More reasons to think about making a will

About a week ago, I began gathering some thoughts for my intended next post concerning making wills, especially given that anecdotally I've noticed an upward trend in matters I'm involved in. As it happens, day to day work took priority and then, when I happened to find 20 minutes to read last Wednesday's Sydney Morning Herald, I read a decent article by Lesley Parker on this very topic addressing many of the issues I too wanted to address.

Paker draws on various sources and comments on a range of matters, such as if you die without a will the law decides who gets what of your assets, which may not be what you intended. And, whether you like it or not, you do have a responsibility to provide for family. There's much more, of course, and it's definitely a worthwhile read.

Buying or Selling? What about those fixtures?

Part of your solicitors' role in a conveyancing transaction is to try and minimise avoidable disputes arising in your sale or purchase of real estate property.

An area that has a high potential for dispute, and usually the most easily avoidable, concerns what is included or not included in the sale of a property.

The law defines that land also includes its "fixtures". So when selling your house, fixtures are automatically included.

Fixtures are "attached" to the land. Easily identifiable fixtures include, for example, any permanent buildings and improvements built onto the land. They also include things (or "chattels") permanently or securely attached to the land or to the building.

How "permanent" or "secure" is "permanent" or "secure"? Well, that's one area where disputes can arise. If a thing is attached so that it's hard to remove without causing damage, then it's most likely a fixture.

So, if your dishwasher is only 6 weeks old, but you've decided to sell the house. Is the dishwasher included? Well, it depends. If it's freestanding and its only connection is one power cord plugged into a standard power-point, a water supply hose and a waste water hose, arguably it's not a fixture and you can take it.

On the other hand if it's custom built into the kitchen's furniture and decor, and it's likely to cause some damage if it's removed, then it's probably a fixture and you can't take it.

You've sold the property, settlement morning arrives, and after completing their final inspection, the buyer complains to his solicitor about the missing dishwasher (or dryer, or whatever...). You always intended to take the dishwasher, and the buyer always assumed it was included; after all, it was part of the kitchen's attractions.

What happens now? Well, if it's a fixture, the contract usually provides that the seller has to either return it, or compensate the buyer. This can be very annoying if it means forking out another $1,200.00 the seller wasn't counting on. It's hardly worth jeopardising a $600,000.00 sale over a $1,200.00 dispute. On the other hand, if it isn't a fixture, the buyer is very annoyed to for the same reasons. Either way, it leaves a very sour taste.

How can this be avoided? Especially if a chattel could be either a fixture or not.

Simplest answer: make sure the sale contract actually states what is included or not included in the sale.

If you're selling, to be on the safe side and avoid a later hostile argument about inclusions, ask your solicitor to ensure that the contract makes it plainly clear that the dishwasher (or dryer, air-conditioner, the custom aviary, the wedding present bird-bath, mum's special curtains, sentimental light fitting, or whatever) is excluded from the sale.

If you're the buyer, don't assume all what you see is included in a property sale. If you have time, consult your lawyer to discuss your concern. Better still, if you're in a situation where you need to sign a contract right there, insist or negotiate that the particular item or chattel you want is written in the contract as an inclusion (usually on page 1 of the NSW standard contract).

Another way of saying this, is that regardless of whether a thing is a chattel or a fixture, the contract can simply state whether they're included in the sale or not, and that simply does away with any dispute about definitions.

The issue concerning chattels and fixtures applies to other land and property transactions too, such commercial & retail leases and sales. Indeed, an issue that appears to come up regularly concerns racking or shelving; often these are specialised and expensive - but they too have fallen into the debate of whether they're chattels or fixtures.

To avoid an avoidable dispute, maintain harmony, reduce unnecessary stress and angst, and help to make your sale or purchase a more pleasant experience, ask your solicitor to ensure the contract deals with these types of issues.

Sellers and Their Agents

Once a decision is made to sell real estate property, in my experience I find that almost all my seller clients have already consulted and signed up with their preferred real estate agent.

