About AngelaToler

If you are acting for a vendor and a caveat from a third party needs to be withdrawn from the title at settlement but the caveator is not legally represented how is this dealt with in  Vic and NSW please?  In Vic does this mean you have to do a paper dealing?  In NSW however,  this  scenario does not seem to be an exception listed in the NSW LRS Lodgement Rules Exceptions List  Thanks Angela  ... View more

Can I please ask about this scenario:   1. Assume there are 4 contracts of sale. 2. Each relates to a property in a different state.  3. The contracts are interdependent.  A contract can only settle if all the other 3 contracts also settle simultaneously. 4. One contract relates to a property in Victoria where PEXA settlement is mandated, and the transaction does not fall within the list of PEXA excepted transactions issued by LUV.  5. The 4 contracts may have the same vendor and purchase entities. 6. Or, they may not - for example, the 'vendor' may hold the properties in the various States under different corporate entities within the same group.   Questions: 1. Does the fact that settlement of the Victorian transaction is mandated to occur in PEXA mean that we must insist on the other contracts being settled in PEXA too, even though they are not mandated to do so in those particular States?    2. What if one of the contracts in a non-Victorian state cannot settle in PEXA for any reason, yet we are mandated to settle the Victorian contract in PEXA.  Are we somehow required to facilitate simultaneous paper/PEXA settlements and how do you propose we do this?   3. Can we settle ALL the contracts in paper, on the basis of their interdependency, and the lack of PEXA mandate in the other States.  If so where is this provided for as this does not seem to be an option in the exceptions list issued by LUV and we would require certainty that this is acceptable before proceeding to exchange contracts drafted on this basis.    Many thanks, Angela        ... View more