Why don't the Orams sell their UK House

Ste65


Joined: 23/03/2009
Posts: 106

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 12:15

I was just thinking about all this business. If the Orams sold their house in the UK (or even better sold it to someone they trust and carry on living in it rent free ;-))



That way they would have no UK assets on paper so with the situation being that nobody is realistically going to come and demolishg their house in the TRNC and no UK assets either. I think this would be their best way of handling this. If I was them I'd do this ASAP before some UK court puts some kind of covenant on their UK house stopping it ever being sold.



That' my advice. This way the Orams are in charge of their own destiny and not having to rely on warped courts making political decisions at their expense.

clayton


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 1143

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 13:55

could get a bit confusing if they still have a mortgage on it.

eager


Joined: 23/02/2007
Posts: 1272

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 14:05

I'm sure an MP would be able to find a way around it !!!

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 14:15

Stephen



Because it's now too late.



Any attempt at 'diverting' assets after a legal ruling would be considered as 'evasion of Liability' and could be overturned by any Court, with potentially further penalties or custodial sentence.



Don't worry though! Way to go yet!



Rob

sporty


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 685

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 14:48

Been a while since i posted,i feel really sorry for the orams,they are just being exploited in my view,yes we all pays our money and takes our chances.I read on a site somewhere that there are 40000 tc's owning deeds in the south,why dont they purchase some of the property in the south via purchase of these deeds from these tcs and then claim the land in the south.Its called hedging your bets!Is this too simple?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 15:19

Sporty Re Msg 5



As the Orams purchased "Es Deger" land then (with the help of the TRNC Government) they should be able to track back to the land in the South which was given up by a TC in exchange for the plot which they purchased. If the RoC view is that the Oram's don't own the land in the North then they have to accept that the Oram's now own this land in the South instead. So I believe they should be entitled to go the RoC government and certainly ask for the rent the RoC say they have been collecting on this plot and could even ask for the land to be returned to them. After all they are EU citizens and RoC is in the EU so I'm sure will comply with EU legislation. The GC(s) currently living on this plot would have to be evicted and the Orams would end up with a plot of land (even if they don't really want it and would much prefer to live in their home in the North).



That is what is so ridiculous about the Apostolides claim. A negotiated solution makes much more sense for all.

sporty


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 685

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 18:21

as with most things,negotiation is always better,but i think this has gone way too far for that to happen. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out in the end,but i'm sure this couple dont need this hassle. Such a shame for them.

Stewart


Joined: 19/07/2008
Posts: 1107

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 19:22

An idea....why don't the Orams go into politics...and class their home in the Uk as their second home and their NC home as their main home...then claim all expenses back!

tommy13


Joined: 29/04/2009
Posts: 979

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 19:46

because of the orams case , it could be that it was the one event that finally encouraged , pushed through , forced or sped up a property solution and bore a final settlement and agreement to it all hence making them the 2 folks who played a decisive role in final solution making them heroes of expats and tc's , we shouldnt feel sorry for anyone until we see how it al pans out , only then these events can be put into perspective

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 21:05

I certainly feel sorry for the Orams. Imagine the stress and worry they must have experienced over the last few years. Even now they are left with more uncertainty as to what might happen.



The solution should have been achieved without them having to be "hero expats"

Mindy



Joined: 27/10/2008
Posts: 1210

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 21:14

How do we know that 'The Orams haven't put their Uk home in one of their childrens names a long time ago.

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 21:33

VinceHugo



The fact of the matter is that the ROC don't recognise the exchange. It was a unilateral method of calculating what former GC land would be awarded to refugee TC's. This decision by dint of the fact it was made by a government not recognised by international law has no enforceability.



Harold2555

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 21:47

If a displaced TC took GC land in the north in 'exchange' for his lost land in the south, then surely the NC government now owns that land or has at least a contract of sale? A politicsl settlement would free up that land for sale or compensation which could then be used to compensate either the Orams type of owner or the original GC owner.

Or is that a utopia view?

Howmuchlonger


Joined: 08/11/2008
Posts: 61

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 22:24

Question - we're told that the TC's that were given 'exchange land' had to give their deeds of their south Cyprus land to the TC govt. Does that not mean that the Orams can get those deeds from the current govt. as compo for any losses they incur?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 22:25

Harold Re Msg 12



They may not recognise the exchange but they have to accept that there is land in the South which was/is owned by TC's. And if these TC's exchanged the deeds for land in the North who is now the owner of the land in the South? I think the answer is that it is held by the TRNC Government pending a settlement, but if that settlement doesn't come (or if games are being played such as the Oram's issue) then the TRNC government could provide the deeds to the people that they led to believe were legitimately purchasing land in the TRNC so that they can at least go after there legitimate land in the South.