There are still occasions however where I'm asked by clients to review or explain their agency agreement before they sign up.

In these cases, over the years, apart from explaining the nature and effect of what are usually "exclusive" agency agreements, I've found that the advice I consistently emphasise includes asking my clients to consider:

• The exclusive agency period. It can be varied!
  
• The commission rate. Its usually negotiable.
• Make sure that the seller is a aware of ALL the potential costs
• Will the agent provide an "early release" guarantee?

More on these points below.

Exclusive agency period. In my view these should never exceed 90 days, but ideally ought to be no more than 60 days. I've been told by clients many times that when they've tried to reduce this period, the agent often protests that they need a decent time-frame to enable their marketing to work. Fair point, but I've also been advised by real estate agents that 60 days, even 30 days in some cases, is more than adequate to not only mount an effective campaign, but also to demonstrate to a seller the agent's genuine commitment.

Under an exclusive agency agreement, a seller is tied to their agent for at least that agency period. This means the seller can't really sack that agent in that time. Generally, that agent is entitled to commission if the property is sold during the agency period, regardless of whether the agent introduced the eventual buyer. If a seller is unhappy with that agent and attempts to "sack" that first agent and appoints another agent, the seller is under a serious risk of having to pay a full commission to two agents!

A shorter agency period gives a seller some flexibility. If they're unhappy with the agent's performance, at least it's a shorter wait to the end of the agency period after which another agent can be considered.

On the other hand, no matter what the length of the agency period, there's nothing stopping a seller entering a new agreement or agency period if they're happy with their agent's performance.

The commission rate - it's actually negotiable! I've commented on this previously. Speak to a number of agents before deciding who to engage. If anything, at least a seller can compare commission rates as well as other factors.

Check for other charges not so prominently disclosed. Make sure that the seller is a aware of ALL the potential costs. As well as commission, to determine whether it's inclusive of GST, and if other charges are additional, such as advertising costs. I've found most agency agreements don't include additional advertising costs but some do; it's something to factor in when making an informed decision.

Is an early release guarantee available? There are agents who subscribe to the Jenman system. One of its features is that no matter how long the agency agreement period, the seller has the right to cancel the agency agreement at any time.

A client of mine recently cancelled a 90 day agency agreement only days after making that agreement. Due to an inadvertent, and what would normally be considered a relatively very minor, error by one the agent's staff, the seller cancelled his agency agreement. The agent rectified the concern immediately, apologised of course, and asked the seller to take at least a day to reconsider. The next day, the seller confirmed his decision. To the agent's credit, the agent in this case honoured his guarantee and released the seller from the agreement, and lost an opportunity to earn quite a handsome commission. Ouch! That must've hurt! But full credit that agent - I'd suggest very few agents in that position would've agreed to such a release.

So, another consideration I'll now be consciously drawing to my clients' attention to if I'm asked to advise on agency agreements, is that they take into account whether a potential agent will provide a similar guarantee.

Cooling-off rights on real estate sale contracts benefit purchasers, not sellers

For quite some time now, purchasers of residential real estate property in NSW have the benefit of statutory cooling off rights for a minimum of 5 business days.

I'll get to the main point of this post now:

Sellers, please note that these cooling-off rights are SOLELY for the benefit of buyers, not the seller!

I recently had a situation where a vendor client authorised her agent to exchange contracts in the sale of her house. Nothing unusual there. Within a few days of entering the contract, after I routinely asked about where she next intended to live, she told me that if she couldn't quickly find a rental property, she intended to rescind the contract. She explained how the agent had told her "...something about a cooling-off period". She gave herself a sense of reassurance when she contacted the agent to again confirm the existence of the cooling-off period, but it seems that she and the agent were at cross-purposes, notwithstanding my client telling him she intended to withdraw from the contract if she couldn't find suitable rental accommodation.

