On the title of a property that is for sale there are easements relating to water, power and telecommunications. What are the implications, and should the agent be aware and able to explain this? If I wanted to bid at auction, would it be advisable to seek legal advice on this aspect?

Edited by rpvr at 9:21 pm, Sun 16 May

rpvr - 2021-05-16 21:20:00

Yes the agent is required to be familiar with any easements etc on he title and should be able to explain them to you.

On the other hand you could ask your lawyer to explain them and get a more reliable answer.

sparkychap - 2021-05-16 21:26:00

rpvr wrote:

On the title of a property that is for sale there are easements relating to water, power and telecommunications. What are the implications, and should the agent be aware and able to explain this? If I wanted to bid at auction, would it be advisable to seek legal advice on this aspect?

Yes to both.

johnston - 2021-05-16 21:43:00

So it means that there are these services going through this part of the property and access should be maintained in case of repairs required. Your lawyer should be able to discuss this with you.Rural property easements can be more problematic or maybe not depends what it relates to. Simple really, read and think about future events.

msigg - 2021-05-17 07:15:00

On further examination, as well as the easements there are covenants as well. Access to the property is via a right of way which is a part of the property, and there is a covenant which says that vehicles shall not be parked or left immobile on the driveway, obviously to prevent vehicles causing annoyance to the owners of a house which is right alongside this access. That seems fair enough. But there is more.These two properties are lot 1 and lot 2, and there is a covenant which says " all differences and disputes arising between the registered proprietors of Lot 1 and Lot 2 DP _____, shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996". Seems as if for some reason disputes are expected! Is this sort of covenant normal and common? I have never heard of it before.

Edited by rpvr at 7:54 am, Mon 17 May

rpvr - 2021-05-17 07:52:00

msigg wrote:

So it means that there are these services going through this part of the property and access should be maintained in case of repairs required. Your lawyer should be able to discuss this with you.Rural property easements can be more problematic or maybe not depends what it relates to. Simple really, read and think about future events.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The amount of disputes I have seen in a rural setting is incredible. Often caused by poorly drafted or incomplete easements. To fair though, all older ones.

johnston - 2021-05-17 08:05:00

johnston wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The amount of disputes I have seen in a rural setting is incredible. Often caused by poorly drafted or incomplete easements. To fair though, all older ones.

have we got arbitration into the dt jurisdiction yet as no one can afford an arbitrator and their findings are not binding.?

gabbysnana - 2021-05-17 08:28:00

gabbysnana wrote:

have we got arbitration into the dt jurisdiction yet as no one can afford an arbitrator and their findings are not binding.?

Yes they are binding if done under the Arbitration Act.

sparkychap - 2021-05-17 08:49:00

msigg wrote:

So it means that there are these services going through this part of the property and access should be maintained in case of repairs required.

Not necessarily, easements can be dominant as well as servient.

sparkychap - 2021-05-17 08:49:00

sparkychap wrote:

Not necessarily, easements can be dominant as well as servient.

Likely only if on the servient land (as you know). Now the benefited/burdened land btw.

johnston - 2021-05-17 08:57:00

Think also of what happens if the sewer or water is blocked or leaking how are the costs to repair shared? Others may cause the blockage (say wetwipes flushed) or leaks (roots etc) and you could still be liable for your share of costs. Shared driveways can be a nightmare too and to get resolution about any of these issues it can be a hard road through the courts. Having said that, it's probably not an issue, they are common (easements for the right to convey xyz) but if a problem arises you'll want to be in a friendly position with the neighbors from the start or it'll be a fight. Covenants can be enforced by other members privy to the same covenants. For instance where I live you can't have fencing so if I erect a fence the other land owners can take me to court to have it removed. Make sure you're happy to follow the covenants now and in the future. Get good legal advice before signing.

oakcottage - 2021-05-17 10:07:00

johnston wrote:

Likely only if on the servient land (as you know). Now the benefited/burdened land btw.

Oh no, another mystery of the language of land law demystified. How am I going to impress people now? Actually 'benefited' and 'burdened' is not your usual language either when striking up a conversation at the local takeaway.

shanreagh - 2021-05-17 10:13:00

shanreagh wrote:

Oh no, another mystery of the language of land law demystified. How am I going to impress people now? Actually 'benefited' and 'burdened' is not your usual language either when striking up a conversation at the local takeaway.

You need to change takeaway joints. One more registered proprietor is now registered owner.

Edited by johnston at 10:38 am, Mon 17 May

johnston - 2021-05-17 10:37:00

johnston wrote:

Likely only if on the servient land (as you know). Now the benefited/burdened land btw.

But I prefer dominance.

sparkychap - 2021-05-17 10:44:00

sparkychap wrote:

But I prefer dominance.

There's fifty shades of grey in that statement.

apollo11 - 2021-05-17 11:16:00

sparkychap wrote:

But I prefer dominance.

