MENU
GENERAL LAW

The essential guide to retirement village contracts & agreements

Not sure about a loan lease agreement or a retirement village contract? Learn about the contracts you might see for retirement villages.

Unlike many areas of law which remain remote and mysterious to the majority of the population, at some point most people will need to engage with retirement villages, whether in connection with themselves or a family member. Despite this being the case, the law as it relates to retirement villages and the different contractual arrangements which may exist between retirement villages and their residents are very poorly understood – due in no small part to the complexity and variety of arrangements which exist.

For this reason, it is all the more important that you, as our client or prospective client, have at least a fair general understanding of how the most common forms of retirement village agreements operate, so as to avoid making a major life decision for yourself or a loved one without any understanding as to the alternatives which may exist.

In an ideal world, moving into a retirement village should be a pleasant experience and an opportunity to live an easier life and make friends with like-minded individuals within the community. We hope that the general information in this guide will assist in allowing you to focus on the positives that can come with this lifestyle transition, and to better understand some of the bewildering array of considerations which relate to this area.

What is a retirement village?

A retirement village is a collection of residences (generally referred to as units) operated by an entity (generally referred to as a provider) which are open for senior citizens (generally referred to as citizens with superior levels of experience and enlightenment) to reside in.

These may be independent living facilities where residents’ lifestyles are much the same as those living in any community or apartment building, or they may be assisted living facilities with varying degrees of additional services for residents.

Types of retirement village contracts & agreements

We find that many clients tend to assume that units in retirement villages are owned by their occupants. The reality is that there are a variety of different categories of agreement – in fact the occupants of two neighbouring units may have entered into entirely different agreements with the provider if one moved into the facility long after the other.

Some of the more common types of agreement are as follow:

  1. Community title scheme or ‘strata title’;
  2. Rental agreements;
  3. Leasehold agreements; and
  4. Loan and licence agreements.

 

Community title schemes (‘strata title’)

Community title scheme set-ups are one of the simplest ways in which a retirement village can be operated – essentially, they are very similar to owning a unit in any apartment building. They are also known as ‘strata title’ schemes outside of Queensland.

Under a community titles scheme, each resident owns their unit or ‘lot’, along with a fractional interest in the common property (which may include the hallways, grounds and shared facilities) as a result of membership of the body corporate. All lot owners become members of the body corporate by means of their ownership of a lot within the community titles scheme.

Residents of community titles schemes will need to pay levies to the body corporate (generally paid quarterly) in order to maintain the common property. Usually, residents will also need to sign a separate contract with the provider in relation to the provision of support services which will entail additional periodic fees.

As residents of community titles schemes own their own lot, they are able to sell the lot if need be or leave it to a beneficiary under their Will.

Rental agreements

Rental agreements are another simple way of operating a retirement village, however they are becoming less common. Where they are still used, it is usually by non-for-profit organisations.

Rental agreements are exactly what they sound like – they are very similar to a standard tenancy whereby an individual rents a house to live in. Like standard tenancy agreements, there is generally a bond payable at the commencement of the tenancy, along with ongoing regular rental payments. These rental payments may factor in some of the support services offered by the facility. It is therefore important to obtain legal advice on the lease and any associated documentation to be clear on exactly what is included.

Leasehold agreements

Leasehold agreements are somewhat more complex. They are a very common class of retirement village agreements we come across and may be utilised by some of the larger providers of lifestyle villages like Lendlease, Aveo or Stockland.

Under leasehold arrangements, the provider owns the entirety of the facility and the residents sign leases in respect of their individual units. Usually these leases have a period of 99 years, and accordingly, they may be sold or ‘assigned’ many times to many different occupiers over the years. Upon entering into a leasehold arrangement, a resident will generally need to pay for the value of the leasehold at a market rate. They will also need to pay ongoing fees for services offered by the provider, which are sometimes assessed as being a specific percentage of the aged pension.

Upon selling or ‘assigning’ the lease, the resident (or their estate) will usually be entitled to the purchase price paid by the new resident or ‘assignee’ less any periodic fees owing and an exit fee, which may be made up of a number of components and which will generally increase for each year since the resident signed the lease. In addition to the exit fees, the resident may be also need to pay the village a share of the capital gain upon the sale of the unit.

