Category: Property

Noisy Neighbours – Your Rights, and Buyers Beware!

“In common law, everyone is in general permitted to use their property for any purpose they choose, provided that the use of the property should not intrude unreasonably on the use and enjoyment by the neighbours of their properties” (extract from the “gym case” below)

Consider this unhappy scenario – you buy your dream home (or perhaps new business premises), only to find that you are afflicted with the noisiest and most unreasonable neighbours you have ever encountered. A friendly approach to them produces no result. Can you get a court order to stop the noise? Let’s address that question with reference to two recent court cases, but first –

What must you prove?

To get a “final interdict” (in this instance a court order compelling the offenders to put an end to the noise) you have to prove three things –

1. “A clear right”,
2. “An injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended”, and
3. “The absence of similar protection by any other ordinary remedy” (in other words, you must show that you have no adequate alternative remedy available to you – an important aspect, as we shall see below).

In the suburbs: The pastor v the puppy daycare home business  “…the courts apply a reasonableness standard, which entails a balancing of the mutual and reciprocal rights and obligations of neighbours” (extract from the judgment below) The scene in this first case is a suburban residential area in Cape Town’s Northern Suburbs.

• A pastor, needing “a peaceful environment to write, research, study and counsel his congregants”, applied to the High Court for an interdict against his neighbours. The problem was their home business in the form of a puppy daycare centre, operating in their garden and offering supervision, structured playtime, potty training, basic training, socialisation and so on for up to 17 dogs at a time.
• The complaint centered on barking on the property, triggering “a cacophony of barking from all the dogs in the neighbourhood” – starting at 6.30 am (Monday to Saturday) until 6 pm. This, said the pastor, was “disturbing and disruptive to the peaceful enjoyment of his property and to his daily activities”, plus it had seriously affected the value of his property.
• Before buying the property he had viewed it over a weekend when there was no noise, and, because it was important to him, had specifically asked the previous owner about whether there was a barking problem in the neighbourhood.
• After fruitless discussions with the neighbours, he reported them to the municipal authorities (the City of Cape Town), lodging complaints for almost 4 years, resulting only in the issue of a compliance notice which the City failed to enforce, and a failed attempt at prosecution.
• In the High Court the complainant’s attack relied not only on common law “nuisance law” but also on alleged contraventions of the Western Cape Noise Control Regulations (all local authorities have power to make such regulations in terms of National Regulations), the City’s Development Management Scheme (with its restrictions on home business activities) and Animal By-Laws.
• The puppy daycare business raised a series of defences to these lines of attack, and disputed many of the complainant’s factual allegations, but in the end result the Court ordered the business to stop operating immediately. The business activity, said the Court, was “abnormal use” of a residential property, and “While such noise may be bearable in a busy City, where there is a lot of activity, such as large volumes of traffic, the constant movement of people and crowds and noise created by businesses, it would definitely disturb the peace and serenity of a quiet neighbourhood where such noises are not expected, and to which the applicant is entitled.” (Emphasis supplied).

In the city: the multi-storey building and the noisy gym  “…What constitutes reasonable usage in any given case is dependent on various factors, including the general character of the area in question – persons living and working in an urban area would, for example, reasonably be expected, in general, to be more forbearing about a higher level of noise intrusion into their lives than neighbours living in a rural housing estate” (extract from the case below) We move now to the second case, also in Cape Town but this time in the City Centre.

• The owners of a property in a multi-storey building in the centre of Cape Town (a married couple living there and an attorney running a law practice in it) approached the High Court for an interdict against the neighbouring gym on the grounds of a substantial noise nuisance. The married couple’s bedroom window is just over a metre away from the window and balcony of the gym.
• The gym’s premises are zoned for commercial use, and there was no dispute that the area was subject to “substantial traffic noise”, but the complaints centered on allegations that the gym produced “loud techno/dance music with a strong beat” and microphone-amplified voice instructions to attendees at gym classes – at times ranging from 6 am to 6.45 pm.
• Many of the facts of the matter were, as is common in such bitterly fought matters, in dispute, and ultimately the Court declined to grant the interdict partially on the grounds of unresolved disputes of fact. Clearly the fact that the area was subject to considerable levels of “inner-city noise” anyway played a part, but the deciding factor seems to have been the Court’s finding that the complainants had declined the neighbour’s offer to follow the processes of the local Noise Control Regulations, which the Court held to provide an “adequate alternative remedy”.
• Moral of this story – don’t expect too much peace and quiet in a city centre, and exhaust all alternative remedies before asking for an interdict!

