Latest / The Money Puzzle / Things you've always wanted to ask a lawyer

Transcript

Things you've always wanted to ask a lawyer · The Money Puzzle

• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to today's episode of The Money Puzzle.
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: I'm your host, James Gerrard, standing in one more time
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: for James Kirby in the last of our special focus series.
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: This week, we're going to dive into the area where
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: finance and the law meet head on. So get ready
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: for that because legal things can impact your financial life.
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: So from estate planning to superannuation to wills and estate
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: asset protection, the decisions that you make today could have
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: a big implication for your financial well-being into the future.
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: So in summary, we're going to unpack how the law
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: influences your finances. And to do that, today's guest has
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: a wealth of legal experience back dating to 1984, which
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: coincidentally is the year that this year's AFL grand final performer,
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: Katy Perry, was born. Peter Kernan is a lawyer with
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: Aubrey Brown Lawyers on Sydney's Central Coast and is well-known
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: and well-regarded in the area. He acts as an honorary
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: solicitor for local sporting and community organisations, including the local
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: Life Saving Club, and is a board member of the
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: Central Coast Disability Options, a not-for-profit that provides support services
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: for young people living with a disability. Peter Kernan from
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Albury Brown Lawyers, welcome to The Money Puzzle.
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: Thank you, James. Pleasure to be here.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: As is the case with every episode, what we discuss
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: is general advice and not to be taken as personal advice,
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: and listeners should seek professional advice before acting on anything
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: they hear on today's episode. We're going to break up
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: our discussion into different areas. So let's start by talking
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: about property-related legal matters. So the first thing I want
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: to ask you, Peter, is that I've heard recently in
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: the media about people being scammed out of their property deposits.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: How does this happen and how can people protect themselves
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: from this?
• 1:49
  Speaker 3: Yeah, James, there have been an increased number of these
• 1:52
  Speaker 3: settlement scams, as they're called.
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: Hackers interpose themselves into usually.
• 1:58
  Speaker 3: Some sort of email chain between people who are instructing
• 2:02
  Speaker 3: a solicitor or conveyancer to act on a property transaction,
• 2:07
  Speaker 3: often they just change one little bit of an email
• 2:10
  Speaker 3: or one little bit of a number to enable them
• 2:12
  Speaker 3: to then get into the financial aspects of the transaction.
• 2:16
  Speaker 3: So posing as a party that's involved in that transaction
• 2:20
  Speaker 3: and then being able to divert funds, not just deposits,
• 2:24
  Speaker 3: but often settlement funds too for the completion of that transaction.
• 2:29
  Speaker 3: The reason there's been an increase in these is, of course,
• 2:32
  Speaker 3: the increase in property prices, so the amount of money
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: involved that makes an attractive target to hackers.
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: Isn't all things done electronically these days? We have that
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: system at PEXA where I thought maybe using that type
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: of system, there'd be less chance of this type of
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: fraudulent activity happening, but it still seems to occur.
• 2:50
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the electronic workspace known as PEXA is where all
• 2:54
  Speaker 3: conveyancing matters in New South Wales in particular occur. but
• 2:58
  Speaker 3: many other states are carried out these days. And yes,
• 3:01
  Speaker 3: there are lots of checks and balances in that system.
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: And there has only been a very few number of
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: PECSA-related transactions where that's happened. The main cause of these
• 3:14
  Speaker 3: or the main source of these appears to be from
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: hacking by the real estate agents before it gets to
• 3:20
  Speaker 3: the PECSA system. Got it.
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: So what would you suggest for people, say they're a
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: first home buyer or maybe they're downsizing and haven't bought
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: or sold a property for 40 years. Are we talking
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: about physically taking checks to real estate agents and conveyances,
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: big bags of cash? How do we sidestep the scammers here?
• 3:38
  Speaker 3: Yeah, all potential options, James, but some of them are
• 3:41
  Speaker 3: a bit unlikely, I guess, but the check thing might
• 3:44
  Speaker 3: be possible, a bag of cash, maybe less so. It's
• 3:46
  Speaker 3: again about being vigilant, like all scams. It is making
• 3:50
  Speaker 3: sure that you know who you're talking to, making sure
• 3:53
  Speaker 3: that every single number that you've been provided for to
• 3:56
  Speaker 3: transfer money to is correct.
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: And that's verbally.
• 3:59
  Speaker 3: I mean, in legal practice, we insist on when we
• 4:02
  Speaker 3: receive account numbers, we make sure that there is a
• 4:05
  Speaker 3: verbal discussion with that client and just to confirm that number.
• 4:10
  Speaker 3: And then we can carry out that transaction. The risks
• 4:13
  Speaker 3: arise basically when people are put under pressure. For example,
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: if things have been going along okay, and then all
• 4:20
  Speaker 3: of a sudden there's this rush to get to an
• 4:22
  Speaker 3: exchange of contracts, for example, and then you get flustered
• 4:26
  Speaker 3: and people just don't pay enough attention. So it really
• 4:29
  Speaker 3: is about paying attention and making sure that you know
• 4:33
  Speaker 3: who you're talking to. And if you have to go
• 4:35
  Speaker 3: to someone's office to make sure, then that's certainly an
• 4:37
  Speaker 3: option for you.
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it rings a bell and resonates when you say
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: that your team will call people when they've received instructions
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: to confirm before payments are made and received. We do
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: a similar thing in financial planning world. And that actually
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: was important. This happened a couple of years ago. One
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: of our clients sent through an email or what we
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: thought was their email saying, hey, I've just found a property.
