Exactly, justice will prevail and she'll get most of her 200k back & he'll be left with nothing & be homeless, serves him right :joker:

How do you know?

And he was the one that completely destroyed 5 years of work not her :laugh:

I hope he enjoys bankruptcy.

Saying that he's already been in 4 marriages/relationships that we know of it probably wont take him long to find another wealthy victim online.

if he let her sell for 170, he would be home less and left with nothing!.

wealthy victim!, you must be joking, hope he enjoys his bankrupcy, your nice!.
ther is nothing in the article says that he would not pay and said it should go to public auction.

This is a man that was childish enough to destroy a house in 5 mins that he was working on for 5 years, just out of spite.

This article is only one side of the story so you have no idea whether he would have paid her what he owed or not, but I have said all I want to about him/the article.

You can continue blindly defending him if you want though :idc:

I agree with Josy, he is in no way a victim.

your bloody rude!, like your the all seeing eye!.
it took five hours to destroy the house not five minutes, he may have been childish but she was screwing over.
the buyer was paying the exact amount of debt that was owed!, please give me a break.

I'm rude for having an opinion yet a few posts back you got personal?

Hmmm

Like I said above I have said all I want to say.

no your the one being personal, your taking satisfaction that this man will be left with nothing,
yes i agree you have said enough.

He said he wanted it to go to public auction so she would get paid and he would have some left over, she was pushing for a private sale for exactly the amount she was owed.

A Better Deal should have been done
Such a waste of a home

Exactly, she was being equally pig headed so 50/50 blame really, a house in that location would probably have done very well at auction, plus there would have been a reserve on it to prevent it being sold cheaply.

She wouldn't have had the right to sell it if the lease was not 100% hers. The only issue is him not paying her back & him being so childish & demolishing his house so that she could not recieve the money she was owed. The only thing she is guilty of is trying to get her own money back.

50/50 blame? I'm dying :laugh3:

Thats like the equivalent of giving blame to a rape victim

Doesn't matter if she was pushing though she couldn't force him to sell. His childish ill thought out reaction ruined things for both of them.

Commenting on this article the same as everyone else on the thread isn't personal or rude. And twisting peoples words adds nothing worthy to the disscussion btw.

if you read the article, the loan was against two properties and a parcel of land.
she agreed to give him two months to sell privately or it would go to public auction, but after 3 days he had an email from her lawyer saying they where seeking possession, and that she had buyer, that wanted to give 170 for all 3 properties!,

he was stupid but she was trying to screw him over.

I was doing the same commenting on the thread, but a member that's happy to see someone lose everything they have worked their whole life for, in my opinion is not a nice person.

This is the lawyer in me speaking: Always get a prenup. Always. No one is that good a shag that you should trust them with your cash, whatever the amount.

so you think I have lost my 50 pence then?:shocked:

We aren't here to discuss other members though.

Who said he was a victim?



She was pursuing it through her solicitor and forcing a sale to repay the debt as there was no issue that the debt had to be repaid, she obviously and quite rightly had paid him the loan and has proper papers to prove that she had paid it to him.

Nope it is nothing like that.

She was forcing the sale, it says so in the article, his house was due to be repossessed to pay the debt.


‘We talked about our financial agreement and she said she would give me two months to sell the properties and if I couldn’t manage it, they would go to public auction with a reserve of £170,000 for all three properties, enough to cover the remainder of her loan.
‘But three days later, I got an email from her solicitor in Aberdeen saying they were starting repossession proceedings.’
Mr Lawton added: ‘I was upset about the way things went. It was not done out of rage; possibly hurt pride. That night, I knew I was going to lose the property.
'It is sad my dream has ended this way. I wish to God I had never met Valerie. But there’s no point wasting emotion worrying over things that have happened'
Paul Lawton
‘Valerie said she had an offer for £170,000 from someone on Orkney looking to buy all three properties for just the £170,000 she was owed.
‘So basically, it felt they would all have been laughing at me behind my back. She had me by the short and curlies and I felt backed into a corner.
‘The proper way to have dealt with it would have been to put it to public auction. She would have got her money and I would have received some money too but Valerie wouldn’t let me do that.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2sYYCgdcM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

It is sad my dream has ended this way. I wish to God I had never met Valerie. But there’s no point wasting emotion worrying over things that have happened.’


..the irony of those two words...http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/f...lies/iron2.gif..because it's not an emotional reaction at all to bulldoze a house down..and not at all a waste of 5 years of your life, even though you're not going to be able to live there yourself..to not allow someone else to enjoy and appreciate those 5 years, which you have spent building it...

What a twat of a man. Glad he did that as he has only made life worse for himself.