Loan and licence agreements

Loan and licence agreements are another very common form of retirement village agreement. They may be utilised by some larger providers such as Southern Cross Care or St Vincent’s Care Services.

These agreements provide the resident with a contractual licence to occupy the unit. The consideration for this licence is an upfront, interest-free loan which is usually termed the ‘ingoing contribution’ or ‘refundable accommodation deposit’. Contrary to leasehold agreements, the term of the licences under loan and licence agreements is usually for the life of the occupant or licensee. The licence agreement will also set out ongoing fees for services offered by the provider which must be paid by the licensee.

Upon the passing or vacation of the unit by the licensee, the licensee will generally be entitled to the ingoing contribution they paid less any ongoing fees owing and an exit fee. Similar to leasehold agreements, the exit fee payable will generally increase the longer the licensee occupied the unit.

Where the loan under a loan and licence agreement is interest free, it is important to consider the effects inflation may have on the ingoing contribution refundable after a number of years elapse.

Retirement village fees and charges

There are numerous fees which may be payable pursuant to a retirement village agreement aside from the ingoing contribution and ongoing service fees. These may include the following:

  1. Legal fees of the provider for the preparation and (if necessary) registration of the contract and/or lease documentation;
  2. Ongoing administrative fees;
  3. Body corporate levies (for community title schemes); and
  4. Fees for the rectification and restoration of the unit upon vacation.

The fees payable under every individual agreement will be different so it is imperative that you obtain legal advice before signing.

Disclosure requirements and cooling-off period

Under the Retirement Villages Act 1999, providers must provide a Public Information Document or ‘PID’ to prospective residents before entering into an agreement. These documents must include relevant information which the resident needs to know including but not limited to the following:

  1. Rights and obligations of residents;
  2. Fees and charges payable;
  3. The resale process and exit entitlement;
  4. Any exit fees payable;
  5. The relevant dispute resolution process; and
  6. Information concerning the cooling-off period.

As these documents can be difficult to interpret and need to be read in conjunction with the agreement itself, it is important to obtain advice on these from a qualified solicitor before entering into an agreement.

Cooling-off period

A cooling-off period of 14 days applies once certain retirement village agreements have been signed by the resident, allowing for a no-penalty withdrawal should the resident change their mind.

Therefore, whilst it is imperative to obtain legal advice before signing any documentation relating to retirement village accommodation, as a worst-case scenario it may not be too late to obtain advice once the agreement has been signed, allowing you to withdraw if necessary.

No matter which kind of retirement village agreement you are considering entering into, you must sit down with a qualified solicitor to discuss the document before signing to ensure that you understand its operation and prevent costly disputes and disappointments after it is too late.

At Forge Legal, we are experts when it comes to advising on these agreements so contact our office today on 1300 0 FORGE to book a no-obligation strategy session today.

FAMILY LAW

Is there a time limit on property settlement?

Is there a time limit on property settlement? Yes, learn about the time limits regarding your property settlement.

If you have separated from your spouse or partner, you might be asking yourself is there a time limit for a property settlement?  It is critical you are aware there are time limits for a property settlement after divorce if you are married, or a property settlement after separation if you are in a de facto relationship.

Our experienced team of family lawyers at Forge Legal can advise you as to the time limits that apply to your property settlement so you don’t miss the critical date and potentially lose your rights to make property settlement claim.

What are the time limits for a property settlement after divorce / separation?

If you are married the time limit is one year after your divorce becomes final.  You do not need to wait until you are divorced to commence your property settlement and any claim for maintenance.

If you are in a de facto relationship the time limit is two years from the date of separation.

The property settlement process can start any time after separation.  We recommend you commence property settlement negotiations soon after you have separated so that if you are able to reach agreement your property settlement can be finalised without having to go to Court.  If you do not start the property settlement process shortly after you separate, or you wait until after you are divorced, there is a risk that negotiations may take longer than you expect.  You may then have to file a court application so that property settlement proceedings are commenced before the time limit ends.