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: I need $ 90, 000 out of my self-managed super fund bank account,
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: transfer it over to my conveyancers trust account. And we
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: have an internal control where we call our clients before
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: we make withdrawals on their accounts. or process it for them.
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: And the difference was that the email address was one
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: letter off, or one extra letter. And when we rang
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: the client, he said, what are you talking about? I'm
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: in hospital, my wife's unwell, she's about to have surgery.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: And what happened was that the hackers had got into
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: his computer, and this happened about six months earlier, and
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: they're just monitoring, they're just sitting there and looking at
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: his schedule, understanding where his finances were, and saw that
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: his wife had surgery planned at a certain date, he'd
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: be out of the office for a week, and they thought,
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: all right, he's probably not going to be checking his emails.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: That's the right time to strike. So they realized I
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: was the advisor that made contact with the bogus email
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: account and the bogus trust account details to send money to.
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: But luckily we picked it up when we called the client.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: He freaked out. We sort of put a freeze on
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: his bank account for the super fund. And then he
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: changed his email address and had his computer investigated and
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: found that there was some sort of hacker who's managed
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: to find their way in there. So you can't be
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: too careful.
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: Very scary. Yeah, indeed.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: Well, let's move on to buying property off the plant. Peter,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: what are the risks and legal risks if a developer
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: doesn't deliver the property as promised? I've never bought a
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: plan off the property, off the plan, I should say, myself.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: So I'm not too sure. What happens if, say, the
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: developer is late, if they promised you three bedrooms but
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: there's only two bedrooms? Can you cancel the contract, get
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: your deposit back? And as a secondary question, I've heard
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: about this thing called a sunset clause, but I'm not
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: really sure what it is. Could you explain that one
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: as well?
• 6:34
  Speaker 3: Sure. I'll start with the second bit, James, because the
• 6:38
  Speaker 3: sunset clause is very important in that whole discussion. Sunset
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: clause or a sunset date is a period in a contract,
• 6:46
  Speaker 3: usually a couple of years out for a new build,
• 6:49
  Speaker 3: and the obligation on the developer is to complete and
• 6:52
  Speaker 3: hand over a, for example, a completed apartment in accordance
• 6:57
  Speaker 3: with the contract by that date. There used to be
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: a position where if that didn't happen... the developer could say, well,
• 7:04
  Speaker 3: we've failed to meet the sunset date, we're going to
• 7:07
  Speaker 3: terminate the contract, you can have your deposit back, but
• 7:10
  Speaker 3: then you can go and sell it to someone else
• 7:11
  Speaker 3: for a lot more. And so that was happening. So
• 7:15
  Speaker 3: in December 2019, some reforms came out from the New
• 7:18
  Speaker 3: South Wales government, including the requirement to include firstly a
• 7:23
  Speaker 3: disclosure statement in the contract, setting out all the dates
• 7:27
  Speaker 3: and all the ability of developers to terminate contracts and
• 7:31
  Speaker 3: how the process worked in a single, maybe two pages
• 7:35
  Speaker 3: with development consents and all the numbers that people can
• 7:38
  Speaker 3: check easily. So that meant that the developers were under
• 7:42
  Speaker 3: a little bit more obligation to give as much information
• 7:46
  Speaker 3: to a purchaser as possible. So at that point, you
• 7:49
  Speaker 3: enter a contract and if the developer is unable to
• 7:54
  Speaker 3: complete by the sunset date, the developer now has to
• 7:57
  Speaker 3: approach the Supreme Court before he's able to terminate that contract.
• 8:02
  Speaker 3: So in other words, the purchaser is protected because the
• 8:05
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court will only give those sort of orders if
• 8:07
  Speaker 3: there are exceptional circumstances, so that the developer has been
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: completely unable to complete that development due to things entirely
• 8:16
  Speaker 3: outside of his control.
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: So that can be various things.
• 8:21
  Speaker 3: I think COVID might have worked for a while, but
• 8:25
  Speaker 3: generally there's not many cases that get there And the
• 8:28
  Speaker 3: developers are able to do that.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: Got it. So they can't intentionally delay the build because
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: the property market's gone up by 20% and they want
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: to effectively resell that property off the plan. And you
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: mentioned New South Wales. Is the sunset clause just a
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: New South Wales thing or is it around the country?
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: There are sunset dates in varying forms. But my understanding is,
• 8:48
  Speaker 3: for example, in Queensland, they don't have this obligation for
• 8:51
  Speaker 3: disclosure in these types of contracts. But I also understand
• 8:55
  Speaker 3: that is coming up there.
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: That I couldn't be sure about in Victoria or elsewhere.
• 8:59
  Speaker 3: But I think there are various pieces of legislation that
• 9:02
  Speaker 3: are not dissimilar to the New South Wales one.
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: Got it. And then back to the first question around
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: what happens if the developer doesn't deliver the property that
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: they promised. One that I've seen commonly is where there was, say,
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: a car space or two car spaces on title and
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: they were side by side, but due to reconfiguration of
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: the basement, they've had to turn them into tandem apartments.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: so head-to-toe car spots which are less desirable. So where
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: there's things like that, some may be minor, there might
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: be one or two square metres difference, maybe smaller, some
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: are more major. What happens in these type of situations
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: at that point when settlement's ready?
• 9:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah, there is in the vast majority of contracts a
• 9:40
  Speaker 3: clause that says if the variation to the property, for example,
• 9:45
  Speaker 3: in floor space is more than 5%, then they could rescind. Now,
• 9:51
  Speaker 3: That's one issue. So if you, again, had a bedroom
• 9:54
  Speaker 3: that was a certain size and it comes down by 10%
• 9:57
  Speaker 3: in size, just that.
