Warning after real estate agents caught altering sale agreements
Photo:
RNZ / Nate McKinnon
House buyers, particularly those using money from KiwiSaver, may be being put at risk by real estate agents altering sale and purchase agreements, the Law Association warns.
The association's property law committee raised a concern with the Real Estate Institute after members noted real estate salespeople were altering agreements to waive buyers' title requisition rights. These give buyers time to ensure the title is acceptable, even if an offer is unconditional.
Changes were also being made to allow the early release of buyers' deposits to the vendors.
Law Association president Tony Herring said it was not a widespread issue, but had been noted on a handful of agreements.
He said if the title requisition right was unaltered and there was a problem with it, the purchaser had time to get the defect fixed or to back out of the deal if necessary.
But if it was not, he said, buyers could be put in an impossible position.
"There's not often defects on the title but it does happen, and it happened to me recently where there was a cross-leased title involving four different properties and there was an error on the title.
"To get that fixed is very difficult and very costly and can take quite some time because you need to involve surveyors, banks."
The purchaser's lawyer would have to alert the bank to the problem.
"If there is a defect on the title, the bank will then say 'we are not going to advance the mortgage funds until you've fixed it'. In the meantime the settlement date is coming up and the purchaser has to settle because they are in an unconditional situation, but they cannot raise the money from the bank. Therefore it is catch-22."
Herring said a standard sale and purchase agreement said the person holding the deposit, whether that was a salesperson or a lawyer, needed to hold it for 10 working days, which aligned with the title requisition period. Once that was over and the buyer's conditions were satisfied, it could be released.
"If the deposit is released earlier than that and the vendor spends the deposit - maybe they use it for paying down debt, to put a deposit on a house they are buying or they might go overseas, if the requisition period is activated and the purchaser has to cancel the contract - if that deposit is gone, it makes it much more difficult to get back."
Herring said if someone was using KiwiSaver to pay a deposit, their lawyer had to give a legal undertaking to the provider that if anything went wrong and settlement did not go ahead, the money would be returned. But if something happened and the money had disappeared, that would be much harder.
"It heightens the risk for KiwiSaver first-home buyers."
He said people who discovered a change had been made to an agreement they had signed should seek legal advice.
Real Estate Authority (REA) chief executive Belinda Moffat said her organisation had provided general advice to the sector on the issue.
"Section 123 of the Act requires agents to hold money received in respect of a transaction for 10 working days - unless both parties agree to an earlier release. Ultimately, this 10-day rule exists to protect consumers. If a vendor fails to settle, or an issue arises before settlement, if the deposit has already been released it could leave the purchaser with no security that their deposit can be recovered.
"An early release of a deposit is only permitted by court order, or if each party to the transactions signs an authority agreeing to the early release. REA is concerned that some licensees and parties have sought to include an early release clause as an additional clause in the Sale and Purchase Agreement.
"REA does not consider that an early release clause in the Sale and Purchase Agreement meets the purposes of the Act. Such clauses may undermine the consumer protection intent of section 123. Licensees should instead ensure parties give informed authority to early release."
Moffat said she was not able to comment on the current status of any complaints.
"We note further that whether there is a finding of breach of the conduct rules will depend on the facts of each case."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Your money might be invested in Gaza weapons, investment platform says
Smoke billows from Israeli strikes in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip in May, 2024. Photo: AFP The amount of KiwiSaver money invested in weapons companies has increased 40.9 percent this year, a responsible investment platform says. Mindful Money founder Barry Coates said many New Zealanders might be unpleasantly surprised that their money was being invested in companies producing weapons that could be used in conflicts such as that in Gaza or the Ukraine. Mindful Money calculated that KiwiSaver investments in weapons companies are now worth $392.4 million. It said New Zealand investment in the production of weapons used in Gaza, through KiwiSaver and retail investment funds, totalled $71.9 m. Coates said the increase reflected a broader increase in activity in the defence industry around the world. "I think most of the increase is the chase for short-term profits - wars are good for business if you're a weapons company. "There's been an increase in investment in many of these companies that stand to benefit from sales to Gaza or via the US or into the Ukraine conflict." Koura founder Rupert Carlyon said the increase was probably because of weapons' companies strong performance. "They are strong performers with global conflicts and increased defence spending in Europe." He said while the dollar value of the investments was now much larger, funds' allocations might not have moved. "The increased size is a function of larger market capitalisations and larger KiwiSaver balances." The S&P Aerospace and Defense Select Industry index had increased 16.5 percent in the past year and 307 percent in the past decade. Coates said research had shown 80 percent of New Zealanders wanted to avoid investing in weapons companies but it continued. He said there had been a fall in investments in companies linked to social harm such as gambling or alcohol and tobacco. "But not enough and not so much in weapons particularly … it does look to us as though we're seeing the same thing happening in fossil fuels - that something happens in the world and investment funds see greater opportunity and they're increasing their investments … even though many of their clients may may be deeply worried about that." He said KiwiSaver investment in