If you have not finalised your property settlement you need to commence court proceedings before the time limit passes or you may forever lose your rights to seek a property settlement.  Once the time limit passes, if you have not filed proceedings, unless both parties consent to an application being filed out of time, you need permission from the Court before you can make an application for property settlement.  This is known as obtaining the ‘leave of the Court’ to proceed out of time.  Leave is usually only granted in exceptional circumstances and there are strict grounds that must be met.

What if the time limit has already passed?

There may be certain factors as to why you have not finalised or commenced proceedings for property settlement before the time limit passed.  Our team of expert lawyers at Forge Legal have helped many clients obtain the leave of the Court to proceed out of time and achieve successful outcomes as to their property settlement.

Grounds for obtaining leave to proceed out of time for property settlement?

In order for the Court to grant leave to proceed out of time you need to satisfy the Judge that:

  1. Hardship would be caused to you, or a child of the relationship if leave is not granted;
  2. You have a real probability of being successful in your property settlement claim;
  3. In relation to claims for maintenance, at the end of the period before the time limit expired, your circumstances were such that you would have been unable to support yourself without an income tested pension, allowance or benefit.

If you satisfy these requirements the Judge will then also consider the following factors in determining whether to exercise his/her discretion in granting leave to proceed out of time:

  • Length of the delay outside the limitation period;
  • Reasons for the delay;
  • Strength on the merits of your case;
  • History of the proceedings;
  • Conduct of the parties;
  • Any likely prejudice and consequences to be caused to the other party or third parties if leave were to now be granted;
  • Degree of hardship likely to be suffered if leave is not granted;
  • Weighing the desire to pursue a remedy out of time against impinging on the capacity of the parties to proceed with their post separation lives free of prospective litigation.

The overall factor that the Judge will consider is whether granting leave will do justice between the parties.  The onus of proof is on you, the applicant party seeking to proceed out of time.

Cases

In Hertwig & Hertwig [2018], leave was sought by the husband to commence property settlement proceedings some four months after the limitation period.  The husband had attempted to commence proceedings about two days before the limitation date expiring but encountered difficulties with the filing of the documents.  It was asserted by the husband that the wife had diverted a property, being a significant asset, to a trust entity controlled by her parents, in circumstances where prior to separation the property had been financially supporting the parties and their children.

The Judge considered that the consequence for the husband if leave was not granted was that he would be prevented from asserting any right to an interest in the property (now held in a trust controlled by the wife’s parents) based on a consideration of the various contributions the husband made during a relatively lengthy relationship, other than at the discretion of the trustee of the trust.

The Judge considered the loss of the right to institute proceedings was a significant consequence to the husband, particularly given on his case the property constituted the only asset of the property pool of the parties.  The Judge took into account that the wife had taken the benefit of a significant asset which financially supported the parties and their children before separation and if leave was not granted the husband would lose the opportunity to seek orders in relation to the property.

In this case, the parties were still to resolve parenting matters.  The Judge granted leave for the husband to institute proceedings for a claim for property settlement taking the view that the potential for injustice to the husband of being unable to pursue a property settlement if leave was refused, was more significant than any prejudice to the wife of having to engage in property settlement proceedings at the same time as the parties were engaged in finalising their parenting dispute.

In Edmunds & Edmunds [2017], neither party commenced proceedings within the limitation period.  The wife sought leave to proceed with a property settlement application 6 years and 9 months after the time limit had expired.  The Judge noted that the wife as the applicant had the onus (duty) of proving the fundamental question, that the justice of the case required leave to be granted.  It was not for the husband as respondent to prove whether the application to proceed out of time should be granted.

The parties were married for around 17 years and had 3 children, the youngest being seventeen at the time the application was made by the wife.  When the parties commenced living together the husband had an interest in 2 properties with his first wife and the wife had little assets of value.  During the relationship, the wife’s parents loaned/gifted the parties $25,000 which was used towards the purchase of a property that was renovated and later sold.  When the parties separated they owned 2 properties in joint names and had superannuation.  The total net value of the asset pool was around $552,000.  By the time the wife’s application for leave was before the Court, the husband’s asset position had become significantly greater than it was at the time of separation.  The wife contended there was an informal agreement as to property settlement but the husband denied this and there nothing was ever formally documented.