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: Bedroom, then.
• 9:59
  Speaker 3: the overall place obviously comes down by that too. But
• 10:03
  Speaker 3: the point is that you could rescind that because it's
• 10:05
  Speaker 3: not the size of the bedroom that you contracted to buy.
• 10:09
  Speaker 3: It does become more difficult when the issues aren't just size-wise.
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: So the cases all revolve around whether.
• 10:16
  Speaker 3: You would have proceeded with that purchase if that, for example,
• 10:21
  Speaker 3: using your example, it was a tandem instead of a side-by-side.
• 10:26
  Speaker 3: And you said, if you can show the court that
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: there is no way in the world that you would
• 10:30
  Speaker 3: have purchased an apartment with a tandem car space and
• 10:34
  Speaker 3: have reasons for that, whether it be mobility or the like,
• 10:37
  Speaker 3: then the court will assist you in getting out of
• 10:39
  Speaker 3: that contract or at the very least getting compensation. And
• 10:42
  Speaker 3: it will all come down to what negotiations happen at
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: the outset with either the developer or the agent. And again,
• 10:51
  Speaker 3: if there is a, for example, you wanted the car
• 10:54
  Speaker 3: space next to the lift and you were short of
• 10:57
  Speaker 3: that and it doesn't happen, then again, another mobility question,
• 11:01
  Speaker 3: I guess, is that would be a real issue for
• 11:03
  Speaker 3: you and therefore you don't want that apartment. So it's
• 11:07
  Speaker 3: a matter of degree as to how much the contract
• 11:11
  Speaker 3: contracted Your apartment, for example, differs from that which you
• 11:15
  Speaker 3: thought you were going to get and views come into it.
• 11:19
  Speaker 3: The glossy brochures give a view that goes a long
• 11:23
  Speaker 3: way over the other buildings to the coast or whatever
• 11:26
  Speaker 3: and all of a sudden the ultimate view isn't that
• 11:28
  Speaker 3: view at all.
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: All right, then when it gets to the point of
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: choosing the ownership structure, so bear in mind our listeners
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: are all around the country and some of them are
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: all around the world. A lot of Aussie expats listen
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: to this. there's options in New South Wales that I
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: know of, but if they're different interstate, maybe you might
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: want to just highlight that they may be different interstate
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: around tenants in common versus joint tenancy ownership of property.
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: So my understanding is that joint tenancy, there's no identifiable
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: percentage split. It's just joined wholly together. If one person dies,
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: the surviving person takes that property 100%, but tenants in common,
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: there's a percentage ownership. So it could be 50-50, it
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: could be 33, 33, 34, if there's three people or
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: whatever you determine that split to be. So I was
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: curious around what's the default structure? Is this a national thing?
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: And any comments or guidance you have around this?
• 12:21
  Speaker 3: Well, I think you've almost answered your own question, James.
• 12:24
  Speaker 3: The joint tenancy operates under the law of survivorship. Yes,
• 12:27
  Speaker 3: the survivor will take and there will be a notice
• 12:30
  Speaker 3: of death. If, for example, if a deceased joint tenant
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: is there, then the surviving joint tenant will be able
• 12:36
  Speaker 3: to transfer that property to themselves without stamp duty because
• 12:40
  Speaker 3: that law of survivorship overrides any duty transaction. If, however,
• 12:45
  Speaker 3: it's tenants in common, you're correct, they can be in
• 12:48
  Speaker 3: any number of percentage shares. The front page of the
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: New South Wales standard contract for sale of land has
• 12:56
  Speaker 3: a capitalised box at the bottom which says joint tenancy,
• 13:00
  Speaker 3: but you have a choice to tick a second box
• 13:03
  Speaker 3: to have a tenants in common and then a further
• 13:05
  Speaker 3: option to say what percentage shares that tenancy in common
• 13:09
  Speaker 3: is to be. Quite often, and you'd be well aware
• 13:12
  Speaker 3: of this through the finance world, is that there is
• 13:16
  Speaker 3: often a requirement, often a request to have a 1%
• 13:19
  Speaker 3: ownership of a party with a 99% to the other
• 13:23
  Speaker 3: as tenants in common. And that's often just for asset
• 13:26
  Speaker 3: protection purposes. But you can choose any number of percentages
• 13:31
  Speaker 3: that you need to reflect the arrangement between the parties.
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: Got it.
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: So joint tenancy is the default unless you elect otherwise
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: for tenants in common. And is this, to your knowledge,
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: I know that you're more an expert in New South Wales,
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: but across the country, do they have a similar system?
• 13:46
  Speaker 3: Yeah, they do because it's based on common law, that
• 13:50
  Speaker 3: law of survivorship.
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: So yes, they do.
• 13:52
  Speaker 3: How it comes out in a contract might be slightly different,
• 13:55
  Speaker 3: but the basic, the fundamental law behind it will be national.
• 13:59
  Speaker 3: And I guess the tenants in common aspect is often
• 14:02
  Speaker 3: for parties who are joining together to invest, for example.
• 14:06
  Speaker 3: And there are other aspects of it in estate planning
• 14:09
  Speaker 3: that can be useful, but you're correct that New South
• 14:12
  Speaker 3: Wales is a largely joint tenancy default in contracts, but
• 14:15
  Speaker 3: it's available in most, in all other jurisdictions.
