Developer Tom McFeely’s wife told to leave home by August
THE wife of bankrupt Priory Hall developer Tom McFeely has been given seven weeks to find alternative accommodation for her and her two children after possession of the family home in an exclusive road in Dublin was granted to NAMA.
Nina McFeely had asked the Circuit Civil Court to allow her and her two teenage children to continue living in the €10m house on Ailesbury Road in Ballsbridge until the youngest child completed his Leaving Cert in June next year.
However, Judge Jacqueline Linnane yesterday refused the request.
Earlier this week, she granted an order for possession of the property but yesterday put a stay on it until August 1 to allow Mrs McFeely find alternative accommodation.
Mr McFeely, a former Maze hunger striker, spends most of his time living in London, where he was declared a bankrupt last January.
Counsel for the McFeelys, Martin Canny, said the the couple and the children were still a family unit.
The McFeelys obtained an interest-only mortgage of €9.5m in December 2006 from the Irish Nationwide Building Society, which they had defaulted on. Over €580,000 is also outstanding in unpaid interest, and the order for possession was sought by NAMA.
Michael McDowell, senior counsel for Nama, said Mrs McFeely, a joint defendant in the proceedings with her husband, had stated in an affidavit that it was her intention to appeal the possession order to the High Court.
He said it was an extraordinary situation where she had stated in the affidavit: "I have some defence but I will not tell you what it is," adding that she would have it ready for the High Court proceedings.
He said appealing to the High Court on undisclosed grounds was clearly "time-wasting".
Mr McDowell said NAMA had previously expressed its concern about the fact the property was no longer insured.
He said Mrs McFeely had merely informed the court yesterday that an independent financial consultant, an insurance broker, had been contacted by her and her husband and the broker had started the process of sourcing quotes from the market.
Mr Canny said a letter from an insurance broker stated that steps were now being taken to ensure that a policy of insurance on the property would be put in place.
He asked for a stay on the order pending the McFeelys' appeal to the High Court and pointed out that one of the defendants' children was currently sitting her Leaving Cert.
Judge Linnane said security on the mortgage was at risk when there was no insurance in place. However, she said that, taking into account the substantial amount outstanding to NAMA and the circumstances of the family, she would grant a stay on the order for possession until August 1 and awarded costs against the McFeelys.