Again I say, the RoC government may not recognise the exchange but they have to acknowledge that it is not GC land. They say they are looking after it waiting to hand it back to the legitimate owner, but if that legitimate owner has legally transferred the ownership to a foreign purchaser of Es Deger land then they should hand it to them on request.

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 22:32

vince



My understanding is that the ROc government hold Tc land on trust for the owner. I stand to be corrected on this but I believe that there is a residency qualification before transfers of this land by the TC owner can be made.



Others with a better understanding of the way the ROC "legitamises" its position will no doubt put me right or fill in the gaps



H

pilgrim



Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 1404

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 23:33

Is this true, or GC properganda? Otherwise plot thickens, who started 'exchange points system' myth? documented anywhere presumably some tc's who sold land acquired, where aware that their land in south was not handed to government, and now intend reclaiming. Was land offloaded before myth burst.

Hopefully this is not general, dosn,t bear well for future relations especially where foriegner has had to pay compensation.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 23:41

If this were true, that TC's simply had to turn up to be given GC land in the north, without exchanging their land in the south, then it is a bigger fraud by those TC's and the TRNC government than I imagined. Whilst the TRNC police don't know how to deal with fraud or don't want to, I'm sure someone i.e. police from a civilised country could should them what to do. Likewise the TRNC courts. Perhaps the Orams should now consider suing both the TC they bought the land off (for misrepresentation that he was the legal owner of the land) and the TRNC government likewise.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 23:55

Pilgrim



it is pure GC propoganda, a well known restraunter in Alsancak a TC who is a friend and I think many on here will know him and his partner, told me that he has not used up all of his allocated points that the TRNC Govt gave him when he submitted his South title for his exchange land in the North, as the land he has in the North was a lot smaller than the amount he had in the South.

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
10/05/2009 23:57

Is the TRNC still exchanging land for these 'points'?

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
11/05/2009

Harold Re Msg 16



I think you are right about the land being held in trust. The issue about 6 months residency is also correct although I suspect that in an EU court this requirement could be successfully challenged. But the burning issue is whether the RoC are prepared to accept that legal transfer of this right within the TRNC allows a new "owner" to come forward and claim the land. If not then what we are saying is that the TC owner, with the support of the TRNC government, can profit from their land in the south twice - once by selling it on as Es Deger and the second time by reclaiming the original plot. If this is the case, then as others have mentioned, the TRNC are responsible for a major fraud.

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
11/05/2009

That i do not know, but you are better off asking a TRNC TC than taking the word of the GC propoganda drum bangers on here.

I will be back out there next week and will make a point of asking him that question for you.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 00:08

Aceshigh Re Msg 17,



I appreciate that it's very easy to take pops at the situation but do you have any hard facts to support your claims. It is not unreasonable to believe that TC's retained title to some land in the South ie. they did not submit it to the TRNC Es Deger arrangement so the fact that TC's are reclaiming land in the South is not in itself proof of Governmental fraud.



It's also generally accepted that some forms of deed e.g. TMD were handed out without the same "exchange" arrangement.



But I think if you are going to claim that the whole Es Deger arrangement was a sham it would be helpful to provide a bit more evidence to support your claim.



Or are you a GC propagandist yourself?

TheSaints



Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 1369

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 00:10

"Or are you a GC propagandist yourself"



and well known for it under several other names too!!!

zerochlor


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 4024

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 02:20

Message 1









http://www.cyprus44.com/forums/14732.asp



Ste65



i think this thread is pretty much the same as the 1 above!



with hindsight maybe with some 1 with a little cunning and konivingness advising them maybe they would of charged the property up in the UK or even split the property up into 2 parcels here in the TRNC. 1 parcel as land. 2nd as house. Land leases house to leasee. leasee never owns house.only leases it.land in trust fund set up offshore,person leaseing house of trust never owns house only has 999 year or 30/30/30 year lease.same as we do in thailand,and after 90 years.,if we are here.we renew the process.if the law hasnt changed!



if this posting makes no sense. blame Riaz at happy valley for serving me to much vodka!!

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 02:51

Just a mere observation on reading various posts, the RoC government were never a party to the "exchange" land arrangement were they? I think that is quite obvious now to everyone. Yet the TRNC government have guaranteed that the properties on "exchanged land" will be safe. How can they? It was not a reciprocal agreement. What does that guarantee provide? Can anyone answer this query please?