Just need to find a servient (or a burdened) and you're away.

shanreagh - 2021-05-17 11:43:00

shanreagh wrote:

Just need to find a servient (or a burdened) and you're away.

Puts on Depeche Mode - "Master and Servient".

sparkychap - 2021-05-17 12:10:00

sparkychap wrote:

Puts on Depeche Mode - "Master and Servient".

According to Wikipedia the "Slavery Whip Mix" was the longest 12" Depeche Mode song at the time. I have learnt something today.

johnston - 2021-05-17 15:09:00

rpvr wrote:

On the title of a property that is for sale there are easements relating to water, power and telecommunications. What are the implications, and should the agent be aware and able to explain this? If I wanted to bid at auction, would it be advisable to seek legal advice on this aspect?

It is part of your due diligent to have your lawyer examine the title and explain to it to you.. There maybe an easement or similar which could complete ruin some grand plan you have for the property !!
I would not relies on the agent explaining them to you, it legal stuff leave it to your lawyer !!

onl_148 - 2021-05-17 16:23:00

onl_148 wrote:

It is part of your due diligent to have your lawyer examine the title and explain to it to you.. There maybe an easement or similar which could complete ruin some grand plan you have for the property !!
I would not relies on the agent explaining them to you, it legal stuff leave it to your lawyer !!

I agree but the agent should know the basics of a title. For example, if there was a restrictive covenant preventing subdivision the agent should disclose rather than a prospective subdivider wasting time and money on further investigation.

Edited by johnston at 4:56 pm, Mon 17 May

johnston - 2021-05-17 16:56:00

johnston wrote:

According to Wikipedia the "Slavery Whip Mix" was the longest 12" Depeche Mode song at the time. I have learnt something today.

how can it be longer than 12”?

sparkychap - 2021-05-17 16:57:00

sparkychap wrote:

how can it be longer than 12”?

Lol.

johnston - 2021-05-17 17:03:00

The member deleted this message.

travlr - 2021-05-17 17:22:00

gabbysnana wrote:

have we got arbitration into the dt jurisdiction yet as no one can afford an arbitrator and their findings are not binding.?

We took at cross lease dispute to dt last year, we had a hearing, then another date then got directed to arbitrate. Took 7 weeks to tell us that.

Why would you arbitrate if it didn’t come under the act?

travlr - 2021-05-17 17:27:00

The member deleted this message.

travlr - 2021-05-17 17:38:00

travlr wrote:

We took at cross lease dispute to dt last year, we had a hearing, then another date then got directed to arbitrate. Took 7 weeks to tell us that.

Why would you arbitrate if it didn’t come under the act?

did you take it to arbitration?, no one can afford it, then both parties have to agree.

gabbysnana - 2021-05-17 18:01:00

travlr wrote:

We took at cross lease dispute to dt last year, we had a hearing, then another date then got directed to arbitrate. Took 7 weeks to tell us that.

Why would you arbitrate if it didn’t come under the act?

What Act?

If you read the decision it will tell you why. My guess is because that is what your lease says.

johnston - 2021-05-17 18:30:00

oakcottage wrote:

Think also of what happens if the sewer or water is blocked or leaking how are the costs to repair shared? Others may cause the blockage (say wetwipes flushed) or leaks (roots etc) and you could still be liable for your share of costs.

If someone else causes damage then they pay (or their insurance). This is standard for Easements, common property on Unit Title or cross lease etc.. Only normal wear and tear/maintenance needs to be equally shared (by default) among shared users.

tony9 - 2021-05-18 09:55:00

gabbysnana wrote:

did you take it to arbitration?, no one can afford it, then both parties have to agree.

We haven’t arbitrated yet. Our lawyer is good to go but as you said it’s the cost. Might have to eventually.

Edited by travlr at 4:41 pm, Tue 18 May

travlr - 2021-05-18 16:36:00

johnston wrote:

What Act? Arbitration Act

If you read the decision it will tell you why. My guess is because that is what your lease says.

Yes Mr j the decision did direct us to arbitrate but my point was why did they give us a hearing, then a date for another, which was cancelled, then 7 weeks to direct us to arbitrate.

travlr - 2021-05-18 16:39:00

travlr wrote:

Yes Mr j the decision did direct us to arbitrate but my point was why did they give us a hearing, then a date for another, which was cancelled, then 7 weeks to direct us to arbitrate.

I can only speculate but your first hearing date was because the matter fell within the DT's jurisdiction and you were properly given your day in court. I have no idea why another date was given but presumably it was cancelled because it was unnecessary. Seven weeks perhaps because of workload.

Edited by johnston at 6:11 pm, Tue 18 May

johnston - 2021-05-18 18:10:00

johnston wrote:

I can only speculate but your first hearing date was because the matter fell within the DT's jurisdiction and you were properly given your day in court. I have no idea why another date was given but presumably it was cancelled because it was unnecessary. Seven weeks perhaps because of workload.

Thank you, yes you’re probably right

travlr - 2021-05-19 08:05:00