A Complicated mess, with Land and a Caveat

[Perp]

I have heard of a famous case - lawyers could probably tell us which one it was - in which a couple bought a (quite expensive from memory) property, and it had clear title when the conveyancer/solicitor checked on the day before settlement, but a creditor of the vendor managed to slap on a caveat on settlement day, a few hours before settlement.

I think the poor buyers ended up having to pay out the vendor's debtor.

OK, it was Black v Garnock, and the purchasers did ultimately get clear title without paying the creditor (an accountant), but had to go to the High Court to do so.

 

[Terryw]

Websa,

Any developments?

I think the lady may have a equitable interest on the land in 2 ways.

1. via a claim under the family law act about her relationship with the drunk

and

2. possibly she transferred the money directly to you or your trust/company account, bypassing the drunk. If so she has provided a large part of the money which was used to purchase the property.

 

[pully]

thanks for the reply ozperp
fascinating how simple matters become complex, sometimes.
it is not just contracts that need scrutiny of course.
there seems to be a trend to simplify and fast track planning requirements in council areas as well as rezoning to enable building to take place that may not previously been allowed or tolerated.
infilling reserves with higher density type dwellings or using exsisting buildings for purposes for which they were never intended.

it is argued it is for the common good. some may not mind who or what services are next door but is social inclusion going to become mandatory?
perhaps more important for a ppor to be careful about what is in the environment, but it would potentially impact on an investment also.

in some countries, parts of canada and uk NIMBY is not even entertained. the residents are not consulted re the nature of a development before proceeding. will it happen here?

 

[websa]

Websa,

Any developments?

I think the lady may have a equitable interest on the land in 2 ways.

1. via a claim under the family law act about her relationship with the drunk

and

2. possibly she transferred the money directly to you or your trust/company account, bypassing the drunk. If so she has provided a large part of the money which was used to purchase the property.

I've seen a property Lawyer and he seems to think we will bable to get the caveat off pretty easy. He is writing to the lawyer who put the caveat on fo rthe woman requesting that it be removed within 7 days. If it is not removed we will do what is called Warning the caveat. That means the other party can either register to contest the caveat in the supreme court or after 14 days the caveat is automatically removed...

My lawyer said that in 99 % of the cases they don't go to court as it will cost the other party about 10k in legal costs just to do it and all they win is leaving the caveat on.. .. and if theyu don't win they pay all parties costs and and damages from placing the caveat.

The lawyer also said that the woman may take other legal action against the drunk and or us, but that is a different story..

What we would like is for the caveat to be removed so we can get moving on the property so we can do the right thing and earn her money back in the end.

I'll let you know how things unfold in the coming weeks.

thanks!

 

[Terryw]

Websa

Thanks for the update. That sounds like good news and a good way to proceed.


Good luck with it.