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: Okay. Now let's roll our sleeves up. We've got a
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: theoretical property dispute around boundaries. So say we'll call him John.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: John wants to build a fence. but his neighbour Steve
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: doesn't want to share in the cost, so doesn't want
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: to help with the conveyance in. So how can John
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: build this retaining wall that's at risk of collapsing, and
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: what happens if there's one person on the higher side
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: or the lower side? Does that make a difference? And
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: just boundaries in general, because that can cause a lot
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: of contention between neighbours.
• 14:50
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the distinction you need to draw is between a
• 14:53
  Speaker 3: boundary fence and a retaining wall. So the In New
• 14:57
  Speaker 3: South Wales, again, I'm aware of similar pieces of legislation
• 15:02
  Speaker 3: in other states. So I'm sure that the law is
• 15:04
  Speaker 3: basically the same with different legislation, though. But in New
• 15:08
  Speaker 3: South Wales, the Dividing Fences Act deals with various definitions.
• 15:13
  Speaker 3: And a dividing fence is basically a fence, whether it's
• 15:18
  Speaker 3: made of colour bond, pailing fence, whatever, just to divide two.
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: Pieces of land.
• 15:24
  Speaker 3: It can be exactly on the boundary or close enough
• 15:27
  Speaker 3: so it defines the distinction between the two different lots.
• 15:32
  Speaker 3: A retaining wall is excluded from the definition of dividing
• 15:36
  Speaker 3: fence unless it is supporting a fence. So in your
• 15:41
  Speaker 3: example of higher and lower, if it's only supporting an
• 15:44
  Speaker 3: embankment or a garden, a terrace or a pool or
• 15:48
  Speaker 3: whatever and it doesn't support an actual fence, so for
• 15:52
  Speaker 3: example it hasn't got fence posts secured into it, then
• 15:57
  Speaker 3: it isn't covered under the Act and you'd have to
• 15:59
  Speaker 3: deal with it yourself. With the Dividing Fences Act, if
• 16:03
  Speaker 3: you do have a need to make a dividing fence
• 16:05
  Speaker 3: between you and your neighbour, then the idea is to
• 16:09
  Speaker 3: go and get a quote, and preferably two, and present
• 16:12
  Speaker 3: those to your neighbour and have the discussion about what
• 16:14
  Speaker 3: you want to put up. Then if that's agreed, then
• 16:18
  Speaker 3: each party would contribute half the cost and off you go.
• 16:20
  Speaker 3: The key to this type of discussion is not to
• 16:24
  Speaker 3: just go out and do the fence and expect the
• 16:26
  Speaker 3: neighbour to pay half when you're finished because the Act
• 16:29
  Speaker 3: won't give you any protection there. You'll be left with
• 16:31
  Speaker 3: the whole cost. So if the neighbour, however, is difficult
• 16:35
  Speaker 3: and just says, I don't want a fence, then the
• 16:39
  Speaker 3: person who does want the fence needs to go to
• 16:42
  Speaker 3: a local court, local land board to get orders that
• 16:47
  Speaker 3: the neighbour agreed to construct a dividing fence. Now, A
• 16:52
  Speaker 3: lot of disputes arise around what sort of dividing fence
• 16:55
  Speaker 3: is going to be put there.
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: So one party.
• 16:58
  Speaker 3: Wants a five-foot paling, the other one wants a fancy
• 17:01
  Speaker 3: lapped and capped and this, that and the other, or
• 17:04
  Speaker 3: a colour bond, then there can be a dispute about that.
• 17:08
  Speaker 3: The Act says it's got to be a standard fence
• 17:10
  Speaker 3: for the area so that if you live in a
• 17:13
  Speaker 3: subdivision that's got a 90% paling fence, then... You're not
• 17:18
  Speaker 3: going to get much support from a court if you
• 17:20
  Speaker 3: want to put an eight-foot color bond fence.
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: It will be a.
• 17:25
  Speaker 3: General discussion about what is standard for the area. And
• 17:29
  Speaker 3: you get to a point where you have to prove
• 17:31
  Speaker 3: that by photos and the like to prove. And then
• 17:33
  Speaker 3: a court has to decide whether they think that is
• 17:35
  Speaker 3: or isn't standard. Rural properties have another issue surrounding what
• 17:41
  Speaker 3: is required on a dividing fence and what the use
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: of the land is. So do you need something that
• 17:46
  Speaker 3: keeps cattle in?
• 17:47
  Speaker 2: Do you not? Is it a full-on post and.
• 17:51
  Speaker 3: Rail, which is very expensive, or is it just barbed
• 17:53
  Speaker 3: wire and a couple of star pickets? So they're all
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: discussions that you need to have with your neighbour, otherwise
• 17:59
  Speaker 3: you can end up in court.
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: Lovely. Very clear. Thank you, Peter. Now, before we move
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: on and have a look at retirement and estate planning,
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: let's take a short break. Hello and welcome back to
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: The Money Puzzle. I'm James Gerrard, writer, contributor to the
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: wealth section of The Australian and also financial advisor with financialadvisor.com.au.
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: And this week on the show, I have Peter Kernan
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: from Aubrey Brown Lawyers. Now, Peter, everyone tells us it's
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: bad to die without a will, but is it really
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: that bad? What happens if we do die without a
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: will in Australia? How are your assets divided and who decides?
• 18:40
  Speaker 3: Well, if you'll excuse the pun, James, it's not fatal
• 18:43
  Speaker 3: to your estate planning, but It is certainly going to
• 18:45
  Speaker 3: make life a lot more complicated in more cases than not.
