The Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 commenced 12 March 2018. It gives statutory recognition to advance care directives and simplifies and contemporises laws relating to medical treatment decision making for people without decision making capacity. The By Lawyers VIC Powers and Advance Care Directives matter plan, precedents and commentary have been updated accordingly.
Costs – All costs agreements now able to be signed electronically
All of the By Lawyers costs agreements now have electronic signature fields allowing them to be signed electronically via DocuSign, which is available to LEAP in the cloud users. The fee disclosure for this service has also been added into the disbursement section of the costs agreements, should the client choose to take advantage of this service.
By Lawyers Contract of Sale of Land – Victoria
A new form of contract, co-authored by Russell Cocks, providing a vendor’s statement and contract in one document.
The contract is specifically designed for residential conveyancing transactions and seeks to smooth some of the traditional road blocks that arise in these transactions.
The By Lawyers Contract of Sale of Land is located in the Contract folder in the Sale of Real Property Guide.
Seven reasons to use the By Lawyers contract
- The Contract and Vendor’s Statement are combined into ONE document, with the Vendor’s Statement, logically, coming FIRST. The Vendor’s Statement is formatted in such a way as to deal with the obligatory fields first and then group the optional fields in way that makes removal of those fields simple if they are not required.
- Particulars of Sale in the Contract includes a “sunset date” for off the plan approval. No more searching through mountains of Special Conditions.
- Non-derogation warranty. General Conditions can be amended by Special Conditions BUT not such as to reduce the rights created by the General Conditions. No more contracts that say one thing on page 1 and reverse that on page 15. This Contract is fair to both parties; if someone wants to create an unfair contract they cannot hide it within this contract.
- General Condition 12 – deposit release. Establishes a clear protocol for release by requiring timely objection to title.
- General Condition 14 – loan condition. Extends time for approval to 21 days and allows for automatic extension, subject to vendor’s ability to end the extension by notice.
- General Condition 25 – losses. Removes disputes relating to default losses from the settlement process and allows the parties to resolve these issues after settlement.
- General Conditions 27 & 28 – default and rescission notices. Divides the process into two steps with specified legal cost in respect of notices.
There are also other improvements, such as simple off the plan and electronic conveyancing conditions, a requirement that a vendor produce a copy lease at settlement and a clause passing ownership of abandoned goods to the purchaser. This Contract continues the quest commenced by the 2008 Contract (remember Requisitions?) to simplify conveyancing by ironing out the speedhumps.
Deposit – Forfeiture of deposit
By Russell Cocks, Solicitor
First published in the Law Institute Journal
A vendor may forfeit a deposit if the contract is ended but there are some circumstances where relief against forfeiture may be granted.
There are two basic principles in property law that generally co-exist but are capable of coming into conflict:
- a deposit is an earnest paid to secure the performance of the contract; and
- the law will not enforce a penalty imposed for breach of contract.
These two principles are usually able to co-exist as a result of the law recognising that a payment that constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of a vendor’s losses upon default by the purchaser is not a penalty and that a deposit of 10% of the price is an acceptable pre-estimate of such losses.
It is therefore fair to say that, in circumstances where the purchaser has paid a 10% deposit, a vendor who seeks to forfeit that deposit as a result of the purchaser’s breach of contract will be on safe ground. Section 49 Property Law Act confers on the court a discretion to grant the purchaser relief against forfeiture but it is generally accepted that the purchaser must show exceptional circumstances to justify the exercise of that discretion in circumstances where the deposit is 10%.
An example of such exceptional circumstances may be where the purchaser has taken possession of the property with the agreement of the vendor and has expended money on the property such as to have increased the value of the property. A court might find that the vendor is not entitled to retain the benefit of the funds expended as well as the deposit. But, as a general rule, the vendor can forfeit a deposit of 10% that has been paid by the purchaser. Equally, it will be rare for a vendor to be entitled to retain a deposit of more than 10%, as such a payment exceeds a reasonable pre-estimate of the vendor’s losses and amounts to a penalty.
Often, the deposit is expressed as being ‘10% payable as to $X on signing the contract and balance in 7 days’. Such a formula recognises that a purchaser might not always have a full 10% deposit available at the point of signing the contract and may require a short period of time to arrange for the balance to be available. If the purchaser breaches the contract the vendor needs to call upon the assistance of the court to recover the unpaid deposit and the spectre of a penalty arises. However, it has long been accepted that a vendor is entitled to recover any unpaid part of a 10% deposit notwithstanding that the contract has been ended – Bot v Ristevski [1981] VicRp 13 adopted as recently as Melegant & Sundrum P/L v Zhong [2017] VCC 1868.
