In article "Oksana
Gutteridge" wrote:
> "Ronald Huttner" wrote in message
> news:nemoMon010708103755@news.netspace.net.au...
>> In article <47816534$0$13919$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Sylvia
>> Else wrote:
>>> Ronald Huttner wrote:
>>>> In article "Oksana
>>>> Gutteridge" wrote:
>>>> In news:nemoSat010508050427@news.netspace.net.au,
>>>> Ronald Huttner typed:
>>>> > In article "Oksana
>>>> > Gutteridge" wrote:
>>>> > In news:nemoSat010508111347@news.netspace.net.au,
>>>> > Ronald Huttner typed:
>>>> > > In article
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> <59b69cc7-ae00-44c9-8c55-b88dccd7aacf@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
>>>> > >> Ann wrote:
>>>> > > I have a question about placing a caveat on a property.
>>>> > > I lived with a guy for 16 years he purchased a
>>>> property,it > > was put in his name only, we recently split up,
>>>> and an agreement> > to pay me $80,000 upon the disposal/sale of
>>>> the property was
>>>> > drawn > up between ourselves, it was signed by myself, him and
>>>> 2 > witnesses> one was my son the other no relation. Is it within
>>>> my> best
>>>> > > interest to place a caveat on his property? if so how do I
>>>> go> > about it, where do I start? and isthere a time limit? any >
>>>> > information on this matter will be much appreciated.
>>>> > > Was the agreement drawn up by a solicitor ? If so, you
>>>> > should> definitely discuss the matter with him/her. A person
>>>> > lodging a
>>>> > > caveat on a title must have what is known as a "caveatable
>>>> > > interest" in the title and I doubt whether you have one. It
>>>> > > appears, on what you have so far written, that all you
>>>> > currently > have is a legally enforceable contractual right to
>>>> a> share of the > proceeds of any sale, rather than an actual
>>>> > proprietary interest> in the title of a type which would
>>>> support> the lodging of a
>>>> > > caveat. Bear in mind that placing a caveat on a title
>>>> without> the > requisite caveatable interest can result in costly
>>>> legal
>>>> > action> against the caveator, for its removal. Although I am a
>>>> > lawyer,
>>>> > > property law is not a field in which I specialise. You need
>>>> to> > consult either a family-law specialist or a
>>>> > > conveyancing/property-law specialist. To simply go ahead
>>>> and> lodge > a caveat without expert legal advice would, in your >
>>>> circumstances > be risky.
>>>> > > Ron
>>>> > Is this clown PA on downers?
>>>> > It is obviously in the O/P's interest to put a caveat on
>>>> the> the property. Otherwise, the property could be sold and their
>>>> > share of the proceeds disappear. It's perfectly normal. They >
>>>> should talk to their local titles office about how to do it, and >
>>>> for the cost involved.
>>>> > Before you throw more ill-informed insults, Oksana, study
>>>> > carefully the links at:-
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> v > ea ta ble+interest%22&btnG=Search&meta=>
>>>> I will do as I please.
>>>> > Just as a matter of interest, have
>>>> > you ever studied law ?
>>>> Yes. But that won't help you.
>>>> > I repeat, Ann, you should definitely get expert legal
>>>> advice> before lodging a caveat in your circumstances. ignore
>>>> stupid
>>>> > ill-informed people like Oksana. This newsgroup is,
>>>> regrettably, > full of unqualified "bush-lawyers".
>>>> > Ron
>>>> > Ron
>>>> You are an idiot, Ron Ron.
>>>> And you are a total, ill-informed .wit who knows NOTHING
>>>> about the law relating to what constitutes a caveatable interest.
>>>> Do as you please you useless .wit. But next time you purport to
>>>> advise someone in relation to what is a complex area of law, DO
>>>> first take the time to do some research, so that your response is
>>>> correct. Yours was definitely not. One CANNOT place a caveat on a
>>>> title simply because the title-owner owes one money. That is a
>>>> popularly held MISCONCEPTION. One MUST have a proprietary interest
>>>> in the land. Check it out in any textbook on the law relating to
>>>> caveats.
>>>> Ron
>>> As regards the required for a proprietary interest, this
>>> document argues otherwise
>>> http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v1n1/boyle11.html
>>> It is talking about the law in WA. The OP appears to be in NSW.
>>> Assuming the property in question is also in NSW, the relevant
>>> legislation is
>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rpa1900178/s74f.ht
>>> ml
>>> As observed by the article re the law in WA, the word
>>> "proprietary" does not appear in that section.
>>> I agree that one cannot go around slapping caveats on property
>>> merely because the property owner owes one money, but the OP's
>>> situation is not that simple. There is a clear link between the
>>> agreement to pay money and the sale of the land, which is at least
>>> a tacit acceptance that the OP has some interest in the land, even
>>> if it's not
>>> proprietary.
>>> Now, Oksana Gutteridge indulged in some name calling, so I
>>> suppose you were entitled to reply to him in kind. Note that I have
>>> not so indulged.
>>> Sylvia.
>> I am familiar with the article to which you refer in the Murdoch
>> E-Journal. It is merely an academic article expressing a point of
>> view and an argument. It argues for a more expansive view of what
>> SHOULD be a caveatable interest, rather than concentrating on what
>> currently IS. The original poster is in fact in Queensland. (She
>> wrote to me privately). I stand by my view that the OP does NOT have
>> a caveatable interest in the land,
> Since all the facts are not known, and are very rarely given in this
> context, your view is a tad distorted, Ron Ron. But that won't
> deter you.
> The simple fact is that the registered owner of the land won't
> usually be able to realise the property without removing the caveat,
> and that is all the OP needs to be concerned about.
> But you are an idiot, Ron Ron.
>> that she needs expert legal advice. I also
>> stand firmly by my view that Oksana Gutteridge is a clueless idiot
> Speaking from personal experience, I see, Ron Ron.
>> who
>> has contributed absolutely NOTHING useful or relevant to this
>> debate as yet.
> There has been no debate, Ron Ron. You made a few stupid and
> incorrect ramblings, and attracted a clip over the ears for it. But
> it won't have been a unique experience for you, Ron Ron.
> < What a gibbering idiot!! >
Instead of continuing to hurl ill-informed insults, perhaps you could
actually try contributing to this thread in a useful manner ? How
about YOUR detailed analysis of the legal situation ? Since you so
vehemently dispute my own, I'm sue everyone in this newsgroup is
currently on tenterhooks waiting to read yours !! What were the
"stupid and incorrect ramblings" I made ?
|