• 18:50
  Speaker 3: To have a will will allow you to determine where
• 18:53
  Speaker 3: your estate goes. If you don't have a will, there
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: is a risk that it doesn't go to where you want.
• 18:58
  Speaker 3: So the term is intestate. If you die without a will,
• 19:02
  Speaker 3: you die intestate. Then that brings in pieces of legislation,
• 19:07
  Speaker 3: being the Succession Act in New South Wales, and they're
• 19:10
  Speaker 3: very similar provisions in other jurisdictions. so that there is
• 19:14
  Speaker 3: a statutory order.
• 19:15
  Speaker 2: So if you pass.
• 19:16
  Speaker 3: Away and your only living relatives are your parents, then
• 19:20
  Speaker 3: they would share equally. Then it goes down to, sorry,
• 19:24
  Speaker 3: it goes to spouse, children, and then parents, and then
• 19:28
  Speaker 3: right down in New South Wales to a first cousin.
• 19:30
  Speaker 3: But the issues arise is largely surrounding spouses and children
• 19:35
  Speaker 3: and determining who is a spouse and who is a child.
• 19:39
  Speaker 3: So A simple example of a bad result from not
• 19:44
  Speaker 3: having a will is if, for example, a child died
• 19:48
  Speaker 3: in a work accident.
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: And received a.
• 19:52
  Speaker 3: Payout from an insurance company and didn't have a will
• 19:56
  Speaker 3: and didn't have any children, then it would go to
• 20:00
  Speaker 3: the parents of that child. Now, if those parents are
• 20:05
  Speaker 3: both living together and have been forever, then that's great.
• 20:08
  Speaker 3: But if one parent hasn't been on the scene for
• 20:11
  Speaker 3: 10 years and hasn't spoken to that child, for example,
• 20:14
  Speaker 3: for 10 years, then it's certainly not ideal because that
• 20:18
  Speaker 3: parent would share in half that insurance payout without any
• 20:22
  Speaker 3: real knowledge of the child or any involvement in that
• 20:25
  Speaker 3: child's life. That's just one pretty simple example. Then the
• 20:29
  Speaker 3: other issues arise is, well, if you are a spouse,
• 20:34
  Speaker 3: then you can still be a spouse even though you've separated.
• 20:37
  Speaker 3: So you might have been separated from your partner for
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: 10 years, just haven't got around to divorcing, then you're
• 20:44
  Speaker 3: still a spouse.
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: You can be in another relationship completely. If you pass away.
• 20:48
  Speaker 3: Then your ex-spouse, for example, can share in your estate
• 20:52
  Speaker 3: if you don't have a will. Then there's the other
• 20:54
  Speaker 3: spouse-related discussion is around de facto partners and proving that
• 20:58
  Speaker 3: they are or are not a de facto partner. And
• 21:02
  Speaker 3: the Once you've been together as a de facto partner
• 21:06
  Speaker 3: for living together as man and wife for, say, two years,
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: and or there's a child involved or child from that relationship,
• 21:13
  Speaker 3: then it's likely that there is a de facto relationship. However,
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: there are lots of cases where this hasn't been so clear,
• 21:23
  Speaker 3: where there's been periods of cohabitation, periods of breaks in cohabitation,
• 21:28
  Speaker 3: and just generally having more than one person potentially suggesting
• 21:32
  Speaker 3: they're de facto with the deceased. Then you have the
• 21:36
  Speaker 3: children problem is determining who is a child. And there
• 21:39
  Speaker 3: are often arguments about that and or children that may
• 21:44
  Speaker 3: potentially come out of the woodwork where the other party.
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: Doesn't know about this child. And so that's another risk.
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: And having a.
• 21:52
  Speaker 3: Valid will will do its best to make sure that
• 21:57
  Speaker 3: your estate goes to where you want it to go.
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: Sounds like that's the case. And something I can add
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: is that my first job was a traineeship with the
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: public trustee about 20 years ago, maybe a little bit
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: longer than that ago. And my observation, I was in
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: the finance and accounting area, but my observation in the
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: estates administration team was that it's quite a lengthy process.
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: It wasn't something that just happened in a month or two.
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: It could go into years in some cases to wind
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: up estates if there was no wills trying to locate
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: the family members and make decisions and wind up. And
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: of course, there's costs as well. And that may not
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: be accurate today because my reference point is 20 years ago,
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: but it was a few percent of the estate at
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: that time that the government would take as their administration
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: fees to look after the assets and distribute as per
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: the legislation if there's no will in place. So moving
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: on to writing the will or updating a will, any
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: tips on who you should appoint as an executor? Should
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: it be your spouse, parents, brothers, sisters, your accountant? What
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: do you think there?
• 22:58
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the executor is best from someone who's close to
• 23:01
  Speaker 3: the family. So the obvious and the usual case in
• 23:05
  Speaker 3: a husband-wife arrangement or de facto partner arrangement is that
• 23:08
  Speaker 3: each party would appoint the other as their executor. So
• 23:12
  Speaker 3: that's fairly simple. That's not, again, critical. It's not essential
• 23:17
  Speaker 3: to have a valid will. You can, even with a partner,
• 23:20
  Speaker 3: appoint another executor, for example, an accountant or a because
• 23:24
  Speaker 3: the spouse has little aptitude in financial matters and the
• 23:28
  Speaker 3: party making the will decides that won't be very easy
• 23:32
  Speaker 3: on that other spouse. And sometimes there can be language
• 23:36
  Speaker 3: barriers as well. It might be better to have someone
• 23:39
  Speaker 3: who is a little bit more across financial matters in
• 23:42
  Speaker 3: the relevant country. The other aspect with executors is how
• 23:47
  Speaker 3: many you appoint. And In the case of the husband-wife
• 23:51
  Speaker 3: arrangement where you've appointed one, you have to appoint a substitute.