However, where the deposit is expressed as some amount less than 10%, the court will not assist the vendor to recover 10%. This has been the situation in NSW for some time and now also applies in Victoria following Simcevski v Dixon (No 2) [2017] VSC 531 were the contract provided for a deposit of 5% and the court rejected a claim by the vendor for a further 5%.
In that case the vendor sought to rely upon a condition in the contract that provided that, if the contract was ended by the vendor, 10% of the price was to be forfeited to the vendor, whether it had been paid or not. Whilst the amount (10%) bore a resemblance to a deposit, the contract provided that the deposit was 5%, so the court had no hesitation in finding that any amount beyond the specified deposit was a penalty and thereby unenforceable, whether supported by a contractual right or not. It may therefore be concluded that any attempt to impose a liability beyond the specified deposit will be an unenforceable penalty.
One formula that has not as yet been scrutinised by a court is ‘deposit of 10% payable as to 5% on signing and the balance of 5% at settlement’. The 10% deposit will not be a penalty and the delay in payment should mean that the vendor is able to recover the full 10% in accordance with Bot v Ristevski.
Tip Box
- the law will not enforce a penalty for breach of contract
- a 10% deposit is not a penalty
- a vendor cannot recover more than the specified deposit
Whilst written for Victoria this article has interest and relevance for practitioners in all states
VIC – Estates – Electronic lodgement of all survivorship applications, transmission applications and standalone transfers
From 1 March 2018 all survivorship applications, transmission applications and standalone transfers must be lodged electronically.
VIC – Estates – Effect of marriage and divorce on will beneficiaries
Our commentary on the effects of marriage and divorce on wills has been added to. While a will is revoked by the marriage of the testator a number of exceptions apply, as per s 13 of the Wills Act. The commentary on the impact of divorce on a will is also enriched.
Vendor’s duty to co-operate
By Russell Cocks, Solicitor
First published in the Law Institute Journal
Contracts often impose specific obligations on purchasers but these may be accompanied by implied obligations on vendors to co-operate with the purchaser to allow the purchaser to fulfil those obligations.
Contracts of sale of land often include conditions that require a purchaser to undertake some action that will put the purchaser in a position to complete the contract. Such conditions are known as ‘contingent conditions’ in that the purchaser does not promise that the condition will be satisfied but acknowledges that if the condition is satisfied, the contract will no longer be conditional on that condition being satisfied.
A common example is a finance condition whereby the contract is conditional (contingent) upon the purchaser obtaining finance to assist the purchaser to complete the contract, or at least to make application for such finance and notify the vendor of the outcome. The purchaser does not promise that finance will be obtained, but obtaining finance will mean that the contract will proceed. The failure of a contingent condition will generally give a right to terminate a contract.
Contingent conditions may be in contrasted to promissory conditions whereby one, or both, of the contracting parties promise to do something; such as to adjust outgoings, or provide documents, or settle the transaction in a particular way. Generally, the failure of a promissory condition will not give a right of termination unless the condition is essential, or goes to the root of the contract.
Conditions may be both contingent and promissory, as indeed is the finance condition in GC14 of the standard contract. The contract is contingent upon the purchaser obtaining finance, but the purchaser also promises to apply for finance and advise of the outcome of that application. If the purchaser fails to comply with the requirements of the condition, the contingency is deemed to have been satisfied and the contract proceeds unconditionally in respect of finance.
Such conditions specifically impose obligations on the purchaser but also impliedly impose obligations on the vendor. Grubb v Toomey [2003] TASSC 131 and Grieve v Enge [2006] QCA 213 are authority for the proposition that a vendor who agrees to a finance condition in a contract impliedly agrees to make the property available to the purchaser for the purpose of a valuation required by a prospective lender and that a vendor who fails to comply with this obligation will be in breach of contract.
Simcevski v Dixon [2017] VSC 197 concerned the sale of a commercial property that had previously been used as a petrol station and that the purchaser wished to redevelop. The purchaser required finance for the purchase and the financier required a valuation to include an assessment of the likely contamination of the site. However, the contract was not conditional upon finance so it was not open to the purchaser to argue that the implied obligation to make the land available for valuation extended to an obligation to allow investigations.
The purchaser sought to rely on a Special Condition in the contract that stated that the vendor gave no warranty in respect of contamination, that the purchaser had inspected the property and that the purchaser released the vendor from any liability in relation to contamination. The condition also referred to the purchaser conducting investigations in relation to contamination and the purchaser sought to argue that this created an express or implied obligation on the purchaser to conduct those investigations and a consequent implied obligation on the vendor to make the property available for the purpose of conducting those investigations.
