Welcome and all the very best to you for 2017!
Some of the things that can happen in real estate.
Facts: This is a Complaints Assessment Committee decision where the Complainants felt that the Licensee’s marketing of their property and advice made them feel the Property was worth less than they believed it was. The Complainant also said that the Licensee did not insert a cash-out clause as they had instructed. Three offers were involved in this complaint. Purchaser One made the lowest offer which the Licensee advised the Complainants to decline as Purchaser Two would not enter a multi-offer situation. Purchaser Two made an offer, conditional on finance for three days, and said his offer was only valid for that evening. The Complainants felt they were pressured to accept this offer. Purchaser Three made an offer on the day before Purchaser Two was due to go unconditional. At this point the Complainants realized the Licensee did not insert a cash-out clause into Purchaser Two’s offer as they had instructed.
Decision: The Complaints Assessment Committee decided to take no further action on the complaint. In making this decision, the Committee concluded that a cash-out clause would not have given the Complainants any benefit, because invoking the cash-out clause would require the Complainants giving the Purchaser three days’ notice (based on the clause the Licensee used), and Purchaser Three’s offer was made the day before Purchaser Two was due to go unconditional. The CAC found the Licensee correctly explained this to the Complainants and noted the Complainants appeared confused over how a cash-out clause works, as they seemed to believe this would mean they could pull out of the agreement immediately and enter into a fresh agreement with another purchaser. The Committee found no evidence to show the Licensee applied ‘undue pressure’ on the Complainants to accept Purchaser Two’s offer.
This decision illustrates the importance for licensees to ensure clauses such as cash-out clauses and back-up clauses, together with their timeframes are appropriately communicated so that vendors and purchasers properly understand how they work. (information from the REAA & CAC NZ)
Subdividing on the water front?
Thought you might like to know – In any proposed subdivision of the land the Council has a responsibility under the Resource Management Act and the corresponding rules under the Auckland Unitary Plan to require an esplanade reserve with a minimum width of 20 m around the line of mean high water spring tide. Chapter E38 – Objective E38(25) on Page 5 of the Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part sets out the basis for consideration of any formal resource consent application for a reduction of width of that reserve.
This link takes you to additional information about it on the council web site.
This is a process to be undertaken upon receipt of application for resource consent for subdivision, including submissions from your consultants in that regard.
You will also need to engage consultants to advise you further on subdivision / development of the land, and to prepare plans and other required documentation for any resource consent application.