Property buyers – do your “noise risk” homework upfront!

Which leads us to a general note of caution to anyone about to buy a property – prevention being as ever a lot better than cure, investigate and understand the potential for “noisy neighbours” disrupting your peace and quiet before putting in your offer. For example, the pastor in the puppy case took at face value the seller’s reassurances about excessive barking in the neighbourhood – he could perhaps have saved himself 5 years of stress and trouble had he been a bit more cynical and returned to the neighbourhood at various times during the week just to check. And bear in mind that what may be considered a totally unreasonable noise level in one context could be considered quite acceptable in another. As the Court in the gym case put it: “…the applicants cannot expect the quiet serenity of the suburbs while living in the inner-city, which comprises a mix of commercial and residential properties, and particularly having purchased a property that is immediately adjacent to a commercially-zoned property.” (Emphasis supplied). Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Eviction Refused – Landowners, Unlawful Occupiers and the “Just and Equitable” Test

“PIE recognises that in appropriate circumstances the right to full exercise of ownership must give way, in the interest of justice and equity, to the right of vulnerable persons to a home.” (Extract from judgment below)

“Unlawful occupiers” of land have strong rights under our Constitution and other laws, and most property owners and landlords understand the need to tread carefully whenever the issue of eviction arises. They are required to comply fully with the provisions of PIE (the “Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act”) – certainly achievable but never to be taken lightly. Bear in mind that a court order is required before eviction, with additional restrictions applying during the pandemic lockdowns. A recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decision shows just how energetically our courts will enforce those occupier rights, even when the strict letter of the law appears to be 100% in favour of the landowner.

The 84 year old grandmother who can live on in her childhood home

• A landowner bought on a liquidation auction a piece of land and a house occupied by an 84 year old widow and her disabled son.
• The widow had lived in the house since she was 11 years old, her father being employed by the farm owner at the time. She in due course married another farm employee and lived on in the house with him. Widowed, she was reassured by verbal undertakings from previous owners that she had a lifelong right to live on in the house.
• But when the new purchaser of the property (by now no longer farmland but an urban sub-division of the original farm) she was unable to produce any written agreement confirming her life right to occupation.
• The new owner then gave the widow and her son notice to vacate and when they refused to leave, he obtained an eviction order from the magistrate’s court.
• After a 12 year trek through the courts, the SCA finally confirmed the setting-aside of the eviction order, and the importance of this to landowners lies in the fact that the owner here had jumped through all the hoops required by PIE –
  • The verbal “lifelong right of occupation” granted by previous landowners was not enforceable against subsequent buyers,
  • The landowner had removed his consent to the occupants’ right of occupation, thereby terminating it,
  • The occupants were therefore “unlawful occupiers”,
  • The landowner had offered them suitable alternative accommodation.