companies producing and selling firearms had also more than doubled. "There's a big increase in hand guns investments … maybe something to do with the Trump administration." The most dramatic individual company increase involved Walmart, where New Zealand KiwiSaver investment reached $115.8 million - representing a 144 percent increase over the year and 40 percent growth in just six months. Although it is best known as a general retailer, Mindful Money called it out because Walmart sells shotguns, rifles, ammunition, and firearm components. Coates said there were 36 weapons-free funds at 13 different providers. He said many people would get a "huge surprise" if they found their KiwiSaver investment was exposed to the Gaza conflict. "I think it's kind of one of the things that people can abstract a bit about weapons and so on but when they've seen the effects on people in Gaza and the complete levelling of the country, then you know, suddenly I think it comes home to them, that they don't want their funds to be invested in that." Earlier in the year, activists put pressure on ASB to divest its KiwiSaver investments from Motorola, which they said was supplying the Israeli military with smart phones and radios. But Carlyon said there should be a conversation about whether it was appropriate for weapons to remain in exclusion categories, "given the volatile world we are living in and the need for most countries to be increasing defence spending". Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Beef and Lamb NZ on proposed Emissions Trading Scheme changes
environment 43 minutes ago Proposed changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme were reported back to the House last night. Beef and Lamb New Zealand chairperson Kate Acland spoke to Corin Dann.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Wilson Parking locked in multi-million legal fight with ex-employee
Wilson Parking signage, Queen Street Photo: RNZ / Calvin Samuel Wilson Parking is locked in a $6 million legal fight with a former employee who now owns a company that is in competition with it. Wilson Parking told the Employment Relations Authority former employee Peter Turner breached his employment agreement, duty of good faith and various fiduciary duties, and ATE Property aided and abetted the breaches. It is seeking damages, an account of profits, and a declaration that receivables gained by Turner and ATE, during the operation of the ATE business, are held on trust for Wilson Parking and will be handed over. Turner and ATE denied liability. ATE was incorporated in 2024 with Turner as the sole shareholder and director. Wilson Parking also filed a claim in the High Court, with causes of action based on knowing receipt, knowing assistance and breach of the duty of confidence. ATE responded to the High Court claim by questioning the High Court's jurisdiction, raising an objection. It argued Wilson Parking's claims were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority, based on an earlier Supreme Court decision. Wilson Parking said the authority could not grant equitable remedies, so the claim was appropriately filed. In a decision on 1 August, Associate Judge Paulsen found that the authority had exclusive jurisdiction over Wilson Parking's equitable claims against ATE and he dismissed the High Court claim. Wilson Parking then applied to remove the employment relationship problem to the Employment Court. It said there was uncertainty about the authority's power to award some of the remedies it was seeking. It said that removal to the employment court would also mean all the claims would be heard in one place at the same time. Complex expert evidence would need to be analysed, Wilson Parking said, and there was a significant amount at stake, of more than $6 million. Authority member Peter van Keulen was unconvinced by some of Wilson Parking's arguments to move the case to the Employment Court - he said the authority had the necessary experience and skill to deal with complex disputes involving significant sums. But he said the employment relationship problem had serious questions of law regarding the authority's jurisdiction, and a move was appropriate. Alison Maelzer, a partner at Hesketh Henry, said it was not unheard of for an employer to bring claims against an employee or former employee, and also to add in the former employee's new employer, where it was alleged that the new employer had helped to breach the former employee's obligations. "This is usually in matters involving a breach of confidentiality or breaches of restraints of trade or non-solicitation obligations - where the former employee is alleged to have taken confidential information, given it to the new employer, and the new employer has known about this or encouraged it. " She said Wilson Parking's case was unusual because of the claims filed in both the High Court and the Employment Relations Authority. "The High Court essentially struck out the general civil claims on the basis that the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over those claims. "This was relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in FMV v TZB which found that if a dispute arose out of an employment relationship, it belonged in the Employment Relations Authority. "This was the case even if the dispute had been framed or could have been framed as a tort and put before the general courts. In other words, if it could be framed as an employment claim, the Employment Relations Authority would have exclusive jurisdiction. This was a matter to be determined on the facts - i.e. figuring out whether the dispute arose out of the employment relationship, or whether the employment relationship was incidental to the dispute." She said the former employer was seeking equitable remedies and was likely to add in the claims/remedies in relation to the matters that had been kicked out of the High Court. "While the Supreme Court in FMZ v TZB found that the Employment Relations Authority had jurisdiction to award the necessary remedies to address employment relationship problems, it was not clear whether this included equitable remedies. The Employment Relations Authority therefore decided to remove the matter to the Employment Court to determine the whether the Authority had this jurisdiction, and if so, what remedies could be awarded. " She said because Wilson Parking was seeking about $6m in remedies, the claims would require extensive and complex expert evidence. "This is unusual for an employment matter." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