• 23:56
  Speaker 3: For example, both of you pass away in an accident.
• 24:00
  Speaker 3: So you would normally then appoint, for example, one or
• 24:03
  Speaker 3: two of your children. So that's all fine and that
• 24:07
  Speaker 3: makes sense because they're likely to be the beneficiaries. It
• 24:11
  Speaker 3: becomes another discussion if there are no children and who
• 24:14
  Speaker 3: you might choose to be the executor in those cases.
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: your example of an accountant is clearly one. A lawyer
• 24:20
  Speaker 3: quite often does that role, but it's often best to
• 24:24
  Speaker 3: have someone who is close to the family, for example, siblings.
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: And this is particularly.
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: So if there are minor children involved, so that a
• 24:33
  Speaker 3: bit of a knowledge of family dynamics for the executor
• 24:36
  Speaker 3: will help them get.
• 24:37
  Speaker 2: The money where you want it to go.
• 24:39
  Speaker 3: So it's an important role and something that people need
• 24:44
  Speaker 3: to think seriously about because it can may mean that
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: there are different outcomes, despite the fact that the will
• 24:51
  Speaker 3: says where it's got to go, where your estate's got
• 24:55
  Speaker 3: to go, how it gets there could be determined by
• 24:57
  Speaker 3: the attitude of the executor.
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: Let's move on to blended families. They're becoming more common
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: in Australia. It's a complex area. I'll try and describe
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: this as simply as possible, but let's just say there's
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: a couple, husband and wife, they're married, they have children,
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: they divorce. The husband moves on. He finds a new partner.
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: This new partner, she has children as well. They get married.
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: So they have stepchildren from each form of marriage. And
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: then they decide to have a child themselves. So there's
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: children from the husband's first marriage. He has stepchildren and
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: he has a child from the second marriage. Now, it's
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: difficult for him to set his will because he may
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: want to provide something for his family. child from the
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: first marriage, but the wife from the second marriage may
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: have differing views on that and may want more of
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: the lion's share of the wealth to go to their
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: joint child. And there's the risk that if he predeceases her,
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: the second wife, that the second wife could change her
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: will and cut out the child from his first marriage
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: and maybe give money to her daughter, which is not
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: biologically his. So I guess in a long way saying
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: is that If he passes away, his intention of where
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: he wanted his money to go could change if it's
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: the case of, well, I'll leave you everything, i.e.
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: My spouse.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: And then when you pass away, you distribute it as
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: per what we've mutually agreed. But that mutual agreement could
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: change after someone passes away. So how do we protect
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: against this?
• 26:28
  Speaker 3: Yeah, like trust in the relationship is, of course, very,
• 26:32
  Speaker 3: very important. You can just trust your partner to do
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: the right thing. Now, a lot of people don't have
• 26:37
  Speaker 3: any issue with that when you ask the question.
• 26:39
  Speaker 2: But a lot of people, of course, do.
• 26:40
  Speaker 3: And as you say, a second spouse might feel threatened
• 26:44
  Speaker 3: by a child from a previous relationship.
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: There are various ways to do it.
• 26:48
  Speaker 3: You can, for example, if you have a principal place
• 26:51
  Speaker 3: of residence, you can have that in the previously discussed
• 26:55
  Speaker 3: tenants in common. So that 50% of the property would go,
• 26:59
  Speaker 3: for example, would go pursuant to your will to whoever
• 27:03
  Speaker 3: you leave it to. So for example, a husband might
• 27:07
  Speaker 3: leave his half of the house to children from his
• 27:10
  Speaker 3: first marriage, and that would enable the wife to do
• 27:14
  Speaker 3: the same. In that case, the primary concern should be
• 27:18
  Speaker 3: for the wife to still have accommodation and be able
• 27:20
  Speaker 3: to live in that home, so you can leave a
• 27:23
  Speaker 3: life estate in that home to the wife or the
• 27:27
  Speaker 3: husband so that they can live there until they no
• 27:30
  Speaker 3: longer are able or willing to, and then the estate
• 27:34
  Speaker 3: can be passed on that basis. So that's one possibility.
• 27:38
  Speaker 3: You've referred to the changing of the intention of parties
• 27:42
  Speaker 3: after one party dies. And that's common in that the
• 27:45
  Speaker 3: relationship survived because of the influence of, for example, the
• 27:49
  Speaker 3: father of children from a previous relationship. But as soon
• 27:52
  Speaker 3: as the father's not there, then the wife sort of
• 27:57
  Speaker 3: feels less threatened, perhaps, and is able to then perhaps
• 28:01
  Speaker 3: change to what she really always wanted the whole way
• 28:03
  Speaker 3: along was to get rid of the children from the
• 28:06
  Speaker 3: first marriage. You can do what's called mutual wills, where
• 28:11
  Speaker 3: you are making a contract not to change your will
• 28:14
  Speaker 3: after the party passes away. They are not recommended in
• 28:20
  Speaker 3: recent times. It's been a while since they've been recommended, really,
• 28:23
  Speaker 3: because things change too much, and it does stop a
• 28:27
  Speaker 3: spouse remarrying. For example, if that's, and you might not
• 28:31
  Speaker 3: want to do that, might not want to put that
• 28:33
  Speaker 3: pressure and or restriction on a spouse, then also it
• 28:37
  Speaker 3: has the potential is that the spouse just dissipates the
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: estate anyway, because it doesn't, the will doesn't change, but
• 28:45
  Speaker 3: what the will deals with changes a lot because they
• 28:48
  Speaker 3: can just move the assets out of the estate without
• 28:52
  Speaker 3: fear or favour, and then that doesn't really have any effect.
