Thursday, July 13, 2017
Body Corporate Laws - New Report
Download a full copy of the Property Law Review Final Recommendations – Procedural Issues under the BCCMA: http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/529784/final-recommendations-procedural-issues-paper.pdf
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Solicitor Assaults Neighbour - Then Sells House
The advertorial in the AFR and The Domain, without some of this detail, is below.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Air Space and Common Property
See High Court decision and this good article.
In contrast, see this recent decision where a body corporate's denial was found to be unreasonable.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Legal Claim Against Meriton
"BILLIONAIRE developer Harry Triguboff is at the centre of a legal battle with a body corporate over who should foot a $2 million repair bill for one of his Southport residential high rises."
Meriton is also the developer of the Infinity and Soleil towers in Brisbane.
See Gold Coast Business News
Thursday, October 9, 2014
High Court said builder not liable to body corporate
Lawyer Emanuel Confos, for Brookfield Multiplex, said the result would have significant consequences for the building industry. "This is a landmark decision for the construction industry because it clarifies an issue that has been around for many years and that is whether a builder owes a duty in contract and tort for a commercial development," Mr Confos said. "And I believe the High Court has unanimously decided that no duty in tort is required only duty in contract," he said.
Decision is here.
Friday, March 14, 2014
A victory for miniature dachshund dog ‘Sebastian’ over the Committee
Some schemes have tried to adopt by-laws that ban all animals, but this has been found to be contrary to section 169 of the Act. Section 169 provides for by-laws to regulate the use and enjoyment of lot, but does not authorise a by-law prohibiting such use and enjoyment."
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Apartment Body Corporate Fees
Source: Domain Advertorial
Here are some example body corporate levies for a random selection of apartments in Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast:
- City, one bed - $5,200 a year
- South Bank, two bed - $6,000 a year
- City, two bed - $7,000 a year
- City, two bed - $5,800 a year
- Suburbs, one bed - $4,400 a year
- Suburbs, two bed - $4,000 a year
- Suburbs, two bed - $4,900 a year
- Noosa, one bed - $5,129 a year
- Mooloolaba, two bed - $11,820 a year
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Rental Returns
- rent increases in the past year have been minimal, and I suspect below inflation
- vacancy periods between tenants have increased slightly
- body corporate fees have increased dramatically, and well more than rents and inflation
- council charges and water rates are slightly higher
- long term rental properties do much better than vacation or short term rental properties
- net returns, before interest, have decreased compared to the previous financial year (mostly due to body corporate increases being more than rent increases)
- fees and charges from rental agents are high, especially when considering the work done and value received -- self managed properties do better than agent managed properties for this reason, even if the rent received is slightly below market rent
- if interest rates had not decreased, then the overall picture would not have been rosy.
- because of decreases in interest rates, the overall cash position (not taking into account depreciation and tax) improved in the 12/13 FY compared with the previous financial year.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Pet Disputes
- Cat allowed in Eden by the Bay
- Cat allowed in Horton Apartments
- Decision not to allow dog by body corporate suspended for further review
- Dog allowed and bylaw prohibiting animals struck out
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Uncertainties, Risks and Body Corporate Fees
- What will happen if the mining boom comes to an end?
- Will Newman's retrenchment of 20% of the public service kill any chance of growth for the next 3 years?
- Will Newman increase land tax rates and lower land tax threasolds in Queensland?
- What will Newman and the Attorney-General do in relation to the complex issues regarding lot adjustments (that impact the percentage of body corporate fees an individual unit owner will pay)? If I buy now, will the unit entitlements be adjusted up in the near future so that my body corporate fees will increase? Will there be costly legal action between the body corporate and various interest groups in the buildings. See here and here for example. Changes to this are a priority for the government it seems, to reward penthouse owners for voting for the Liberal party.
Post-script -- comment from a reader after this post was published:
Your sentiments re purchasing a unit or apartment in Brisbane reflect my own also, very valid points.
Article in AFR, 7 August, P38: Newman at a get together of banks and bizo’s was playing pretend Reserve Bank Chief and instructing banks to start lending. Banks won’t (as we all know), denying they should take risks just for Newman et al. Last para of article states : At a meeting of people from the big four banks recently, one person from one of the big four proclaimed “We’re not lending anything into Northern Australia. Northern Australia begins at Nundah in Brisbane.”
