the Town Clerk be consulted as to the prospects of obtaining such possession if your Committee consider it advisable.
It appears to me that the Rent Restriction Act cannot mean that an occupier may retain possession if he will neither pay the rent nor interest on the money he has obtained by way of a mortgage on the house he occupies.
In May 1921, Mr Wilde further reported that he had collected the rents in respect of 185-7-9 Stoney Lane, except the sum of 13/7d in arrears. However, this mortgage was to continue in an unsatisfactory manner (as detailed elsewhere) until, in January 1925 the General Manager informed the House Purchase Sub-Committee that he had been in communication with a person who was desirous of acquiring 185-7-9 Stoney Lane. The General Manager was empowered by the Sub-Committee to sell the property if suitable terms could be arranged.
The following report (dated February 3rd 1925) was presented to the House Purchase Sub-Committee on February 9th 1925:
re J. T. Rea
This mortgagor, whose property is in the hands of Mr Wilde as Receiver, has seen the General Manager and offered to give vacant possession of his shop and dwelling house on payment of 35, representing, according to his statement, decorations he has done, value of gas and other fittings, and cost of removal to another house.
After consulting the Chairman of the Full Committee, the General Manager was instructed to inform Mr Wilde that on obtaining possession a payment of 15 could be made. Mr Wilde has had several interviews with the mortgagor, and while Mr Rea was prepared to accept 15, he asked for it in advance to use as a deposit for a house at Shirley. The General Manager could not advise Mr Wilde to make any payment without obtaining possession, but that he might give a written undertaking to pay 15 on vacant possession being given, which undertaking Rea could show to the landlord of the house at Shirley. It transpires that Rea gave the name of Mr Wilde as a reference to the landlord, who asked whether Rea was a suitable tenant and could be relied upon to pay his rent. As Mr Wilde was not prepared to commit himself the offer of the house to Rea is not likely to hold.
The position with regard to Rea's mortgage is what it was a month ago, viz, that he is in arrear with his rent, that an Order has been made by the Court requiring him to pay an additional sum per week to wipe off the arrears, and that the next legal step is to apply for the execution of the Order, by ejectment proceedings. The Committee should decide whether the application to Court for ejectment should be made or not, but if applied for it will be impossible for the Bank's name to be kept out of the case.
The General Manager is of opinion that the opinion of the Town Clerk should be sought as to the likelihood of success if action is taken, and would suggest that that opinion should be given to the full Committee next Monday.
After considering this report, the Sub-Committee authorised the General Manager to endeavour to arrange suitable terms with Mr Rea for vacant possession of the premises. At the Sub-Committee's meeting on March 9th 1925 the General Manager reported that he had now obtained vacant possession of the shop and house on payment of the sum of 34. 10. 0d. It appears that after almost five years of irresolution, the Bank's problematic saga with Mr Rea's mortgage was at an end.