She was almost panicky when I explained to her that what she had (mis)understood wasn't the case at all; this is when she first was told explicitly that the cooling-off option could only be exercised by the buyer, not her. In the end all turned out okay but it could've easily not done so for her.

The current scheme of cooling-off rights provided to purchasers in NSW is an anti-gazumping measure. It follows a number of previous legislative attempts to tackle the problem of gazumping.

What is gazumping? It's probably easier to explain it by describing how it typically occurs, but first some background.

In NSW, there is a law inherited from England called the statute of frauds. For our purposes, the statute of frauds requires that certain kinds of contracts must be made in writing and signed for the contract to be legally binding. This covers contracts transferring or creating an interest in land. In NSW we find this requirement in section 54A of the Conveyancing Act.

When a buyer of a residential property has an oral (or "verbal") agreement with a seller (or the seller's agent) to buy a property at a certain price but the seller, despite this agreement, decides to sell the property to someone else, most often for a higher amount, the first buyer is said to have been "gazumped".

When a buyer is gazumped in these circumstances, neither the seller or their agent is legally liable to that buyer despite there being a breach of the oral agreement. That buyer loses whatever money spent on building inspections, solicitor costs and any bank fees. If the buyer paid a deposit to the agent however, that deposit is refundable in full.

For there to be a binding legal contract, the contract must be in writing, signed by the parties and, in NSW, duplicate copies of the contract are exchanged between the two parties, either by the agent or the parties' solicitors.

If the agent conducts the exchange, then in almost every case the buyer has the benefit of the cooling-off rights. If the buyer exercises those rights and properly rescinds the contract, the buyer forfeits to the seller an amount equal to 0.25% of the purchase price.

Returning to the making of contracts involving land, it is an area of law where the quote (attributed to the famous Hollywood movie producer, Samuel Goldwyn) holds true, that "a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on"!

Proposed legislative attack on "The Castle"???

Barely just over 6 weeks ago, the High Court decided that Parramatta City Council cannot compulsorily acquire land owned by the claimants, R & R Fazzolari Pty Ltd and Mac's Pty Ltd without their approval. Before this decision, the claimants successfully challenged the Council in the Land and Environment Court of NSW. On appeal, Council succeeded in the NSW Court of Appeal

Many in the media at the time likened this battle over the intended compulsory land acquisition by Council as akin to the small guy versus the big guys theme in 1997 "The Castle" movie.

Parramatta City Council proposed to develop a block within its CBD in a Public Private Partnership between Council and 2 developer companies. Council agreed with the developer to compulsorily acquire the claimants' land, then re-sell it to the developer to enable the development to proceed.

The Local Government Act provides that if land is being acquired for the purpose of re-sale, it can't be compulsorily acquired without the owner's approval. Council argued the acquisition was primarily to implement its "Civic Place" project, and not for the purpose of re-selling. The High Court rejected that argument.

It has recently been reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, here and here, that there's now legislation before the NSW Parliament proposing to give councils the right to compulsorily buy private land and transfer it to developers for resale for profit.

The Herald's article reports that Mr Fazzolari, one of the original claimants, to have said "If this happens, no one is safe ... this is not about public purpose - this is about money".

I think it couldn't have been better said!

Go here for more information I've previously posted about compulsory land acquisition in NSW.

Even when your home loan is approved, remain vigilant!

Home buyers are typically advised to ensure their loan is approved before entering the contract, or before their contract becomes unconditional. Many home buyers in NSW sign their purchase contracts at the real estate agent's office. This normally entitles the buyer to a statutory minimum 5 day cooling off period. In this period, buyers normally arrange and finalise their home loan approval, see their lawyer, and arrange for property inspections.

I don't normally see my clients take notes, not that I mind, but most don't. A colleague recently told me a story of purchaser client was informed of their unconditional loan approval. The purchase contract then becomes unconditional. All was proceeding well until the lawyer contacted the bank to check on some documents. The bank advised their client's loan was declined! Not surprisingly, this caused a bit of a stir, panic on the client's part, and lots of stress.

