Mortgagee auction for a development site: must I pay the architect?

[westminster]

Good advice in this thread for me. The Section 32 states "Bank in possession as mortgagee", the title seems to be an individual +/- his partner. I can't see any company names.

I have tried searching for "Firstname lastname insolvency" in google but can't find much except that the original owner was the director of a failed buisness that went into liquidation a couple of years before the house was sold. I am trying to contact the liquidator of that business. Is it possible the owner was not actually a bankrupt, and the bank took the title and extracted money owed without bankrupting the owner?

How can I find out if a Mr X has ever been a bankrupt and if so if he had a liquidator? Am I on the right track?

I was referring to the section 32 for Titles information, ie a a document which would show a diagram of the block, any Titles search information etc as this would have shown the size of the block. This would be accurate and may be different to what was in the advertisement which could have been taken from the incorrect RPData information.

At the end of the day if the Architect wants to be paid he entered an agreement with the previous Owner and he should chase up the previous Owner if he wants to be paid.

IF he legally put a caveat (not sure if this is the correct term) on his design due to unpaid bills then you cannot use them until he is happy to take it off - this may be him being paid by previous owner, liquidator paying him (if there is one) or you paying him.

If the sale was a Mortgagee in Possession then the Bank is just there to recoup their costs, ie the mortgage debt. They are not concerned with any other debts the Owner may have unless he borrowed funds from the Bank specifically to do that work and then the Architect etc can claim against the bank for works completed as part of the loan agreement.

Lessons for you and anyone else
- always do your due diligence and ensure that facts represented in an advertisement are correct
- always read your Section 32 if it's Victoria as it's a legally binding document with a lot of important information in it
- if you are buying land with a DA what are you entitled to? an approved DA, the DA drawings, the working drawings (often done after DA and not part of DA), the Engineering drawings/certification????
- don't wait 6mths to sort things out. If you are aware of issues at bidding time then sort them out prior to bidding.

 

[Terry_w]

How can I find out if a Mr X has ever been a bankrupt and if so if he had a liquidator? Am I on the right track?

Not sure if there is any point in doing this, but you could do a bankruptcy search on the name - costs about $50.

 

[NedKelly]

IF he legally put a caveat (not sure if this is the correct term) on his design due to unpaid bills then you cannot use them until he is happy to take it off - this may be him being paid by previous owner, liquidator paying him (if there is one) or you paying him.

If the sale was a Mortgagee in Possession then the Bank is just there to recoup their costs, ie the mortgage debt. They are not concerned with any other debts the Owner may have unless he borrowed funds from the Bank specifically to do that work and then the Architect etc can claim against the bank for works completed as part of the loan agreement.

Any caveats would get washed out when the property was transferred, unless there were excess funds in which case they would then go to pay the lodger of the caveat.

 

[drfuzzy]

The S32 of this 130 year old property is a black and white copy of the title drawn on black pen on a red background. It is pretty much impossible to read the size of the block and measurements that are written are in feet and inches or completely obscured.

The section 32/vendor statement also contains the VCAT decision to grant town planning and a copy of the town planning drawings (but not the working drawings).

I did due diligence prior to bidding - moreso than the other bidders - and discovered all these debts and assumed I would have to pay them. I am simply trying to confirm that this information is correct.

The architect says the previous owner "doesn't have a brass razoo" which I think is his way of saying he has no confidence in ever recovering any debt from the previous owner.

 

[MrB]

Are the plans you refer to the actual approved construction working drawing plans or just the DA plans.

If you intend to just use them to build, because you have no contractual connection to the architect or engineer, you have no protection if there are any errors in them.

As for the area, would never rely on RPdata or the agent, the agent using the words approximate and ending up about 5% out would probably be difficult to contest. The dimensions of the block are something that is clearly available on the title, although you refer to a poor copy.

 

[westminster]

The S32 of this 130 year old property is a black and white copy of the title drawn on black pen on a red background. It is pretty much impossible to read the size of the block and measurements that are written are in feet and inches or completely obscured.

The section 32/vendor statement also contains the VCAT decision to grant town planning and a copy of the town planning drawings (but not the working drawings).

I did due diligence prior to bidding - moreso than the other bidders - and discovered all these debts and assumed I would have to pay them. I am simply trying to confirm that this information is correct.

The architect says the previous owner "doesn't have a brass razoo" which I think is his way of saying he has no confidence in ever recovering any debt from the previous owner.

Definitely you were one step ahead of the other buyers in terms of due diligence and hindsight is a b1tch for things anyone could/should have done.

There is no right/wrong as to if you have to pay the Architect or Engineer if you don't need their services anymore. If you do still need their services then I suspect they will be quite unwilling to assist unless they are paid - technical right or wrong.