| -1°C Dublin

McFeely's wife hit with €8m bill over loan on D4 home


Tom McFeely

Tom McFeely

Tom McFeely

NAMA has secured final judgment for €8m against the wife of Priory Hall builder Tom McFeely arising out of an unpaid loan secured on the family home in Ailesbury Road, Dublin.

Nina Lynn Kessler, otherwise known as Nina McFeely, had opposed the NAMA application claiming, among other things, she did not have independent legal advice when taking out the loan.

Yesterday at the High Court, Ms Justice Iseult O'Malley ruled the matter was the subject of previous court proceedings and the objections raised by Ms Kessler, including the issue of legal advice, had not been raised.

"It is too late to do so now," the judge said.

A loan for €9.5m was taken out by the couple from the former Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS) in December 2006, the court heard.

Ms Kessler told the court INBS had told her this was a personal loan to discharge existing mortgages on their home. It was to be repaid from income from the development of Priory Hall in Donaghmede, Dublin, whose residents had to move out because of fire safety deficiencies in the building.

She believed it was a business loan and her husband told her there would be no risk to her.

In her judgment, Mr Justice O'Malley said interest payments on the loan went into arrears and the capital was not repaid.


In January 2012, by which time NAMA had taken over the former INBS loan, it had risen to €10.6m. NAMA sought an order for possession of the house and in November 2012, the High Court dismissed an appeal against possession.

The house was sold for €2.6m in May 2013 and NAMA then sought judgment against Ms Kessler for the balance still owed on the loan, €8m. Mr McFeely had earlier, in July 2012, been adjudicated bankrupt.

In opposing the NAMA judgment application, and seeking a full hearing of the matters, Ms Kessler said apart from not having independent legal advice, INBS made certain representations to her as to the purpose of the loan and how it would be repaid, the judge said.

NAMA disputed her claims and said she could not be permitted to raise issues in circumstances where the courts had already determined that the debt she owes was well charged on the family home and that an order for possession had been granted.

Ms Justice O'Malley said if there had been any genuine dispute as to Ms Kessler's liability for the loan, it was entirely reasonable to expect these issues would have been raised in the earlier proceedings.