The client was initially advised to obtain written confirmation of their unconditional loan approval. They didn't... they said they trusted their broker and the bank, as they had been so nice to them!!!

The saving grace, amongst the flurry of telephone calls and correspondence, was this buyer/borrower kept notes of her conversations. Using the information from those notes, the lawyer ascertained that after approval was granted, the loan application proceeded within the bank to the next level where it was declined at that second stage. At this point, the bank referred to an old (by about 3 years or so) valuation for the same property, not the valuation obtained a few weeks beforehand. Yes... the bank had made a mistake!

The moral of the story? Making notes certainly assisted this borrower's lawyer to pin down some sort of breakdown that occurred in the bank's internal process and have the bank re-confirm the loan approval.

What I think this story stresses too, is the importance for a home loan borrower to ensure that their verbal unconditional loan approval, for the amount applied for, is confirmed in writing by the lender to the borrower (NOT to the broker).

Our Quality Journey

Visitors to my Alvaro Edwards Solicitors site will notice the Quality Endorsed Practice logo on almost every page. See this page on Quality Endorsed Legal Practice for more information on what this means and how it also benefits my clients.

This post, however, is to proudly announce that SAI Global just completed its annual audit of my practice and again, recommend the continuation of our Legal Best Practice certification under the ISO9001/LAW9000 standard!

Repeating what I've stated previously, this is another incentive for my team's continuing commitment to providing quality management systems for the provision of legal services to my clients.

Damages awarded for breach of exclusive territory provision in franchise agreement

Franchise business systems are popular for many reasons. Many retail based franchise systems provide a degree of security, a form of limited "monopoly" or exclusivity, if you like, by granting exclusive territory rights to the franchisee for the duration of the franchise relationship. There are varied forms of such rights, but if that right is breached by the franchisor, what exactly can a franchisee recover from such a breach?

A decision of a single judge of the Federal Court (Haviv Holdings v Howards Storage World) handed down just a few days ago provides some answers.

This court decision also shows that:

• The court will grant relief, even where the breach appears to be relatively minor on its face. A breach is a breach!
• If loss is suffered caused by a breach of contract, difficulties calculating that loss will not of itself defeat a claim.
• The court will, when assessing damages that are said to flow from future losses, apply certain discounts to the calculated gross loss.
• Importantly, the court found that in calculating the damages, it would look at losses suffered up to the end of the last option period, even though those options may have not been exercised by the franchisee.
• Breach by franchisors of exclusive contract territory rights granted to franchisees is something that is take lightly - check the wording of the exclusive territory provisions in your franchise agreement!

Howards Storage World (HCW) is a specialty retailer of household storage items. In 2002 HCW entered a franchise agreement with Haviv allowing Haviv to operate a HCW store at Burwood (a Sydney suburb). That agreement granted to Haviv an exclusive franchise territory, being the area within a 5 km (or 5,000 metres) radius of the Burwood store.

In 2004 HCW granted a HCW franchise to someone else to operate a HCW store in the Rhodes shopping centre. The Rhodes store, indeed the whole Rhodes shopping centre, was between 4,837 and 4,843 metres from the HCW Burwood store; in round figures, only about 160 metres inside the exclusive territory granted to Haviv.

HCW admitted it breached the territory provision. Haviv claimed, and could show, to have suffered loss and damage by reason of HSW's breach. Haviv eventually ceased operating the Burwood store. HCW claimed it terminated the franchise agreement due to alleged breaches by Haviv, whereas Haviv denied this and claimed otherwise.

The court found that Haviv was entitled to claim damages. It considered different scenarios, or methodologies, of how those damages are to be calculated.

Importantly for the franchisee, the court found that the damages should take into account Haviv's loss of net profits for the period until the expiry of the last option for renewal period, in the year 2022.

In further assessing the damages, the court found that various discounts were to be applied to allow for various factors were to be taken into account, such as future refurbishment costs during the terms of the leases, rent increases and other "vicissitudes of life" - these are the unknown factors and risks that affect people during their lifetime generally.

