She doesn't, does she?
Didn't Emily get involved with tricky Dicky Richard Hillman and sign a contract to release the equity in her house?
Yes, I know, he's dead and gone now but surely even Emily would have remembered there's no money in her home and I don't recall it ever being referred to after his death that the contract was null and void and she'd got the deeds to her property back.
Or is that Emily's plan? To lead Norris up the garden path thinking he's going to inherit something that isn't there?
You can follow us on Twitter @CoroStreetBlog and Facebook: CoronationStreetBlog
All original work on the Coronation Street Blog is covered by a Creative Commons License
15 comments:
I didnt even think she was going to sell it but bizarrely give it to the little scroat. Nobody in their right mind would do this when they have family that they care about. I think Emily is losing her marbles. Why do they discuss important issues over shop counters? I have to confess I am findng Emily with her constant screwed up face a tad irritating of late.
I am an equity release plan adviser, and I queried this storyline with the Producers. They replied that as Hillman was a crook, his equity release schemes were null and void and so the property reverted back to Emily.
This would not be the case. Hillman parted with a lot of money in order to buy Emily's house, and a proper sale agreement must have been employed using both Hillmans and Emily's Solicitors.
A similar situation occurred with Ken and Deirdre's house, when Ken organised an equity release scheme to pay for Tracey's legal costs in her murder trial. When his son tried to later mortgage it, the process got as far as the cheque being sent to Ken's address by the lender. However, the lender's searches would have revealed the equity release scheme to be in place and so another mortgage could not have been arranged.
When I queried that one, the Producers explained that Blanche 'paid off' the scheme using some of her savings. When exactly?!
I've read Corriepedia, and it says there that Norris intended to buy No.3 in 2003 after Hillman's death, but Gail reassured Emily that her home wouldn't be sold.
Now I'm really confused. Gail was married to Hillman. Right? That scheme involved the property reverting to him upon Emily's death, which is why he tried to kill her. Right? So wouldn't that mean that Gail will get the house?
Sounds to me like the writers are once again playing fast and loose with the facts.
Emily did seem very relaxed about the whole affair. I wonder if she has a trick up her sleeve. If that's not the case, what was the point of the story? Could it be that Eileen Derbyshire is planning to retire and her character will die. Spider and Freda would certainly not be happy about the arrangement regarding the house. Rita was present when Emily told Norris what she planned and will say that it was entirely voluntary.
I also noticed that Emily seemed to be hiding something when she made her announcement to Norris and Rita. If Hillman's scheme is supposed to be null and void, as the producer's claim, then she could have re-mortgaged the house (for who- knows-what purpose) and Norris could be inheriting payments. It would certainly serve him right!
Emily seemed to be giving the eye to Rita, who seemed to catch on and play along. There is definitely something up here.
Maybe Emily is suffering from senile dementia.
Why shouldn't Norris get the house? He may be a pain but he still takes care of her and is there if she needs any assistance incase something happens. He deserves the house as he has lived there a big number of years, why should her family get it who don't visit her or we barely hear of?
And Rita is just a patronising woman. Norris obviously had concerns he shared with her, but then she gleefully revealed all to Emily and talks to Norris like crap despite the fact its his shop. Rita puts on this friend act with the wise speeches and advice, but is just as bad as Norris when it comes to gossiping.
He said he's lived there 13 years - which, if you've lived in the same property for over 42 years like me, that's not very long.
I think Emily is up to something, she did have a funny look about her. Why on earth would she give Norris her house? He certainly doesn't deserve it.
I thought she was going to give him the house and then he would be stuck with the taxes and up keep while Emily would be living there under the same conditions that Norris currently has, but seeing some of the above remarks it does make you wonder what kind of screw-up this new producer has come up with.
I recall Emily handing the money over to Spider so he could set up in business in London. Unless she reimbursed Gail Hillman the amount Richard had forked over, then Gail is owed the equity. That is unless Lewis took that as well.
I think I remember what Andy Wilson above referred to in the storyline, something about Hillman's deals being null, even if, legally, that wouldn't have been the case. Yes, money changed hands but if the contract was deemed null, I suppose Gail could have asked for the money back but she didn't.
I too think Emily is winding Norris up to get him back.
But Norris has apologised and his apology was an honest one no matter how bad he has behaved. So if Emily is half the person she is supposed to be and has been portrayed as all this time as a good honest saintly person, why the vendetta?
Rita I would understand as she's being portrayed as underhand and spiteful with every comment she makes these days - shame as she was once my very favourite.
Bendable reality aside, if in a title search, Gail is found to be the legal owner or owed money, maybe it will be a move to right the very very wrong of the whole Lewis saga and Audrey funding David out of spite.
Post a Comment