• 28:55
  Speaker 3: So the only other way, the only other way but
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: another way is the use of a testamentary trust in
• 29:02
  Speaker 3: a will where you specify that the spouse is to
• 29:06
  Speaker 3: have the benefit of the estate and it's managed by
• 29:09
  Speaker 3: another independent trustee who can manage the estate for the
• 29:13
  Speaker 3: spouse's benefit and then ensuring that the capital of the
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: estate is at least preserved to a degree so that
• 29:19
  Speaker 3: the children can be nominated as the default beneficiaries after
• 29:23
  Speaker 3: the wife passes away.
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Peter. Very clear from the sounds of that.
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: It's not a case of write your own will. If
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: you have a blended family, it really seems like it's
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: worthwhile getting proper legal advice on that one. So before
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: we go any further, let's take another short break. Hello,
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: and welcome back to The Money Puzzle. I'm James Gerrard, writer,
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: contributor to the wealth section of The Australian and also
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: financial advisor with financialadvisor.com.au. And on this week's show, I
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: have Peter Kernan from Aubrey Brown Lawyers. Now, before we
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: get into the subject of general taxation, sorry, general law matters,
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: I just want to say that to all our listeners
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: that this is general advice and not personal advice, so
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: please seek out a qualified advisor before making any decisions.
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: The first one we're going to cover is on family
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: and friends buying investments together. This could be Peter maybe
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: starting a business or buying an investment property together. They're
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: pooling their resources together to try and start or buy something.
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: Good or bad idea in your experience?
• 30:27
  Speaker 3: Cool.
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: It's always a good idea at the start, James.
• 30:31
  Speaker 3: It's always, these things always start from great ideas and
• 30:34
  Speaker 3: quite often, you know, everything works well and the parties
• 30:37
  Speaker 3: are successful and it works really well for everyone's mutual benefit.
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: But there are, of course, plenty that don't work very well.
• 30:45
  Speaker 3: The critical thing in this is always documenting what the
• 30:48
  Speaker 3: agreement is between you. The simple example would be that
• 30:52
  Speaker 3: two people want to get together and buy a house,
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: which they intend to do a renovation and sell. profit
• 30:59
  Speaker 3: and then move on potentially to do more. The issues
• 31:01
  Speaker 3: there become what happens if one party has something before
• 31:06
  Speaker 3: them that means they need the money back out. How
• 31:08
  Speaker 3: do you get the money out? And the agreements can
• 31:11
  Speaker 3: deal with that. The main thing, though, is to document
• 31:14
  Speaker 3: how it's to work until you get to that point. So,
• 31:17
  Speaker 3: for example, if one party is going to contribute maybe
• 31:21
  Speaker 3: their expertise in architectural terms and another one is a
• 31:25
  Speaker 3: plumber and he's going to contribute his labour, all that
• 31:28
  Speaker 3: sort of stuff, as long as it's documented, then you
• 31:31
  Speaker 3: can at least have a starting point if any dispute
• 31:33
  Speaker 3: arises as to what the agreement really was. You can
• 31:37
  Speaker 3: also have a co-owner's agreement. So for example, people buy
• 31:41
  Speaker 3: a house, it's a pre-existing house, they're just going to
• 31:44
  Speaker 3: rent it and hang on to it and hopefully settle.
• 31:47
  Speaker 2: The profit in the future.
• 31:48
  Speaker 3: You've got to set out who pays the rates, who
• 31:51
  Speaker 3: maintains it, the insurance, what happens if something needs fixing
• 31:55
  Speaker 3: and And then again, the critical one is what happens
• 31:58
  Speaker 3: if someone wants to.
• 31:58
  Speaker 2: Leave the arrangement?
• 32:00
  Speaker 3: And that's always where the problems arise because if someone
• 32:04
  Speaker 3: wants their money out of the arrangement and the other
• 32:07
  Speaker 3: one doesn't want to, then there's a stalemate because you
• 32:12
  Speaker 3: can't sell the property without everyone agreeing. So either it's mediation,
• 32:18
  Speaker 3: which you should always have mediation clauses in agreements of
• 32:21
  Speaker 3: this nature, or you have to head to court to
• 32:24
  Speaker 3: have an arrangement approved and or finalised by the court
• 32:27
  Speaker 3: so that one party can get out.
• 32:29
  Speaker 2: You know, you can, of course, get someone else in
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: to take.
• 32:32
  Speaker 3: Over the share of the other party, but it's often
• 32:35
  Speaker 3: the case that that's when the disputes arise.
• 32:38
  Speaker 2: Same in business.
• 32:39
  Speaker 3: If you're going to start a company to run a business,
• 32:42
  Speaker 3: then you should have a shareholders agreement or a partnership agreement,
• 32:47
  Speaker 3: depending upon the structure, which documents, who does what and
• 32:51
  Speaker 3: how money gets spent. And again, what happens if someone
• 32:54
  Speaker 3: wants to leave?
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: How do they leave? How do their shares get sold?
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: How do they get valued? All of those clauses should
• 33:00
  Speaker 2: be in there. Absolutely.
