The High Court has ruled that a demand by NAMA for repayment of €32 million outstanding on property investment loans is valid and lawful.

The court did not rule on whether or not NAMA can enforce a further €3.5m loan secured on the family home of Carol and John Morrissey at Palmerston Road, Dublin 6.

Ms Justice Úna Ni Raifeartaigh said such a finding would be "pre-emptive" as NAMA had not so far sought to enforce that loan.

The judge dismissed the couple's case claiming damages over alleged various unlawful acts by NAMA, including taking enforcement action over the loans and appointing receivers over properties.

Mr Morrissey got loans of some €27m from Irish Nationwide Building Society between 2004-2006, in connection with acquiring seven investment properties.

The loans were secured by mortgages over the properties, there were problems with repayments as early as 2006 and the loans were in serious default when acquired in 2010 by NAMA.

In 2014, NAMA called in the loans by demanding the then outstanding sum of some €32m. When that was not paid, it appointed receivers who sold the investment properties, reducing the debt to some €25m.

A loan of €3.75m borrowed in 2005 to buy the Palmerston Road property, secured on the house, is also in default but NAMA has not so far decided to enforce against that loan, she said.

In their case against NAMA, Capita Assets Services (Ireland) Ltd and various State parties, the couple argued NAMA was not entitled to call in the loans and also sought a declaration NAMA does not have valid security over the family home.

While Mrs Morrissey disputes signing the necessary family home protection documents in 2005 when giving the house as security for that loan, the judge found, on the evidence, she signed them and received independent legal advice when doing so.

As she was adjourning making final orders for two weeks, Mr Morrissey said an appeal will be brought over the findings.

In dismissing the case by the couple, representing themselves, the judge noted NAMA claimed Mr Morrissey had in 2013 rejected a suggestion they relocate to a less valuable property on Lower Churchtown Road, insisting they were entitled to continue living on Palmerston Road.

A NAMA agent had said he explained to Mr Morrissey that Palmerston Road would be considered by NAMA to be a "trophy home" as it was valued in 2013 between €1.8-€2m while the Churchtown property was valued at €800,000.

The agent said he questioned how "optically" it would look to the taxpayer if NAMA was to allow Mr Morrissey and his family remain there whilst owing NAMA more than €25m in residual debt - the debt remaining after the investment properties were sold - and when more than €4.7m was outstanding on the loan secured on their home.

Ms Justice Ni Raifeartaigh rejected a range of claims by the couple, including NAMA had not meaningfully considered Mr Morrissey's alternative proposals for dealing with his loans and had acted outside its powers.

She also dismissed claims of alleged interference with the independence of NAMA by the Minister for Finance.

She rejected claims that NAMA, in its handling of issues concerning the family home, breached the couple's rights.

Arguments that NAMA refused to allow Mrs Morrissey purchase the family home for €830,000 were not made out, she said. What NAMA refused was a "package offer" from an investor valuing the family home well below what NAMA was advised was its value.

While Mrs Morrissey clearly felt aggrieved her home was at risk because her husband is a NAMA debtor when she is not, the risk to the home was created by her deciding to sign certain documents at a certain time, the judge said.

Mrs Morrissey "has been fortunate compared to many others whose property interests in the family home were deeply affected by the banking crisis" as she continues to live in the family home when monthly repayments are a "fraction" of the €12,000 monthly sums agreed under the original loan agreement, she said.