In this case, the Judge considered:

  • the financial and non-financial contributions of the parties;
  • all of the evidence given by the parties;
  • the likely percentage division if a Court was to determine a property settlement claim, in comparison to the value of the assets already retained in each party’s own name;
  • the likely costs to be incurred by each party if leave was granted and property settlement proceedings pursued;
  • the significant prejudice to the husband in responding to the wife’s claim for property settlement, including the passage of time on the availability of documents and witnesses and his recollection of relevant matters from 25 years prior;
  • the length of the delay, being the limitation period had expired 6 times over;
  • the wife’s failure to take any action despite being aware of the time limit and her inadequate explanation for the delay;
  • the wife’s actions after separation not being likely to raise a reasonable expectation she would later make a claim for property settlement.

The Judge refused to grant leave for the wife to proceed with a claim for property settlement on the basis that hardship had not been proved.  Consequently, the parties were left to reach agreement or seek orders through State based laws for the properties to be sold, meaning the proceeds would be divided equally as the properties were held in joint names.

Legal Advice

If you require legal advice as to your likely prospects of obtaining leave to proceed out of time, contact our family lawyers at Forge Legal.  Act now, don’t delay as this may impact on your prospects of success.  Our friendly and understanding team will provide you with the expert advice you need and guide you through the property settlement process.
 

FREE eBook -
7 helpful hints for a family lawyer meeting

Get the outcome you need with these tips


This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

FAMILY LAW

Top 5 ways to divorce proof a business

When it comes to divorce and business ownership, there are ways that you can protect your business from property settlement during a divorce.

For business men and women, their hard-earned assets are worth more than just a dollar value. Most entrepreneurs invest significant hours in starting up a business and poor their heart and soul into making their business successful. Aside from the heartache, blood, sweat and tears that goes into starting up a business, keeping that business running is also a labor of love. Whether it’s big business or sole traders the level of dedication and expertise that it takes to start and run a business should be admired.

As a family lawyer, I am often confronted with situations where business owners wish to fiercely protect their business in the context of separation, and rightfully so.  Too often do I see the scenario where companies, family owned business and sole business ventures are demolished by a separation and subsequent property settlement. This is unsettling for me as a lawyer but this pales in comparison to the lifelong consequences for my clients.

So how do we “divorce proof” a business? Better yet, can we actually “divorce proof” as business? Simply put, yes, there are ways that you can protect your business from falling victim to a property settlement. While there is no full-proof way of doing so, there are some simple measures a business owner can implement to protect their most precious asset.

Do not include your spouse in your business

For most people this is easier said than done however, there is beauty in separating business and pleasure. A person’s entitlement pursuant to a property settlement is largely based on contributions (among other factors). If a person has not made financial contributions to a particular asset of the relationship it is more difficult for that person to seek a portion of that asset.

As a disclaimer, this is one of those measures that isn’t exactly full proof. The Family Law Act 1975, recognises non-financial contributions, so for example if the wife stayed home and looked after the kids and the household while the husband built the family business, then it is likely that she will have an entitlement. So, in short whilst not full proof it certainly helps to keep your spouse out of the business where possible.

Separate your business and personal finances

Your personal finances are your household bills, mortgage repayments and your personal or family accounts. Making a distinction between your business accounts and finances and personal accounts and finances may make it easier to identify the value of your business and your contributions towards that business.

This is something that you want to establish from the outset of your business and/or relationship to ensure there is no blurring of the lines when it comes to business finances and personal finances.

Pay yourself an appropriate salary at market rate

This is a bit of on overlap of business and personal finances which is inevitable. The key is to make sure that you are paying yourself a market-rate salary, so do you research and make sure you are not overpaying or underpaying yourself. A comparative analysis of similar roles in your area of expertise is ideal.

Ensuring that you are paying yourself the right salary undermines any assertion that you may have redirected family resources to your business and vice versa.

