Cyprus Law | What if a Lawyer is Grossly Negligent?


Cyprus Law – What if a Lawyer is Grossly Negligent?

In Cyprus those victims of stealth mortgages seem to fall into two categories…the ‘befores’ and the ‘afters’.

The ‘befores’ are those who bought a property with a mortgage already on the property, and one can possibly say that the Advocate/Lawyer was grossly negligent in allowing this to happen. In north Cyprus we were all told that the Advocates here had no ‘duty of care’ to the client but of course since it is possible to sue your Advocate for negligence, it sort of blows that argument clear out of the water.

advocates owe no duty of care

This rather questionable claim must have been made more in hope than expectation and the belief that we are stupid enough to believe everything we read maybe?

“Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally “not to pick up something”) is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.”

I think negligence clearly involves lack of ‘duty of care’. I guess the Advocates who did not ‘pick up’ the fact that there was a mortgage on the property and happily handed over YOUR money were negligent. Well we all hope they did not ‘pick it up’, because if they knew and still allowed completion, this would surely make civil negligence into criminal negligence?

This in no way absolves the lending institutions who clearly lent money to questionable borrowers.

Then we come to the ‘afters’. Clearly if the Advocate who completed the purchase did search and found no mortgage, it must be a flaw in the law that allows one to be put on after. Well those of us who have found ourselves in this position would claim a law that allows someone to sell a property and then borrow using the sold property/land as security is very flawed. It is of little comfort that the flawed law allows this, and natural justice will surely not condone it. The double dipping borrower has, in my opinion committed a major fraud against the lending institution and the lending institution has been less than diligent in not having the checks and balances in place in their mortgage department to prohibit this.

In my opinion, the police should be involved, since the crime is premeditated, it should not involve the purchaser at all. Yet here we are many years on still trying to get justice from a system that claims FRAUD is a CIVIL OFFENCE. Go figure.

Never give in never give up

Pauline Read

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.