About NicoleAghabi
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Friday
Hi George, I think this is quite significant for family lawyers as I am sure this scenario would happen a lot. However, my query is for the exact opposite. Adding a spouse to title. But nevertheless, I have your colleagues coming along to give us a presentation on how it now works.
... View more
3 weeks ago
Dear @GeorgePolus, Is there any update to this issue? I have reverted to paper, but now LRS need me to provide an exception. That is something in writing from PEXA to say this still cannot be done. Could you please guide me to where I can get something in writing please? My clients have been waiting a while for their transfer to go through and all I'm getting from LRS, agents, OSR and PEXA is the ring a round. Need urgent help in this regard please (need something in writing to accompany my LRS exception application). Thanks
... View more
3 weeks ago
Hi @HeatherC, Any update since Nov-19? I'm now having issues with my computer and Apple need me to update to latest version. But only because of PEXA, I can't. Can you please get IT to prioritise this as it is now extremely disruptive to my business.
... View more
12-11-2019
10:43 AM
Is there an update to this? The update came out a while ago now and I would like to obtain use of the updated OS on all my systems please.
... View more
08-11-2019
06:37 PM
1 like
Hi George, Unfortunately, the release notes say it cannot accomodate for joint tenancies. Further, there seems to be great inconsistency between PEXA and LRS. I’m talking about adding spouse to title (duty exempt) as joint tenants. The Registrar Generals Guidelines provide that on the transfer form, the transferor is spouse 1 and then transferee is both spouse 1 and 2. As to share being transferred, this is to remain blank and the same for consideration, this is to left blank. I am told that PEXA requires the transfer of a half share with transferor as spouse 1 and transferee as spouse 2 only. This is not consistent with the General Registrar guidelines. Additionally, the method of transfer: there is no monetary consideration and this is to be left blank on the transfer as per the RG guidelines. But on PEXA, we are required to select one of the options, none of which will do. So are we supposed to put consideration of $1? If so. This takes us now to a financial settlement. i have had to revert to paper. Still a lot of kinks to iron out, and if I’ve been misinformed, please advise. Waiting for the latest update.
... View more
11-12-2018
11:28 AM
Yes, but they have to add it back. I made the comment because the bank didn't add it back and my client was paying the one fee twice. Once in PEXA and once before they provided the loan amount funds available. I made the bank aware of this and it was rectified by them going into PEXA and adding the amount back as a source fund.
... View more
05-12-2018
12:19 PM
Oh that's good! I wonder why PEXA told me I couldn't do it. That looks like a much better option. Thanks for letting me know!
... View more
28-11-2018
09:06 AM
Ken can you please let me know how you go and what you did in the end. I'm curious which of the two I've described your bank decides to go with (or if they have another solution). I'm in the same situation as you and would like to know for future reference (ie which method).
... View more
28-11-2018
08:32 AM
1 like
Yes. That’s that’s what happened. So it sounds like in your case having 3 properties, working backwards: let property C = $Z let property B = $Y + $Z and let property A = $X + $Y + $Z and financial lines included: property A = $Y + $Z linked to B and property B = $Z linked to C NB the entire loan amount plus shortfall goes into property A. That’s if C follows B which follows A. But, I don’t know if it has to go that way. You may be able to have property B & C flow directly from A ie let property C = $Z let property B = $Y and let property A = $X + $Y + $Z and financial lines included: property A = $Y linked to B and property A = $Z linked to C NB the entire loan amount plus shortfall still goes into property A. Where B and C both follow A.
... View more
24-11-2018
08:02 AM
Check your client isn’t being charged for LRS fees when you are provide with the available funds for a purchase. This because PEXA will automatically charge your client to pay the fee as well. In essence your client will be paying it twice. If this is the case, you need to make sure the bank provides additional source funds to cover these costs. They need to pay it back.
... View more
Category:
24-11-2018
07:56 AM
2 Likes
My two matters have now settled. the bank refused to split the loan and required the two workspaces settle simultaneously. after speaking with PEXA, they said a simultaneous settlement can only flow from a sale to a purchase. we finally figured it out. i had to provide the amount of funds required for one workspace and that would be the second flow on workspace. the bank did a “financial link” and entered the whole loan amount (ie did not split the loan) in the first workspace. the financial amount to like is the required amount for the second workspace.
... View more
- Tags:
- thanks for sharing
15-11-2018
07:04 PM
1 like
I have two purchases with one combined loan. Incoming mortgagee requires simultaneous settlement and won’t split the source funds into the two workspaces. they are asking me which workspace to place the funds into. how would this even work? how do we place source funds for two properties into one workspace, and be able to have excess funds filter through to the linked settlement?
... View more
Category:
