在澳大利亚 ANZ have charged me a govt. mortgage registration fee of $115 for a refinance - borrowing additional funds for construction on a block of land in QLD already mortgaged with ANZ. There were NO mortgage documents to sign with the new loan docs Ok, keen for some perspective on undermount vs drop in kitchen sinks. I know this topic has been discussed before, and in my view undermounts are a far superior result. However, is it worthwhile for an investment property, bearing in mind th
We have sold a duplex off the plan and today we received out final certificate after finishing the construction. In the contract of sale, settlement must take place within 2 weeks of final certification. This has been verified by our solicitor who is acting for both parties.
As the purchaser cannot insure the place until they settle (I assume?) it seems logical for me to take out a cover note for 2 weeks to cover this interim period. Question is - is this ok legally, considering I never intend to pay for the insurance unless settlement is delayed for some reason?
well... if you rang the insurer and declared that you never intendt to pay for it then they probably wont issue it. if you intend to pay for it though and then change your mind it should be fine, so you have to clarify your intention in your head.
bear in mind your mortgage co may require a cover note and insurers are switched onto it and will more than likley require you to pay to get one.
Last time around I, as a buyer, had to provide proof of my own insurance to get the bank to settle.
So definitely possible to insure before settlement.
Ausprop said: ↑
well... if you rang the insurer and declared that you never intendt to pay for it then they probably wont issue it. if you intend to pay for it though and then change your mind it should be fine, so you have to clarify your intention in your head.Click to expand...Yes it is an ethical issue Aus. One would obviously pay for it if settlement was delayed so there is an intention to pay. But would one pay 2 weeks worth if settlement did not proceed? It all depends on the declaration q's one is asked when taking out the insurance.
Ausprop said: ↑
bear in mind your mortgage co may require a cover noteClick to expand...We don't have a mortgage on the property - 1st joint I have ever owned - and I am selling it!
BuildingBlocks said: ↑
Last time around I, as a buyer, had to provide proof of my own insurance to get the bank to settle.Yeah BB, I thought the same thing? I will ask SIL, she is the purchaser.
So definitely possible to insure before settlement.Click to expand...
Purchaser can insure from exchange of contracts when they have somewhat of a legal interest in the property. The vendor can also keep their insurance until settlement. Considering this is otp but is finished the purchaser should get their own cover immeadiately.
At common law the risk passes to the purchaser at the time of contract signing. However state legislation has postponed this. Assuming your property is in NSW this is done in s66k of the COnvenacying Act 1919. However I it is common practice for the purchaser to take out insurance at signing and for the vendor to maintain insurance until settlement. Better to be both covered than to chance having to fight it out in court regarding risk.
Also under Federal legislation, the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 s50, a purchaser may be isured under a vendor's insurance contract where the risk has passed to the purchaser. This legislation also gives the purchaser a right of access to a vendor's insurance contract. It was enacted to address ziel nominees Pty Ltd v VACC Insurance Co Ltd (1975) 180 CLR 173. Where the insurance company denied the claim by the vendor because they deemed that the risk had already passed to the purchaser once the contract had been signed.
Also. Solicitor acting for both parties. Conflict of interest? Qld Law society is strongly against this as they believe there is an inherent conflict of interest. Also the Federal Court has advised against this and said it should be outlawed Commonwealth Bank v Smith (1991) 42 FCR 390
It has not been outlawed and can be performed as long as both clients have giventruly informed consent. Clark Boyce v Mouat (1993) 3 WLR 1021 is a case that provides authority that a solicitor can act for both parties as long as certain safeguards are in place on top of the client's truly informed consent. I would never consent to this as a client. Also if there happens to be any issues with the conveyance that leads to a dispute, the solicitor is obliged to stop acting for both parties.
Thanks for advice folks. Purchaser has insured the property after prompting so all is well.