In the context of the contract this seemed an ambitious argument, as the purpose of the Special Condition appeared to be to protect the vendor and the court concluded as much. Thus, the court held that the Special Condition did not create an express or implied obligation on the purchaser to conduct investigations. Whilst the court did recognise that a vendor does have an implied general duty to co-operate with the purchaser to allow the purchaser to gain the benefits anticipated to flow from the contract, that duty did not extend to making the property available for the proposed investigations in this case as the purchaser had no obligation to conduct those investigations.
A final argument of the purchaser was that the refusal by the vendor to allow the investigations to be conducted prevented the purchaser from completing the contract and that a vendor in such circumstances should not be entitled to terminate the contract, as to do so would allow the vendor to benefit from its wrongdoing. The court, whilst acknowledging the Prevention Principle, held that, on the facts of this case, the Principle did not apply.
Tip Box
Whilst written for Victoria this article has interest and relevance for practitioners in all states.
Estate planning – An exciting opportunity for small law firms
The usual wills versus a will with estate planning
For most clients a will is a straightforward document that appoints an executor, an alternate executor, perhaps makes some specific bequests of personal items to certain family members, then leaves the balance of the estate to their spouse then their children with a default clause if none of these beneficiaries survive.
The fees charged by most firms are modest and reflect the reality that most clients do not wish to pay a great deal for something that they only reluctantly accept that they need and know they will never personally use and can prepare themselves using a form bought from the post office.
Wills have traditionally been seen as valuable because they eventually bring the firm estate work, rather than valued for the fees associated with the wills themselves. There is an old adage that the goodwill of a practice are the good wills in safe custody.
However, estate planning is a different thing and many firms are now taking a far more comprehensive approach, with a far more profitable result.
Estate planning is an area where small firms can grow their offering to existing clients and attract new, high net worth clients who require and appreciate professional expertise and assistance in this important area of practice.
It is far easier to offer this expertise than many small firms realise. The By Lawyers suite of testamentary trusts and wills clauses, together with the extensive commentary on wills and estate planning, means that firms can confidently advise clients who may have substantial assets including business interests held in company, partnership, trust structures or self-managed superannuation funds.
Whereas a firm might charge few hundred dollars for ‘husband and wife’ wills, the comprehensive succession planning required by a family with substantial assets and interests, including a review of existing structures and documents, preparation of wills which incorporate testamentary trusts, plus other appropriate documents such as powers of attorney and appointments of enduring guardian, is likely to involve fees of many thousand dollars, as well as extending the relationship between the firm and the family to other areas and members. Clients who have such assets and need such advice are mostly very happy to pay for it because they realise the value of the exercise and are as dedicated to retaining their assets for their family as they were to building up those assets in the first place.
Why testamentary trusts?
For clients with substantial assets, complicated families or family members who have medical or personal problems, the use of testamentary trusts has multiple benefits over usual wills, summarised below.
Creditor protection
To protect a bequest from being accessed by creditors of a beneficiary, including guarantees for a business venture.
Divorce of a child
To avoid family assets being redistributed by the Family Court. Assets held in trust are not assets of any individual and the Family Court cannot make an order requiring the distribution of those funds.
Education
Bequests via testamentary trust for payment of school and tuition fees for grandchildren is more tax efficient than simply leaving money to the child’s parents.
High risk beneficiaries
Where one of the beneficiaries is in a high-risk business or has personal issues with drugs or gambling which warrant strict controls being placed on access to any estate funds.
Remarriage of spouse
To limit access to existing family assets by a new family or spouse.
Tax benefits
To minimise tax payable, facilitate income splitting and distribute tax free to children under 18 on marginal rates with the no tax threshold.
Will challenges
Keeping estate assets in trust means they are not in the beneficiaries’ estates and therefore not subject to challenge when they die.
Disabled children
To ensure that any disabled or intellectually impaired children are provided for in the most effective way. A Special Disability Trust can provide a substantial bequest to a disabled child without impacting on any Centrelink benefits.
Identifying the right clients for complex estate planning
Although most clients potentially would benefit from a testamentary trust, their present circumstances do not suggest that one is necessary. In contrast estate planning is essential for clients with high net worth, multiple assets and asset types, business interests, complex business structures, existing family trusts, self-managed superannuation funds, complicated family arrangements and relationships and potential beneficiaries with special needs or personal problems.
Many clients have not considered the need for estate planning which with the aid of By Lawyers commentary and precedents can be offered by practitioners.
The benefits of testamentary trusts
- The fundamental advantage of a testamentary discretionary trust is that the assets are held by the trustee for the beneficiaries, not by the beneficiaries themselves. This allows the protection of assets from claims against beneficiaries and from misuse.