This decision applied a principle that where there has been an actual loss, the law does not permit difficulties in calculating the loss to defeat the only remedy it provided for breach of contract, an award of damages.

The court adjourned the matter for the parties' experts to calculate Haviv's loss, or damages, based on the court's findings on how that loss is to be calculated.

Falling interest rates are claiming some home loan victims

If you're on a fixed rate home loan, make some enquiries before you commit to re-financing or discharging that loan. Remember, if you're selling a property, that usually means you'll be also discharging your current loan.

Despite all the gloomy financial news from the onset of the current global financial crisis, most Australian home borrowers, particularly those who've been repaying their loan for some time, at least were able to grasp the positive benefits of falling interest rates, significant reduced interest and/or repayments on their mortgages... or have they?

Believe it or not, there are financial victims from falling interest rates. If your home loan is a fixed interest rate loan for a fixed period, then beware!

Fixed interest rate mortgage loans are those where a borrower's mortgage interest rate and repayments are fixed for a set period. They make it possible for borrowers to avoid interest rate increases on their fixed rate home loan. Their popularity therefore tends to increase in times of rising interest rates. Depending on their circumstances and advice obtained at the time the loan was first obtained, these borrowers can set the fixed rates for periods from 12 months to 5 years or more.

Fixed interest rate mortgage loans are also a gamble. The sting is what happens in times of falling interest rates. If you're a borrower who wants to switch loans, or pay off a fixed rate home loan (usually when selling a property) watch out for those break costs.

Break costs is the additional amount, over the amount of the loan still outstanding and owning, you must repay to a lender. If you repay your home loan before the agreed fixed rate period ends and interest rates have gone down, the lender can only re-lend those funds it recovers from you at a lower rate than the rate they had you locked into. The break costs is the lender's claim for the financial loss they "suffer" from this.

There have been previous reports about a rise in complaints made about banks' break costs charges.

This doesn't surprise me. I too have noted similar complaints in the same period about the same issue from my own clients. Calculating break costs can be quite complex and involves many variables.

One client, aware of the issue a couple of months ago, enquired to his bank when deciding whether to sell his investment property. His bank quoted a break costs fee of $7,000.00. With that information he committed to a sale. As there have been at least 2 interest rate decreases since, his bank now advises this fee increased to over $18,000.00!! Furthermore, with his sale due to be completed in 2 weeks, his bank warned that this fee will increase again if there's a another fall in official interest rates.

If you're deciding whether to re-finance your current fixed rate home loan, whether to sell a property where you have a fixed rate loan, or even if you're thinking about switching to a fixed rate loan, the least you should consider doing before committing yourself includes:

• Ask! Ask you lender if break costs apply to you if you discharge that loan.
• Ask how those costs are calculated
• Ask if it is prepared to waive or at reduce those costs
• Will your lender agree to commit to quoted break costs remaining unchanged at least for a short period, regardless of interest rate movements?
• Consider and compare the real savings from taking out a new loan with lower interest rate, compared to the costs you'll incur for discharging your current loan.
  
• If you feel you've been charged break costs improperly, or have been misled, seek professional advice, or contact the Banking & Financial Services Ombudsman.
  

Deciding when to buy... tougher decision for First Home Buyers

With handouts by the federal and NSW state governments totalling up to $24,000.00, plus stamp duty concessions in NSW all available to first home buyers, making that decision on whether, or rather, when, to buy just gets tougher.

On the one hand, there's evidence of continuing falling home prices. So, do you wait until they fall further?

But, the additional government cash handouts are scheduled to end by 30 June 2009.

Does the Reserve Bank's hold on further reducing official interest rates (see this news item) send a positive signal for the economy? If so, could that result in home prices holding, or maybe even increase?

No, I don't have an answer, and my crystal ball is in for a major service, but John Kavanagh's article in the Money section of today's Sydney Morning Herald provides some helpful insights.