MORTGAGE ACT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 195, 17 July 1935, Page 7

MORTGAGE ACT

EXTENT OF RELIEF. DISCUSSION BY FARMERS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, July 18. Tho following remit, sent forward by the combined conference held recently at Palmerston North, came before the New Zealand Farmers’ Union Conference to-day: As the provisions of the Mortgage Corporation and Mortgagors Final Adjustment Act are inadequate to restore financial solvency to the primary producing industry in New Zealand, the conierence unite with other provinces to work wholeheartedly for a restoration of purchasing power and to further consideration of the nationalisation of internal currency and credit. Moved by the Wairarapa delegates, it was stated to be an amendment to the guaranteed price remit submitted to the combined conference at Palmerston North. The remit was carried by 3D votes to 19. SHARING THE LOSS. Mr H. O. Mellsop (Auckland) moved a remit: As the Rural Mortgagors Final Adjustment Act is to be operated, we are strongly of the opinion that the mortgagor’s right to an equity should be established. We urge the amendment of the law to provide that mortgagors generally shall be entitled, as of right, to a definite percentage of their investment in property by way of the deposit paid, the principal paid off or tho improvements made. Since it is generally admitted that the present difficulties are occasioned by circumstances outside the control of either party, we consider the mortgagors’ equity should be fixed on a basis representing a fair pro rata sharing of the loss with the mortgagee. Seconding the remit, Air Sheat (South Taranaki) thought they should press for an alteration of the law before final adjustments were made in five years’ time, so that when the period arrived there would be definite provision in tho Statute Book under which the mortgagor would have the right to some consideration for the amount of his investment in tho property. Mr W. J. Poison, M.P., president of the union, defended the legislation as it existed, and Mr Muiholland (Canterbury) took the view that it was not advisable to put the remit through, but rather make arrangements for someone to be responsible for watching the operation of the legislation. The discussiofl is proceeding.