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: And you hit the nail on the head with regards
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: to it all looks good in the beginning, but sometimes
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: ends in flames and disaster. What I suggest to people,
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: not legally, informally, is that they think about, even though
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: they go into this with best intentions, all of the bad,
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: the worst scenarios that could happen and pre-plan everything If
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: this was to occur, how would we deal with it?
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: So as much as you can think about from the beginning,
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: if these circumstances occur, somebody loses interest, they don't have
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: financial capacity anymore, all those type of things, how will
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: we deal with it? So there's an agreement before you
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: go into it so that if these things do happen,
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: that it's less likely that it gets messy. Now, next one,
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: let's just say that you're a director, you're asked to
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: become a director of a business. So you're an employee,
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: but you've been promoted and something bad happens at the business.
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: So say that the other director has a gambling problem
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: and they're spending all the money out of the company
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: bank account, but they've been saying they've been paying the
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: tax bill. What happens in that case? Are you personally
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: liable for this if the company's been trading insolvent? So
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: I guess I'm asking a broader question of, although it
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: sounds great to be promoted as a director of a business,
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: there may be some legal liability or obligations attached to
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: that people should think about as well. So could you
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: talk us through that at a high level, Peter? Yeah, sure.
• 34:23
  Speaker 2: It's the concept of insolvency you've mentioned.
• 34:26
  Speaker 3: That has a trading insolvently means you are unable to
• 34:29
  Speaker 3: pay your debts as and when they fall due. Now,
• 34:33
  Speaker 3: once that happens, it's an issue for the directors because
• 34:36
  Speaker 3: they can be personally liable for the debts of the
• 34:38
  Speaker 3: company in that case. The example of the gambling director
• 34:43
  Speaker 3: is not uncommon.
• 34:45
  Speaker 2: And the risk.
• 34:45
  Speaker 3: For the other director is that they'll be left holding
• 34:48
  Speaker 3: the bag for 100% of the debts of the company
• 34:51
  Speaker 3: and If, for example, a gambling director's been the one
• 34:54
  Speaker 3: who has been running their business day to day and
• 34:57
  Speaker 3: the other director's been just turning up to board meetings,
• 35:00
  Speaker 3: for example, once a month and hasn't really had his
• 35:03
  Speaker 3: finger on the pulse, then that is very liable to
• 35:07
  Speaker 3: be a case of, well, you didn't know, but you
• 35:09
  Speaker 3: should have known. And then he can be held to
• 35:12
  Speaker 3: be personally liable for 100% of the debts. For example,
• 35:15
  Speaker 3: if the gambling director goes bankrupt or leaves the jurisdiction,
• 35:20
  Speaker 3: then Absolutely, you can be personally liable. The idea of
• 35:25
  Speaker 3: a company is to protect directors from personal liability. But
• 35:30
  Speaker 3: in the case of insolvent trading, for example, if a
• 35:34
  Speaker 3: company goes into liquidation, it's been trading insolvently, then the
• 35:39
  Speaker 3: liquidator is going to look very carefully at the directors
• 35:43
  Speaker 3: to determine what assets they have. and whether they should
• 35:46
  Speaker 3: be pursued for insolvent trading to therefore make more money
• 35:50
  Speaker 3: available to creditors. So it's something that liquidators look at
• 35:53
  Speaker 3: very closely.
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: So for someone who hasn't been a director before but
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: has been asked to become one as part of a promotion,
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: should they seek legal advice? Is there anything that they
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: should do to be prudent and cautious around this if
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: they have also little experience of being a company director previously?
• 36:11
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I would always recommend that they have a– serious
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: review of the company's past performance, whatever there might be
• 36:20
  Speaker 3: publicly available. But if it's a smaller entity, then you
• 36:24
  Speaker 3: would certainly be going to the company accountant and I
• 36:29
  Speaker 3: would be putting your own account in touch with the
• 36:31
  Speaker 3: company accountant so that they can ask all the pertinent
• 36:34
  Speaker 3: questions once they've had a look at the past financials,
• 36:37
  Speaker 3: profit loss, the balance sheet, all of those things would
• 36:40
  Speaker 3: need to be looked at. And then you make a
• 36:42
  Speaker 3: decision based on that advice. then going forward, you just
• 36:46
  Speaker 3: have to have your finger on the pulse. You have
• 36:48
  Speaker 3: to be paying attention. You can't let, you're not going
• 36:51
  Speaker 3: to get away with an excuse. Oh, well, he was
• 36:53
  Speaker 3: doing that because he was a managing director I didn't know.
• 36:56
  Speaker 2: Good advice.
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: All right, Peter, well, that's a wrap for today. Thank
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. That was really interesting.
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: We brought to the surface a lot of legal issues
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: that intersect with finances and our listeners may have been
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: aware of, but now they've got a lot more colour
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: around it thanks to your comments. So Peter Kernan from
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: Albury Brown Lawyers, thank you so much for joining us
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: today on The Money Puzzle.
• 37:14
  Speaker 2: James, thank you for having me. Been a pleasure. My
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: pleasure indeed.
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: Now to our listeners, thank you for tuning in to
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: today's episode of The Money Puzzle. Next week, we'll return
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: to regular programming. James Kirby will be back from holidays,
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: no doubt full of energy and ready to tackle the
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: hot topics of the week and sink his teeth into
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: all of the great questions that have accumulated since he's
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: been away. And speaking of that, Don't forget to send
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: us what you think. Send us your questions and comments
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: by tweeting us using the hashtag TheMoneyPuzzle, or one word,
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: or email us on themoneypuzzle at theaustralian.com.au. