FHOG question.. Help! NSW

[ca295]

Hi everyone, sorry for the first post as I've just found this great resource through searching!

My fiancee and are about to sign on a property tomorrow. We do not live together. Were getting married in 4 months.

We have separate bank accounts however we have sent transactions to and from eachother and I have added her recently to my bank account as a signatory (she has an atm card to my offset account also).

I have owned property before and therefore am not eligible for the FHOG.

She has not.

Can I get some thoughts on her eligibility? I was considering putting the house in her name to get the 7k FHOG.

I dont want to do anything wrong but as we do not live together and are not married, then we arent considered de facto as yet? thanks

 

[D.T.]

Assuming she hasnt bought a house before she'll be eligible. If the house goes in her name she'll get the FHOG. It's ok if you both live in it.

It's basically up to you whether you're ok with it only being in her name.

 

[Rolf Latham]

Hiya

The only challenge may come where you need to be on the loan for servicing ..............

If that does turn out to be a problem

I do recall that in NSW you can be a secondary title owner, up to 5 % and have owned property before, and NOT blow the eligibility.

The last time we did this with a client was approx 3 years ago, and the NSW FHOG act allowed up to a 5 % holding by someone that previously owned property.

Could be worth the research for your broker, solicitor, conveyancer, not hard to confirm

ta
rolf

 

[Terry_w]

You would have to look up the FHOG Act and check the definition of 'spouse' - which may be defined via another act, maybe the property relationships act. If you are not married and not living together then I doubt you would fall into the definition.

 

[Rolf Latham]

further to my earlier post

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fhoga2000250/s15.html


You should be ok as a "small interest holder", but please get your solicitor conveyancer to confirm, they do this everyday.

That will get most lenders off your back ( in need) , and satisfy the FHOG people

ta
rolf

 

[Terry_w]

And the definitions of 'spouse'

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fhoga2000250/s6.html

and

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ia1987191/s21c.html

(you could even be a spouse if you are married to someone else).

 

[ca295]

thanks everyone for your responses. So basically if i put myself down as a 5% interest party both names will be on the title.

will there be any later auditing implications if I do this? the last thing Id want is for us to be chased down to pay back the FHOG with interest.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

Putting your name on title even with only a 5% interest will mean the property is owned jointly and could jepordise her qualifying for the grant.

I don't disagree that you can be on title, but if possible, stay out the deal entirely, it'll make things a lot easier. After you're married you will have some common law right to the property and part ownership could even be transfered to you (I wouldn't do this in the first year or two though).

 

[ca295]

Putting your name on title even with only a 5% interest will mean the property is owned jointly would jepordise her qualifying for the grant.

If possible, stay out the deal entirely. After you're married you will have some common law right to the property and part ownership could even be transfered to you (I wouldn't do this in the first year or two though).

My solicitor did mention though that as stated above I could be on there as a 5% owner and still receive the grant. Is it cleaner to just ditch the FHOG entirely?

bit late for your suggestion, as both names are on the contract of sale.

thanks mate.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

My solicitor did mention though that as stated above I could be on there as a 5% owner and still receive the grant. Is it cleaner to just ditch the FHOG entirely?

bit late for your suggestion, as both names are on the contract of sale.

thanks mate.

I don't know that I'd ditch the FHOG, but unless you can re-write the contract, make sure you're up-front about your 5% interest. You don't want to be in the situation where you're fined later for getting the FHOG where you're not entitled to it. I'd be getting written advice from my solicitor about this one.

 

[Rolf Latham]

I don't know that I'd ditch the FHOG, but unless you can re-write the contract, make sure you're up-front about your 5% interest. You don't want to be in the situation where you're fined later for getting the FHOG where you're not entitled to it. I'd be getting written advice from my solicitor about this one.

Operating within the envelope of the regulations as specified by the FHOG administrators wont get you into strife.

The regulation, and the FHOG data is quite specific on the minority holding.

The people youd want to be getting specific written advice from would be the NSW FHOG people.

They are quite ok to send you an email that you can act in reliance of.

ta
rolf

 

[ca295]

Operating within the envelope of the regulations as specified by the FHOG administrators wont get you into strife.

The regulation, and the FHOG data is quite specific on the minority holding.

The people youd want to be getting specific written advice from would be the NSW FHOG people.

They are quite ok to send you an email that you can act in reliance of.

ta
rolf

do you think so rolf? would that not get me on their radar? lol....

cheers,