- Separate fixed trusts can be established for separate people or purposes, with conditions. For example, if one child has a drug addiction, a bequest could be left in trust for that child to receive appropriate maintenance and treatment, without them having access to the capital.
- If a beneficiary faces bankruptcy, an inheritance for that beneficiary through a testamentary discretionary trust will not form part of the beneficiary’s bankrupt estate.
- Assets held within a testamentary discretionary trust are not part of the matrimonial pool to be divided up in any family law property settlement in the event of divorce.
- Testamentary trusts also provide an opportunity for testators to control assets after their death, by way of conditional access to trust assets. While not desirable for the beneficiaries, this can certainly be seen by many testators as an advantage.
- Testamentary trusts can be very tax effective – income, capital gains and franked dividends can be distributed among all beneficiaries each year in the most tax-efficient way.
By Lawyers precedents and commentary
Using By Lawyers publications gives your firm the tools and confidence to assist clients with their estate planning, bringing profitable new work and quality new clients into your firm.
GST withholding
By Russell Cocks, Solicitor
First published in the Law Institute Journal
Six months after the ATO introduced new GST Withholding obligations on purchasers of real estate, those changes are starting to have an effect.
In an attempt to reduce avoidance of GST obligations by vendors arising from the practice of illegal phoenix activity, the ATO introduced a GST Withholding obligation on 1 July 2018. The intent of these changes is to require purchasers of certain types of real estate to withhold a portion of the purchase price from the vendor and pay that money to the ATO, to be applied as a credit towards the vendor’s GST liability. This is not a new tax, just a new method of collecting an existing tax. However, as is usually the case when the ATO seeks to transfer responsibility for tax collection, unintended consequences may result in the ‘innocent’ tax collector facing unexpected consequences.
Notice
Unfortunately, the introduction of the Withholding obligation has been complicated by the introduction of a parallel NOTICE obligation on vendors. It is logical in a transaction that generates a purchaser Withholding obligation to require the vendor to notify the purchaser that the obligation exists, but the vendor NOTICE obligation does not mirror the Withholding obligation and applies to a wider set of transactions than the Withholding obligation applies to. By way of example, one of the categories where the purchaser must Withhold is the sale of NEW residential premises but ALL vendors of ALL residential premises are obliged to give a NOTICE. In the case of not-new residential premises, the NOTICE states that the purchaser is NOT obliged to Withhold and given that the vast majority of residential sales are of existing (as opposed to new) properties the effect of the legislation is to require a vast number of vendors to advise the purchaser that no Withholding is required. This obligation appears to be counter-intuitive and has resulted in considerable misunderstanding in relation to the application of the Withholding obligation. It is difficult to glean the motivation behind this wider NOTICE obligation and perhaps this anomaly might be rectified in any review of the legislation.
The most efficient way to deal with the NOTICE obligation when no Withholding is required is to include the NOTICE in the contract with the statement that no Withholding is required. If Withholding is required, the NOTICE must provide the vendor’s name, vendor’s ABN, specify the Withholding amount and when it is payable (at settlement) and may be provided in the contract, or subsequently.
Obligation
In summary, the purchaser must Withhold if the contract relates to:
- new residential premises.
This category can be seen to apply to apartment and townhouse sales where there was a perception of illegal phoenix activity.
- potential residential land.
This category applies to greenfield subdivision sales, again a potential phoenix scenario.
However, this category is wider than lots on a proposed plan. It applies to potential residential land that is included in a (registered) plan of subdivision. It therefore applies to sales of residential lots off-the-plan (because the plan is registered prior to settlement) but also applies to the sale of ANY residential land that is a lot on a plan of subdivision – effectively ALL vacant residential land.
However, Withholding is only required where the vendor makes a taxable supply. Off-the-plan sales by land developers will be in the course of an enterprise and therefore taxable supplies attracting Withholding, but most sales of one-off vacant residential lots will NOT be in the course of an enterprise and therefore will not be a taxable supply and will not attract Withholding. Notwithstanding that no Withholding is required, the vendor must still give the purchaser NOTICE that Withholding does not apply.
Again, this seems counter-intuitive and restricting the obligation to off-the-plan sales might be a future improvement.
Payment
If the vendor gives NOTICE that Withholding applies the purchaser must lodge a form of Withholding notification with the ATO and will then receive a lodgement reference number (LRN) acknowledging the notification and a payment reference number (PRN) to be used when lodging a settlement date confirmation form at the time of payment to the ATO.
Tip Box
•GST Withholding applies to new residential premises and vacant residential land.
•Withholding NOTICE must be given with ALL residential sales.
Foreign resident capital gains withholding clearance certificates
Clearance certificates will not be issued during the ATO’s Christmas closure – 22/12/17 to 2/1/18.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- …
- 47
- Next Page »