A Court’s discretion to refuse eviction – the “just and equitable” test

• Our courts always retain a discretion to refuse eviction from residential property and “must be satisfied that the eviction is just and equitable”.
• The SCA held that in all the circumstances and facts of this particular case, eviction would not be just and equitable. Major factors were clearly the widow’s advanced age, her 73 year history of living in the house, her disabled son, and her reliance on verbal assurances from previous owners that she had a lifelong right of occupation (which she clearly if mistakenly believed would be enforceable against new owners).
• Had the land still been farmland the widow would have enjoyed the protection given to farmworkers by ESTA (the “Extension of Security of Tenure of Land Act”) and although the land had now changed to urban land, “her status as a vulnerable person, even in the context of PIE, has essentially remained unchanged.”
• Commenting that “No case in which an order of eviction from a residence is sought can ignore the visceral reality of what is sought, namely the ejectment of a person from their home in vindication of a superior right to property. Nor can the legal process by which the order is obtained be divorced from our fraught history of eviction and ejectment of vulnerable persons from their homes”, the Court held in all the circumstances that this was a case in which considerations of justice and equity “outweighed protection of the exercise of the right to property that an entitlement to an order of ejectment provides.”
• This despite the landowner’s offer to give the widow alternative accommodation in the form of ownership of a unit in a secure residential complex, an offer she turned down because “She was accustomed to life in the house she presently occupied and enjoyed not only the freedom and space it afforded her but also the environment around it.”
• The offer of alternative accommodation, although made in good faith by the landowner, did not tilt the scales in favour of eviction because “This was not a case in which the reasonableness or otherwise of an unlawful occupier’s refusal to vacate was a central issue … The true issue concerned the dignity of an elderly and vulnerable woman and a person with disabilities in the circumstances of the first respondent and her son. To hold that these weighty considerations are to give way merely because an alternative abode is offered would negate the first respondent’s dignity rather than protect it.”

The lesson for landowners and landlords

The significance of the landowner’s defeat here is perhaps best summarised in the Court’s own words (emphasis supplied): “PIE recognises that in appropriate circumstances the right to full exercise of ownership must give way, in the interest of justice and equity, to the right of vulnerable persons to a home.” Before buying property, check for any occupiers, “lawful” or not, and make sure that you can evict them if you need to. As a landlord, ensure that your lease is watertight, and your legal rights protected. There is no substitute for full and specific professional assistance! Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Buying Property from a Company – Should You Buy the Shares or the House?

“There is never a wrong time to buy the right home” (Anon)

You find the house of your dreams, agree on the price and get ready to put pen to paper. The house is in the name of a company, and you are offered a choice – either buy the house out of the company or take over the company (which owns the house and nothing else) by buying the shares and thus avoid the delay and cost of a normal property transfer and registration in the Deeds Office. What should you do?There are a host of both practical and legal factors to consider before deciding. Holding property in a company can come with significant advantages, but there can also be major disadvantages, so professional advice specific to your own circumstances is a no-brainer here. Some of the many factors you should consider are –

• Tax and estate planning considerations. These are complex and no two cases will be identical, but consider the higher capital gains tax rates payable by companies (and the annual exclusion and “primary residence exclusion” of R2m for individuals), the differential income tax rates, possible VAT considerations, your own estate planning circumstances (including the estate duty angle) and the like.
• Asset protection. Particularly if you run your own business or are in a profession at significant risk of litigation, it may be important to you to protect your major assets (like your house) from possible attack by creditors. Any assets held in your own name will be a natural target if you run into financial problems, whilst those held in another entity like a company or trust will generally be much harder to attack. Complicated multi-level structures such as having a trust owning your company’s shares have generally fallen out of favour for a variety of reasons, but you may still be advised to consider one in your particular situation.
• Joint ownership. Joint ownership of property comes with its own set of risks and issues, and depending on your needs you might be advised to address them with a company/shareholder structure.
• Costs and simplicity. Running a company comes with extra costs (accounting/auditing, statutory costs etc), formalities and responsibilities, getting a bond in your own name is likely to be a simpler process than taking it in a company, and so on.
• The hidden risks. When you buy a company’s shares you get the company as it is, with all its assets and liabilities. If the seller is in any way unreliable, you could find yourself losing the house to an undisclosed company liability that suddenly crawls out of the woodwork. Suretyships are a particular danger here – there is no central register of suretyships you can refer to, and it is common for groups of companies and other entities in particular to sign cross-suretyships without necessarily keeping a record of them all. These are risks that can be largely managed with proper advice and due diligence, but a residual whiff of doubt is inevitable.
• Other factors. There will be many other aspects to consider, depending on your circumstances and needs, and on the company in question.