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 02:57

Just one more query.... Why can't the Orams sue the TC who sold them the land? Who, if he due to receive a property in the South (which was "exchanged" for the property in the North that he sold to the Orams) then he is clearly benefiting financially, from two properties, whereas he was only entitled to one.



There must be an argument that the Orams can issue proceedings against him surely?

zerochlor


Joined: 03/04/2009
Posts: 4024

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 03:05

Message 28



Taraspring



good question.but im sure there legal eagles have explored every avenue available to them.





UNLESS there is a diffrent agenda!!



We i feel, will never know!

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 03:28

taraspring,



you are right to point out the contradiction between the parochial status of exchanged land

and trnc government guarantees



but this automatically rules out even the theoretical possibility of an action against the original seller

since according to trnc law, the transaction would have been legal in any case



nonetheless current posession does seem to confer some sort of status:

I'm not sure about the technicalities but anyone who bought in good faith with a proper contract

has no reason to despair:

and beware of someone moralising at you from cyberspace, they probably have their own axe to grind



despite a virtual "cottage industry" on cyprus 44 talking up a settlement/compensation package

any realistic prospect of this is remote and recent judgements have pushed it firmly into la-la land



while it may be sensible to take trnc promises with a pinch of salt

I do believe their leaders value the expat community, and the contact and investment

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 11:38

Tara



Let me expand on the answer given by andre.



First let me make it clear that I am only analysing the legal situation. I don't agree that it is fair but is the law as I see it. I am no GC propagandist (nor any propogandist actually)





Mr. Apostalides got a ruling in a ROC court against the Orams for retstitution of his property in TRNC and compensation (presumably for the period of their occupation against the Orams at least). The de facto political decision means that restitution is not an option but the order for compensation is according to the ECJ enforceable as other judgements in other EU countries together with costs both in the original jurisdiction and one assumes the costs of the appeals in the UK and ECJ will be awarded against the Orams. This is the dilemma the Orams are in.



What of the original TC recipient of the land? He has sold land that the legal system in which he lives allowed him to do. In which Jurisdiction would the Orams sue him?

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 11:48

The TRNC courts would not recognise that he has commited any fault. It is highly unlikely that the ROC courts would either for several reasons not least that they would insist that the plaintiffs, the Orams in that case, come to court with clean hands. As they don't recognise the Orams' claim to the land they by extension wouldn't recognse the concommitant compensation claim.



Even if they by some sleight of legal hand accepted the case and the Orams won, then how to get enforcement? Unless the particular TC had assets in another EU country then there would be no prospect of enforcement in the TRNC.



One possibility is an action by the Orams against Turkey in the ECHR. There does not appear to be a local remedy for them and the ECHR recognises only Turkey as the controlling power in TRNC.



As for deception and fraud by either the TRNc authorities or the individual TC's selling Esedger land then this is a non starter.

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 11:56

The system of Exchange is in there view valid. I am not aware of definitive pronouncements that the exchange was bi lateral. What then of the pronouncements about the safety of such lands. Do these not in effect equal a statement of intent that these properties will not just be given up in any solution or arrangement. Clearly there is no prospect of a military reversal of the 1974 intervention so in that sense the land is safe because no one is going to come and get it so any final resolution will only be reached at the negociating table be it between the two sides or TRNC and the international community. All that has happened is that the TRNC has been outflanked in legal moves as a result of the admission of the whole of Cyprus into the EU. Not a position or a legal outcome that coul have been forseen at the time of the creation of the Esedger system.

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 12:00

Finally it matters not wheter TC's have given up their claims to the TRNc government in the Esedger system because the ROC doesn't recognise that and at the moment as far as international law goes what the ROC recognises is the only thing that matters.





Is it right and fair, of course not, but the law isn't always fair. I am not a lawyer so my analysis is only based on logic and my reading. It may be completely rubbish but that can be said for lots of opinions on this and any other BB.



Long live the KKTC (well as long as its citizens wish at least)





Harold2555

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
11/05/2009 23:58

Thank you Andre514 for your answer.



Yes, there is a clear contradiction between the so caled "exchanged land" and trnc government guarantees



According to TRNC law, the transaction would have been legal, however, TRNC is recognised only by Turkey, and is deemed to be illegally occupying the North by the rest of the World. Therefore as an illegal state, are their laws/guarantees (call it what you will) actually going to be recognised when the chips are down?



I do not believe that this automatically rules out either, the original seller being joined in the current litigation , or for fresh proceedings to be launched against the original seller in the RoC, as the land was never his to sell was it? It would be the case that the original seller was given "exchanged land" for the land he left in the South, and chances are he still has his land in the South, and can make a claim against that. too.