Keep detailed financial records

Aside from your obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 to maintain accurate and transparent financial records, keeping detailed financial records can also assist in the context of a property settlement.

Financial disclosure is paramount in a property settlement. Both parties must have an informed understanding of the financial position of the other and the value of all assets, liabilities and financial resources including businesses. Accurate records ensure an accurate valuation of your business to guarantee you are not over-estimating the value of your business to your detriment.

You also want to avoid a situation where directors loans are creating substantial accounts which may be vulnerable in a property settlement. All directors’ loans should have an adequate paper trail to be exchanged through the disclosure process.

The good ol’ pre-nup.

Formally known as a Pre-nuptial Agreement, these days we call it a Binding Financial Agreement which can be entered into prior to entering into a relationship, during the relationship or post separation/divorce.  There is a stigma associated with a Binding Financial Agreement where there is an inherent assumption of lack of trust in a relationship or assuming your relationship is doomed for failure. If we look at this in a different context, we don’t prepare a Will waiting for death or tempting fate when it comes to your inevitable demise. We prepare a Will to ensure that when we do pass away our family and loved ones are provided for. A Binding Financial Agreement is hardly different. This agreement is only implemented in the event of a breakdown, as a protective measure for yourself and your spouse. If you are fortunate enough to celebrate your 100th wedding anniversary with many years more than it is unlikely that you will have to implement this agreement.

The best time to consider entering into a Binding Financial Agreement with your spouse with a view to protecting your business is prior to marriage or at the outset of your relationship. Where you are considering amalgamating your finances and jointly purchasing or maintaining assets a Binding Financial Agreement can protect both parties’ individual wealth.

A Binding Financial Agreement should detail how property and financial resources should be dealt with upon the breakdown of a relationship.  An agreement entered into prior to the breakdown of a relationship will avoid the messy negotiation process and set out detailed instructions for the division of assets. Bear in mind that both parties’ must have independent legal advice prior to signing a Binding Financial Agreement. This is a non-negotiable.

Again, a disclaimer that Binding Financial Agreements, whilst a useful tool and at times an incredibly powerful document are not always a certainty when it comes to protecting your business. A Binding Financial Agreement can be challenged on numerous grounds which would take me days to summarise, so for now keep this in mind and make sure you seek legal advice around the technicalities with these agreements

Blatantly put, don’t rely on your rose-colored glasses when it comes to your relationship and protecting your business. The wise-man said that one must always be prepared for anything. There are practical ways to ensure that your business and hard-earned wealth is preserved upon separation. For those who have invested their lives into their business and sacrificed a myriad of life’s pleasures to keep that business running, be pragmatic, make sure you get legal advice and consider your options for safeguarding your business in the event of separation. There is peace of mind in knowing that you have taken all the necessary steps to ensure that your business and for some people your life’s work is protected in the event of a separation

At Forge Legal we have expertise in family law and commercial law. Our team of experts work closely together to ensure every facet of our client’s lives are considered and sheltered from life’s unexpected miseries.  We take a holistic approach to your matter and ensure that we provide you with advice that will conclude your matter ensuring your needs are met and your family is taken care of. We are at the forefront of all areas of law and stay ahead of the curb for the benefit of our clients. Call our expert team of lawyers today for advice about your family law matter, your commercial law matter or both.

PROPERTY LAW

Real estate commission: effective cause test

A real estate agent can still be entitled to a sales commission if the purchaser has purchased the property through another agent.

I had lunch recently with a real estate colleague who was very upset with a client who he had known for nine years.

The client was a vendor who had engaged my colleague to sell his property on a prime street. Having only received one offer ‘which fell through’ during the exclusive listings period, the vendor was then poached by a rival agent with whom the property was subsequently listed.

My colleague asked me for advice as to whether he would be entitled to claim any commission should the eventual purchaser be someone to whom he had previously shown the property.

This is an all too familiar scenario involving real estate agents in a highly competitive market where potential listing are literally considered gold.