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Readjustment of contribution schedule lot entitlements
Within bodies corporate, few issues have been more polarising than the adjustment and/ or readjustment of contribution schedule lot entitlements (CSLE’s) which set the proportion each owner contributes to body corporate expenses. The Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 previously provided that in certain circumstances, an owner could apply to the District Court or a specialist adjudicator for an order to have the original entitlements adjusted. Where such an order was made, levies payable by some owners decreased while others increased.
In November 2010 the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading introduced into parliament a bill to amend the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997. This bill was passed by parliament in early 2011 and changed the criteria for adjustment of contribution lot entitlements. These amendments also include a procedure for certain owners to seek a reversal of previous adjustment orders. Except in limited circumstances, such as where the adjustment order merely formalized an agreement made by the parties, or there has been a material change such as further subdivision, the body corporate is obliged by the legislation to lodge a new community management statement reflecting the original lot entitlements. Where such action is taken, levies payable by some owners decrease while others increase.
Given that all lot owners are members of the body corporate, it is important that they have an opportunity to air any grievances and have input into the management of the scheme. Owners often have opposing views on various matters, but in my view robust discussion and debate is an important part of body corporate decision-making. This requires that, within reason, all owners feel free to express their point of view without unreasonable threats of defamation proceedings."
See Q1 Decision
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Rent Money is Dead Money - part 3
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Pet Friendly Apartments
Basically, the Adjudicator has upheld the protest that the 212 Margaret by-laws, which did not permit any pets at all, were invalid and unenforceable, and has ordered them changed to a permissive by-law. This dates back to a CCT ruling in 2008 (Tutton v Body Corporate for Pivital Point Residential) where the CCT magistrate ruled that total pet bans were unreasonable since certain species of animal could on no rational basis cause any difficulty to any other lot owner.
In addition, it appears there has been a further QCATA ruling in September 2010 -- McKenzie v Body Corporate for Kings Row Centre 28/09/2010 -- in which the tribunal decided that even by-laws that attempt to ban only a certain type of pet (cats and dogs) are also so unreasonable as to be effectively invalid and unenforceable. In that case, the disputed by-law was permissive of pets in general but attempted to outright ban only 'cats and dogs' specifically.
Essentially this all comes together to mean that a (or any! within a Community Titles Scheme) Body Corporate can no longer expect to ban pets (or any kind of pet) outright, even if they have already done so by voting in a ban/restrictive by-law, or even if the building was originally set up with a pet ban/restrictive by-law.
It also means that if anyone protests such a restriction, the Adjudicators will uphold their protest, allow the pet (if it's a reasonable request and there is no evidence of a reasonable reason the pet would be unsuited to the property), and forcibly change the by-law back to a permissive one. Just like they just did with 212 Margaret.
The flow on outcome from these rulings are clear: the face of Community Titles Schemes must now change - pets can no longer be banned, and Committees and Body Corporate's can no longer expect to stop people from bringing their pets to live with them in apartments, units or townhouses - unless they can provide reasonable grounds or evidence that the particular pet would be unsuited to the lot. From what I understand, this new thinking has already been tested multiple times in the Appeals process and the Adjudicators subsequent interpretation of this has also been made abundantly clear.
212 Margaret is now (forcibly) pet friendly.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Changes to Lot Entitlements in Queensland
"Now that you are all aware of the Body Corporate and Community Management Amendment Bill 2010 lets spend some time explaining, if passed, what it is going to mean for you.
Open for public consultation until 23rd September 2010 the Bill proposes to outline new concepts and principles for the setting of Contribution Schedule Lot Entitlements (CSLE), along with a provision for lot owners who were disadvantaged by adjustment orders to have the amended CSLE changed back to their original schedule prior to any change. We have provided a brief summary of the main areas of the Bill below but urge anyone who believes they will be affected to review a copy of the Bill at www.deedi.qld.gov.au and make a submission to bccm.policy@deedi.qld.gov.au.
1. Introduction of the following Principles for deciding CSLE:
- Equality Principle -The CSLE must be equal except to the extent which it is just and equitable in the circumstances for them not to be equal.
- Relativity Principle - The CSLE must take into account factors such as the nature, features and characteristics of the lots, the purposes for which the lots are used, how the scheme is structured, the impact the lots may have on the costs of maintaining the common property and the market value of the lots.