Transfer duty – you pay it either way!

As a buyer you can never lose sight of all the costs you will incur in buying a house, and the “big one” is normally transfer duty. It’s essentially a government tax, payable by you as buyer (unless the property sale is subject to VAT), and it can be a lot of money. Do not however fall into the old (and surprisingly still-common) trap of thinking that by buying the company you avoid paying transfer duty. That was indeed a commonly used loophole in decades past and it is still sometimes referred to. But in reality that all changed many years ago, and (subject to what is said below) you should budget to pay transfer duty as set out in this table –

Source: SARS “Budget Tax Guide 2021” So for example if you buy a house for R3m you will pay R146k in transfer duty. Or R916k on a R10m house. Finding a way to avoid or reduce such a cost is an attractive proposition, and indeed until 2002 it was a common way for buyers and sellers to save transfer duty and to instead pay only ¼% “Securities Transfer Tax” – a huge saving. That loophole closed however many years ago – on 13 December 2002 to be precise – and since then the sale of shares in a “residential property company” (a company with over 50% of its asset value in residential property) attracts transfer duty on the “fair value” of the property. No savings there!

What about “buying” a property-owning trust?

Similarly, before 2002 a common transfer duty avoidance strategy was to hold property in a trust, then to “sell” the trust to a purchaser by substituting him/her as a beneficiary of that trust. That loophole was also closed in respect of beneficiaries holding “contingent interests” in the property – the situation here is a bit more complicated than it is with companies as there are various types of trust you could be dealing with, so specialist advice is essential. Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

When Bond Clauses Sink Sales

“Before anything else, preparation is the key to success” (Alexander Graham Bell)

You sell your house, give the signed sale agreement to your attorney, and wait to get paid out as soon as the property is transferred in the Deeds Office. What could possibly go wrong? Quite a bit as it turns out, but perhaps the most frequent “sinker of sales” is a failure by one party or the other to meet a “suspensive condition” (often also referred to as a “condition precedent”). As our courts have put it “a suspensive condition suspends the operation of all obligations flowing from a contract until occurrence of a future uncertain event. If the uncertain future event does not occur, the obligations never come into operation.” In other words, there is no binding sale at all until all suspensive conditions have been met.

The bond clause

A very common suspensive clause in property sale agreements, where the buyer cannot pay the purchase price in cash, is the “bond clause” making the sale subject to the buyer obtaining a “bond approval” from a financial institution (usually a bank). The bank loans the money to the buyer against the security of a mortgage bond over the property. The bond clause is of course an essential escape route for you if you are a buyer needing to raise a loan. As a seller on the other hand you want the clause tightly drawn to stop the buyer using it as an excuse to pull out of the deal if the dreaded “buyer’s remorse” should set in after the sale. For both parties it is essential to ensure that the clause is properly drawn to reflect clearly and correctly what you are both agreeing to. Preparation is key here! Our law reports are replete with bitter and expensive disputes over bond clauses, many of them avoidable had the parties proactively sought legal assistance before signing the sale agreement.

What should be in the bond clause?

In broad terms a bond clause will provide that the sale agreement is suspended until the bank approves the bond, and that the agreement will lapse if approval is not given by the date and in the amount specified in the clause. Beyond that, make sure that there are no grey areas around what the deadline is or around what exactly will constitute “bond approval”. What format must it be in? Is it enough that an approval is granted, or must it be communicated to the seller before deadline? Is the bank’s offer to the buyer subject to the National Credit Act and if so on what basis can the buyer reject the offer? Is it enough to specify that the bond approval should be on the bank’s “usual terms and conditions”?  What if the buyer rejects a reasonable offer from the bank in order to get out of the sale? And so on… As a seller, if you are concerned about your buyer not being able to raise the required finance, consider adding a “72-hour clause” to the sale (ask your attorney for advice on this). As a buyer, consider specifying the maximum interest rate at which you will accept the bank’s offer of a loan, or you could find yourself tied to unaffordable bond repayments. Each case will be different, and our courts will always look at the specific wording of each particular case. So make sure the clause is specifically tailored to protect both parties in your respective circumstances.