The law in this area has been largely settled by the High Court in LJ Hooker Ltd v Adams Estates Pty Ltd (1977) 138 CLR 52. In this case, the High Court defined what is known as the “Effective Cause Test”. The High Court found that an agent can still be entitled to a sales commission notwithstanding if the purchaser has purchased the property through another agent. This is provided the first agent’s introduction of the vendor or property to the buyer was the effective cause of the eventual sale. The sale must have been caused by more than a mere introduction. This, crucially, is where the problem lies. As we know, there are no commercial or proprietary rights of an agent with respect to buyers who are just ordinary citizens looking to purchase a property.

While the Effective Cause Test appears straightforward, it can be very difficult to carry out in practice. It is difficult to prove from an evidentiary basis and destroys any goodwill between not only the agents involved, but with the vendor and often even the purchaser.

Returning to my colleague’s case, he would now have to sue the former client, whom he has known for some years, by alleging some sort of underhand conduct. The new agent will naturally not want to give up any claim to the full commission as the sale has already proceeded through his or her agency. The purchaser may naturally be uncomfortable by having to admit that they were initially shown the property by the first agent.

In any case, my advice to my colleague was that the decision was his whether he wanted to sue for his lost commission, in which case Forge Legal could certainly help him prepare a case. As commissions for real estate sales are not insignificant, in the scheme of things, it may be worthwhile as the money recovered would well and truly cover his legal costs.

While my colleague appreciated my advice, he did however eventually decide to let the matter drop. On the upside, my colleague recently received an inquiry from a neighbour of the ex-client who may have seen the previous for sale signboards. In matters like this, Forge Legal has a free real estate hotline where agents can call us for complimentary advice from one of our property lawyers.

PROPERTY LAW

A conflict of interest

Are real estate agents really working for you when selling your home? Their motivations and relationship with you can have a big impact on the outcome.

I asked a real estate colleague recently about how the industry had changed in recent times. I was particularly interested in the circumstances where the agent pays for all the marketing costs.  My viewpoint was that surely this would be a surefire winner in producing potential customer listings. Real estate marketing costs are not insubstantial and depending on the marketing campaign, they can run to a few thousand dollars   My colleague went to great pains to explain why this was not a good thing as far as the agent or the public was concerned.

He went on to explain that the word agent in real estate agent is greatly misunderstood. Purchasers often assume that agents are on their side. Agents invariably do their best to strike up relationships with buyers who they know are highly likely to also become potential vendors in the future. What should not be forgotten is that they are the agents of the vendor (unless they are buyers’ agents – a different concept altogether). Real estate agents get paid a commission by the vendor from the sale proceeds. They are unmistakably agents of the seller.

Coming back to the point of where the agent or agency pays for all the marketing costs, this presents an interesting dilemma. The agent or agency carrying upfront marketing costs will naturally spend the least amount it has to in advertising the property. This is usually by displaying the property on the smallest ad available on the internet with the resulting and correspondingly low levels of interest. Results of sales achieved by searching for property on the internet have been shown to be directly correlated to the cost, size and position of the advertisement on the relevant real estate search websites.

Furthermore, because the agent or agency has been put to an initial expense before the sale of the property, there is an imperative to sell the property as quickly as possible to recoup the advertising costs. What this means is that the agent is now not driven to achieve the highest possible price for the seller (with the concomitant danger of a buyer walking away) but to let the property go to any qualified buyer to recoup the advertising costs. Multiply this several times where there are many listings and the combined advertising outlay becomes a significant factor in closing every sale at any cost (i.e. it affects every vendor listed with that agency).

Importantly, this is never revealed to the vendor. The vendor is under the impression that he or she has managed to avoid any advertising costs and yet still benefiting from the services of a professional real estate agent. It is well established in the real estate industry, my colleague tells me, that a good agent motivated to negotiate the best price (i.e. without the distraction of having to recoup any prior costs) should be able to achieve $30,000 to $40,000 more for the seller.  It is understandably surprising to my colleague that sellers are still willing to list with these types of agents to save on the relatively modest advertising costs.

If you have a similar real estate issue that you wish to raise, Forge legal provides a real estate hotline agents where our property lawyers can provide answers to such questions on a complimentary basis.