- Unimproved Value Principle - Where the CSLE must be proportionate to the unimproved value of the lots.
- Market Value Principle - Interest Schedule Lot Entitlements must reflect the respective market values of the lots, except to the extent which is is just and equitable for the lot entitlements not to reflect the respective market values.
2. Adjustment of CSLE
A Body Corporate is still entitled to change its CSLE by passing a Reolution Without Dissent. The notice of meeting must be accompanied by a written document outlining the changes and the reasons for the changes.
An owner is still able to apply to have the CSLE changed either through Specialist Adjudication or the Queensland Civil & Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), however there are restrictions. For an existing scheme, the scheme must have been affected by a material change since the last time the CSLE were decided. For schemes established after the commencement of the Bill, the owner making the application must believe the CSLE are not consistent with the deciding principle.
3. Previous Decisions
The proposed Bill will allow an owner (who must have been an owner at the time an order was made) to submit a motion to the Body Corporate to revert back to the CSLE before any order to change them was made. There will be a three (3) year time limit for an owner to submit such a motion. If the Body Corporate receives a motion from an owner, it must identify the CSLE pre-adjustment and call a general meeting to allow owners to vote, by Resolution Without Dissent, whether to change the CSLE back to what they were pre-adjustment. Special provisions will apply to Lots that have been subdivided or amalgamated.
4. Applications already made
If an application is being heard by a Specialist Adjudictoar or QCAT and a decision has not been made or has not been given effect at the commencement of the Bill, it will cease to have effect when the Bill commences.
Some other relevant changes proposed include:
- A buyer may terminate a contract if it is entered into but before settlement, a new Community Management Statement (CMS) is recorded and:
- the seller does not give the buyer a copy of the new CMS within 14 days (or longer if agreed by both parties) after the new CMS is recorded; and
- the buyer would be materially prejudiced given the extent to which the new CMS was different to the previous CMS; and
- the buyer gives the seller 14 days notice (or longer if agreed) that they wish to terminate the contract.
- A buyer may terminate a contract if they are buying from the Original Owner for the Scheme if they reasonably believe that the CSLE are inconsistent with the principle on which they were decided and the buyer would be materially prejudiced if they completed the contract. There is a 90 day time limit to terminate after the buyer (or a person acting for the buyer) receives a copy of the contract."
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Body Corporate Levy Rules to Change
From a SSKB Newsletter:
The share that each owner pays to their body corporate levies may change, yet again, when the government commences new laws about how contribution lot entitlements are calculated.
In a major omission that the changes to body corporate lot entitlements made in 1997 were unfair to many, the Queensland Minister responsible for body corporate law, Peter Lawlor, today announced that the basis for setting lot entitlements will revert to the principles used prior to 1997.
Under the 1997 principle the entitlements must be equal unless it is just and equitable for them to be otherwise. This principle changes under today’s announcement.
For standard format plans contribution entitlements will be based on the unimproved capital value of the land – so it will be similar to land tax and your council rates.
For building format plans (apartment style dwellings) the system will be a combination of factors that the minister describes as “market conditions and property value”. The impact of this will need to be considered once the legislation is finalised.
It appears clear that this new “old system” will apply to new developments. However, it is unknown what will happen to developments that are currently being sold off the plan.
Any body corporate where the lot entitlements have already changed from the pre 1997 system to the 1997 system because an owner made an application to have the entitlements altered are in for some more substantial upheaval as the Minister has stated the new law will see the entitlements revert to the way they were before.
At this stage the announcement lacks detail. It is unclear what happens to developments that were completed under the 1997 system and have used that principle for calculating entitlements instead of the new principles.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Maintenance Fees
Interesting comment from another blog:
"I must admit I had no idea what I was doing when I bought my first apartment; Low fees meant I liked the building, without knowing anything financially about the building, I have since researched the other buildings I was also interested in, and to be honest I was just plain LUCKY I bought in the building I did, only after joining the committee did I realize we actually have a huge surplus as well as low fees ( that have actually gone down further since I bought)
I also think it's a huge mistakes for people who purchase an apartment or unit with a strata title, but fail to join the committee or even attend the AGM, Its probably their biggest investment they will ever make, but they don't care how, or who is running it."
Friday, April 3, 2009
Body Corporate Levy Defaults
Friday, February 20, 2009
Disputes over Body Corporate Fees
See Courier Mail