Amending or waiving the bond clause

What if the buyer can’t get an offer from a bank by due date or in the required amount or (if the buyer specified a maximum interest rate as suggested above) at the required interest rate? If that happens, the parties can agree to vary the agreement – perhaps to give the buyer more time to raise the bond, or to change the amount of the bond. Just remember that that must be done in a written, signed agreement before the due date. After the due date the whole agreement will have lapsed and there will be no contract left to amend. Alternatively as a buyer, you have the option to “waive” the bond condition. You can do so unilaterally (i.e., without the seller’s agreement), provided again that the agreement hasn’t already lapsed, and provided that nothing in the agreement prevents such a waiver. Importantly, you can only waive a suspensive condition where it is for your “exclusive benefit”. A bond clause will usually qualify in that it is normally there purely to protect you from being tied to an agreement you cannot afford – but perhaps avoid any possible doubt by specifying that in the clause. Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

Buying and Selling Property: Nine Important Questions

“Owning a home is a keystone of wealth… both financial affluence and emotional security” (Personal Finance Expert Suze Orman)

When you buy or sell your “Home Sweet Home”, particularly for the first time, the process can seem complicated, the terminology confusing, and the risks of making a costly mistake intimidating. You are after all dealing with quite possibly your most important asset! To help you navigate the process, as either seller or buyer, here are some common questions, with answers.

1. Where can I get a simple guide to the process?

When you come down to the details it certainly is important to get everything right, but a simple, broad overview to start with will go a long way to de-mystifying the process and to setting you safely onto the right path. Have a look at the Law Society of South Africa’s “Buying or Selling a House: What You Need to Know”. Download it in any of four languages here. Simply and clearly written, the guide is full of really important information and advice, both practical and legal – take the time to read it in depth! Turning now to a few of the other more common questions you will no doubt have…

2. Do I really need legal advice?

Our law reports are full of court disputes that could have been avoided with a simple upfront request for legal advice. The danger of not doing so is that many pitfalls await the unwary and you will be held to anything you agree to. It’s only sensible therefore to take advice early – well before you appoint an agent, start looking for a house, or get involved in submitting offers and negotiating sale agreements. Not having your “offer to purchase” or “agreement of sale” legally checked is a recipe for disaster. Once you sign on the dotted line you are on the hook for everything in the document. With very limited exceptions our law holds you to your signature and it is no good saying later “But I didn’t read the document, it all looked like the normal standard stuff” or “I had no idea I was agreeing to term x or condition y” – tough, you are bound. Bottom line – chat to your attorney before you do anything else! 

3. Whose name/s should I put the property in?

Should you buy the house in your name or in your spouse’s name? Should you buy jointly? Does it matter what marital regime applies to your marriage? What if you are in a permanent cohabitation arrangement rather than a formal marriage? Or perhaps you are wondering whether you should put the house into the name of a company or family trust. Your choice now will have far-reaching legal, tax and practical consequences; and with some complex areas of law involved, specialist upfront advice is a no-brainer.

4. What else should I ask my attorney?

Common areas of dispute and litigation include “bond clauses” and “72-hour clauses” in sale agreements, confusion over the need to identify or disclose both visible and invisible defects, disagreements over what is a “fixture” that comes with the house and what isn’t, misunderstandings over neighbours’ rights to build and encroach on views and the like, not checking for building plans and municipal Certificates of Occupancy (you will have a problem if a previous owner built or extended without proper plans), not checking the zoning and title deed restrictions (which could put a damper on any plans you have to extend, go up a storey, build a home office, or the like), servitudes or other rights of use over the property, limited “home business” options and so on. (Tip: Take lots of “before and after” photos of the house and property with your cell phone – a dated picture is hard to argue with!) Other “homework” items to ask about – what paperwork you will need (do you know where your title deed is?), how long your particular transfer is likely to take (and a linked question “what date of occupation should we agree on?”), to whom deposits and any occupational rental must be paid (and who gets paid the interest earned on monies held in trust), what compliance certificates you need, how to find the best bond rates, whether you might qualify for a FLISP (Finance Linked Individual Subsidy Program) subsidy, how to cancel and open municipal service accounts, the rights of any occupiers (not just tenants, also “unlawful occupiers”), and so on – you will have your own list.

