Time limits most commonly missed in relation to caveats, a claim example and lessons learned.
What's on this page?
Caveats limitations
| Action | Time limit | Legislation | Extension availability |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Action
Lapse of a caveat to prevent creation of folio or removal of warning |
Time limit
30 days after the caveat is lodged unless the caveator within time gives notice to the Registrar of Titles that proceedings are on foot to substantiate its claim in relation to the land, or obtains or serves on the Registrar of Titles an injunction or order of a court restraining the Registrar of Titles from creating the folio or removing the warning |
Legislation
s.26R Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) |
Extension availability
A caveat cannot be renewed by the same person in respect of the same estate or interest – s.26R(7) Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) |
|
Action
Lapse on notice of transfer of land or other dealing |
Time limit
30 days after a notice is given by the Registrar of Titles that a transfer or other dealing has been lodged for registration |
Legislation
s.90 Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) |
Extension availability
No extension available. Court may direct the Registrar of Titles to delay registration if, within the 30 days after notice, the caveator gives an undertaking to the court or security or lodges such sum as the court considers sufficient to indemnify every person against any damage that may be sustained by reason of the delay – s. 90(2) Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) |
|
Action
Lapse on application by interested party |
Time limit
30 days or more, depending on the date specified in the notice served or posted by the Registrar of Titles at the request of a person with an interest in land unless the caveator gives notice that proceedings are on foot to substantiate its claim in relation to the land. |
Legislation
s.89A Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic). |
Extension availability
No extension available. |
Claim example
A firm acted for the wife in a de facto property settlement. The parties had worked out their own arrangements but it involved the wife still being guarantor for some of the husband’s business loans. The firm lodged a caveat on one of the properties owned by the husband and listed the firm’s address as the address for service.
Several months later the firm terminated the retainer with the client for non-payment of fees. Four years later the firm received a notification from the titles office that a section 89A application under the Transfer of Land Act 1958 (Vic) had been received for the wife’s caveat. Unfortunately the administration staff at the time did not appreciate the importance of the notice and did not do anything with the notice as the file had been long closed.
The 30-day time limit to act on the notice expired and the caveat lapsed. The de facto ex-husband sold the property and the ex-wife alleged she would have been in a better negotiating position to receive money from the sale if the caveats had been in place.
Lessons
- When ceasing to act for a client or even moving office, where your firm has lodged caveats recording its address for service, ensure the address for service is changed.
- Have procedures in place to deal with correspondence that comes into the office on a file that has been closed and ensure those procedures are followed.
- Educate administrative staff on the importance of acting on a section 89A notice promptly.