Continued....

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 00:09

It is my understanding that he and others were entrusted to retain the land in North pending settlement of land issues, not to obtain a pecuniary advantage, (irrespective of laws/guarantees etc., )by selling the land/property in the North, and then being able to make a claim for the "lost" property in the South. It's clearly wrong.

taraspring


Joined: 25/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 00:17

Continued.



Paul, yes I can see your point in issuing proceedings in Turkey, but if the original owner has no assets in TRNC then this would be a waste of time. I think they would have more chance in RoC to go for the property he left in the South.



Just my opinion and thinking aloud.

Complicated isn't it?

rtddci


Joined: 29/12/2007
Posts: 842

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 00:55

How about every purchaser of 'exchange land' getting together & suing the TC's who sold them the land through the TRNC courts? Complete waste of time we know because the court would simply throw it out. Then pursue Turkey through the ECHR because there is no local remedy to get justice (similar to previous cases found against Turkey I believe).

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 10:38

i think there is a clause in this ruling read it again!

something to do with its implementation and the cyprus talks, not being used to de rail them.

so whilst mr t and mr c are working on it everything should be ok.

if it all falls apart then thats when the problems will come.

i think the case regarding the karmi couple has been postponed at the moment.

its about time both leaders sat down and sorted this mess out!



also i know a tc who was given land(goverment land) here in exchange and still holds the deeds to land in the south and he is hoping to get it back.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 11:34

Taraspring Re Msg 35



I think the big difference between the TRNC and RoC approach to land is that the RoC entrusted land to refugees "pending a settlement", whilst the TRNC allocated land to refugees on a permanent basis. If they had allocated it "pending a settlement" then they could not possibly condone (via the PTP process) transfer of this land. Surely the ultimate test of whether someone owns something is in them having the right to sell it - to whoever. What would be concerning is if, having given up rights to land in the South to obtain land in the North, TC's were still at liberty to claim back their land in the South.



As a more general point the difference between property policy in the North and South is that the RoC opted for an interim solution, assuming that all would revert back at some point, whereas the TRNC opted for a solution which allowed TC's to move on. We are 35 years on now and the idea of an interim solution is seeming less and less relevant.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 11:37

Firestarter Re Msg 38



"also i know a tc who was given land(goverment land) here in exchange and still holds the deeds to land in the south and he is hoping to get it back."



I guess that this is not unreasonable as long as the TC is prepared and able to give up the exchange land he was given as part of the process ie. that he has not already sold it on and taken the money.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 11:43

I know it was not adopted, but the Annan Plan did (IMO) do a great job of understanding the complexities of the property issue (on both sides) and defining a workable way forward. This approach embraced the TRNC Exchange system but with a focus on the rights of "dispossessed owners" or their inheritors by title (under TRNC or RoC law) and the rights of "current users" or their inheritors by title.



Even now it is worth a read because I believe that if we are to reach any sort of property settlement it will be based on the approach laid out in Annan.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 13:02

sorry vince,

that was my point and i didn't put it well.

he has deeds for the south but is unwilling to give up what he has here.

he was given land, then he built on it. it wasn't ever a gc's home or land, it belonged to the goverment and is situated in a tc only village.

so it looks like he could get the best of both sort of deal? or at least that is what he is hoping for.



i agree with you that some deal needs to be done and possibly on the basis similar to the annan plan.

vincehugo


Joined: 28/01/2009
Posts: 208

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 13:49

Firestarter Re Msg 42



You say he was given land that belonged to the government - that wasn't ever GC land. But you also said (Msg 38) that he was given the land "in exchange". What did he exchange it for? I ask because I'm interested in understanding what the process actually was for issuing TC's with Es Deger land. I know that the TRNC also assigned land to TC's that wasn't Es Deger e.g. TMD but it sounds to me like the gentleman you are talking about doesn't have an Es Deger deed. Whilst I guess it's worrying that he has acquired land in the North and yet still owns land in the South this doesn't necessarily undermine the Es Deger arrangement which I understood the TRNC Government had put in place.

coolkid


Joined: 24/07/2008
Posts: 64

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 14:05

I agree with other comments if this problem arises again in the Uk like the Orams transfer title to one of your children if over 18 or put it in to a limited Company which has a separate legal identity even when you own it 100% that will stop the South in its tracks.

CyprusChill


Joined: 08/05/2009
Posts: 666

Message Posted:
12/05/2009 18:04

Has there ever been recognition for the land where British Services Personnel rest. I am aware of who caused there demise but has the land where they rest ever been resolved. Consideration at least for land maintenance and care going back to the 50's.