on 29-05-2018 11:29 AM
on 29-05-2018 11:29 AM
I have placed a purchaser caveat on title
The caveator is showing as unrepresented parties in the transfer workspace
do I need to represent the caveator??
If so how do I represent them as I cannot click on the cog ?
terry
Solved! Go to Solution.
on 29-05-2018 01:49 PM
on 29-05-2018 01:49 PM
SolutionHi @cpscon
You only need to represent the caveator on title if you wish to prepare a withdrawal of the caveat. If not then you can leave this party unrepresented.
If you are representing the Purchaser you can add this party to the workspace by clicking on ''Create Party".
I hope this answers your question.
on 29-05-2018 01:49 PM
on 29-05-2018 01:49 PM
SolutionHi @cpscon
You only need to represent the caveator on title if you wish to prepare a withdrawal of the caveat. If not then you can leave this party unrepresented.
If you are representing the Purchaser you can add this party to the workspace by clicking on ''Create Party".
I hope this answers your question.
on 29-05-2018 02:04 PM
on 29-05-2018 02:04 PM
Thanks Aaron - I though that may have been the case just wanted to be 100%
Appreciate your response
Regards
terry
on 08-06-2018 10:05 AM
on 08-06-2018 10:05 AM
Hi Aaron
I think I have the same question, but in more detail, will the Purchaser caveat automatically lapse on registration of the Transfer, as does in the paper world? Does PEXA/Land Victoria recognise that the Caveator & Transferee are one and the same? If so, then I should have one workspace representing the transferee but not representing the caveator, correct?
Thanks
Ros.
on 08-06-2018 10:20 AM
on 08-06-2018 10:20 AM
Hi @Roslynne
Yes it works the same as in paper.
And yes you do not need to add another role as caveator on title as you only need to add this role if the caveat details do not match the Transfer and therefore need to create a Withdrawal of that caveat.
Regards
Aaron
on 08-06-2018 10:40 AM
on 08-06-2018 10:40 AM
Hi Ros
The answer is YES it is recognized just like paper
My settlement that I was querying went thru all OK last Friday
The workspace will show the caveators as "unrepresented"
Provided caveator and purchaser names identical it will go thru OK
Regards
terry
on 08-06-2018 10:54 AM
on 08-06-2018 10:54 AM
I question the need for a Purchaser's Caveat when a Priority Notice achieves the same result for a cheaper cost.
on 08-06-2018 12:03 PM
on 19-07-2018 01:26 PM
on 19-07-2018 01:26 PM
I agree however Priority Notice only valid for 60days
When releasing a deposit with more than 60 days on the contract wouldn't purchaser be better served with a caveat?