It took Patience Mavuso three years to get the sale of her property reversed, during which she had to fight off repeated eviction attempts.
FNB client Patience Mavuso had to fight off repeated attempts to evict her from her property despite catching up on her arrears and reinstating her bond as far back as 2016.
FNB claimed she fell into arrears on her mortgage loan and took judgment against her nearly 10 years ago. With that judgment in hand, the bank proceeded to sell the property at a sheriff’s auction in 2022, even though she had reinstated her mortgage bond six years earlier.
The new buyer picked up the property for a song and then started turning up at Mavuso’s door trying to evict her – in effect, an extrajudicial eviction attempt.
Mavuso informed both FNB and the buyer that she intended to bring an application before the court to suspend the transfer of her property on the grounds that she had caught up on her arrears and had reinstated her mortgage agreement.
ALSO READ: South Africans cannot afford their homes but also can’t afford to sell them
Obstructionist
To bring the application, Mavuso needed the contact details for the auction buyer – which FNB and the buyer refused to provide.
To get around that, Mavuso had to approach the courts with two interim applications to court to get the buyers’ information and then join them to the proceedings.
Mavuso and the courts could have been spared two unnecessary applications had the bank or the buyer simply provided the requested contact information for the buyer.
The managing agents of the complex where Mavuso lives sided with the buyers and revoked her access to the complex.
This, says consumer advocate Leonard Benjamin, illustrates the difficulties faced by ordinary South Africans coming up against the banks in court.
ALSO READ: Durban woman reclaims home after bank illegally sold it at auction
Troubling implication?
The buyers claim that the sheriff did not inform them that Mavuso had brought an application to court to suspend the transfer of her property.
“If he did not, it would be a serious dereliction of his statutory duties, tantamount to fraud,” says Benjamin.
“And, if he told them that the transfer had been challenged but they still took transfer knowing that the transfer may be illegal, they would be implicated in the scheme.”
Moneyweb reached out to FNB for its side of the story, but did not receive a response, despite repeated follow-ups. FNB’s attorneys in this instance were Bezuidenhout Van Zyl Inc.
ALSO READ: Class action suit shows banks sell repossessed houses for cents in the rand
Confounding …
What we know from the case correspondence is that FNB indicated that it would oppose Mavuso’s application to suspend the transfer of her property, but failed to file an opposing affidavit.
Neither the sheriff who auctioned the property nor the auction buyers opposed Mavuso’s application to suspend the transfer of her property to the buyers, so she approached the court on an unopposed basis.
Just before the application was to be heard, FNB’s new attorney (it had dispensed with the services of Bezuidenhout Van Zyl) materialised at court and proposed a settlement.
Mavuso says she had no option but to agree to the settlement out of concern that the matter would be postponed if she did not, and would be subject to further attempts to evict her.
After almost three years, Mavuso secured an order instructing the Registrar of Deeds to cancel the title deed reflecting the buyers as owners, and to revive the one reflecting herself as the owner.
Ironically, FNB was on the receiving end of the landmark 2016 Nkata v FNB Constitutional Court judgment which dealt with precisely this type of situation.
The Nkata judgment makes it clear that any defaulting borrower who settles the arrears has automatically reinstated the mortgage agreement, provided they pay the ‘reasonable’ legal costs of the case. There is no need for a borrower to approach a court to affirm this right. It is automatic, so long as the arrears are settled, along with reasonable costs associated with enforcing the agreement.
Despite this ruling by the highest court in the country, banks are still trying to find ways around this inconvenience.
Benjamin says one of the ways banks do this is by loading unauthorised (“untaxed”) legal and other fees onto the customer’s home loan, thereby increasing the amount of indebtedness.
Even when customers catch up on the home loan arrears, the bank claims there is a shortfall because the legal fees have not been paid.
The problem here is these fees must be authorised by an independent taxing master. Banks still approach the courts looking for judgments against clients who have caught up on their arrears but have (correctly) not paid untaxed legal fees, says Benjamin.
ALSO READ: Kudos to woman taking on SA Home Loans
Banks versus clients
Mavuso’s story bears remarkable similarities to that of Valerie Naidoo, who earlier this year stood alone before the Durban High Court against two senior counsel representing SA Home Loans after her home had been sold at auction for a tenth of its market value – despite the fact that she had caught up on her arrears.
“In Patience’s case, it has taken three years to reverse the consequences of a sale that should not have taken place in the first place,” says Benjamin.
“In that time, the debt has escalated by the addition of three years’ worth of compound interest. In addition, Patience has three years less to pay off her bond. As a result, she will have to contend with a drastically increased repayment amount, which makes the possibility of a default in the future almost inevitable.
“One simply does not know how many other consumers have been deprived unlawfully of their properties on this basis.”
This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