5. What about planning my finances?

Ask your lawyer for a breakdown of who will pay what and when. Think deposits, bond and transfer costs, transfer duty, agent’s commission, bond settlement balances and so on. Cash flow forecasting, and a clear understanding of the timelines involved, are critical here to avoid unpleasant surprises down the line. As a buyer, factor into your “affordability budget” not only bond repayments and your projected regular monthly costs (rates, services, insurance premiums, security costs etc) but also an emergency fund to cover any unexpected costs that may crop up. On the subject of finances, cyber-fraud is a growing issue when it comes to electronic communications and payments so agree with your lawyer on measures to ensure that neither of you falls victim. Fraudulent “here are my new bank account details” emails are flavour of the month, but the scams are constantly evolving.

6. Should I buy-to-let in the current market?

Buying-to-let can be an excellent investment channel, and for a whole host of reasons this time of pandemic and disruption has opened up an abundance of opportunities to prospective landlords. Just don’t rush in blind – choose the right property in the right area, go into the process with your eyes fully open, and in particular beware the common pitfall of failing to minimise your risk of having to fight a difficult, destructive or non-paying tenant. Residential property occupiers enjoy strong protections against eviction even in normal times, and these protections are even stronger for the duration of the National State of Disaster. It is essential also to understand the impact of the Rental Housing Act on the landlord/tenant relationship – do you know for example the specific requirements around rental deposits and joint property inspections? “Ignorance of the law” is no excuse, and non-compliance could cost you dearly.

7. Who appoints the conveyancer and why do I need one?

In a nutshell, you need to appoint a specialist lawyer (a “conveyancer”) to pass transfer of ownership from the seller to the buyer in the Deeds Office. That’s because only on registration of the transfer does the buyer become the legal owner of the property. As a seller, insist on choosing the conveyancer – pick a firm you can trust to act with professionalism, integrity and speed.

8. What about buying into a complex?

 Owing a house and living in a community scheme come with substantial benefits, just understand exactly what you are letting yourself in for both on a practical level and in regard to the various rules and regulations you will be agreeing to. Our courts regularly have to sort out bitter (and unnecessary) disputes around owners desperately – and almost always unsuccessfully – trying to get out of complying with body corporate and Home Owners Association rules. Common areas of complaint are home businesses, pet ownership and control, vehicle parking, noise, nuisance objections and the like.

9. What records and paperwork should I keep?     

One thing is certain – the document you don’t keep on file is the one you will be desperately searching for in 10 or 20 years’ time! So when in doubt about a particular item keep it, but at the very least have a file (backed up electronically) with –

• Your title deed (also called a “deed of transfer”) from the conveyancer. If your property is bonded the bank will keep the original in which event keep a copy plus a note as to which bank has the original. If you lose your title deed you can get a copy but there are delays and costs attached which you really want to avoid when you come to sell again down the line.
• The full signed agreement of sale and annexures,  The conveyancer’s final statement of account and associated invoices,
•  All bank loan and bond documents,
• Your municipal Certificate of Occupancy if you undertook any building work (construction, renovations, extensions etc),
• A running list with supporting documents of all tax-relevant expenses. For example, keep a running Capital Gains Tax schedule with –
  • A list of expenses relevant to the house’s “base cost” (purchase price, transfer costs and legal fees, bond costs, agent’s commission, costs related to the sale or purchase like advertising, architect’s fees etc) and
  • Ongoing capital expenses i.e. improvements and renovations (but not repairs or maintenance).
• “Before and after” photos of the house and property,
• Ask your lawyer if there is anything else you should keep relevant to your particular property and transfer.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews