In article ,
Ronald Huttner 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 ?
Just the bit after "Was the agreement drawn up by a solicitor?". |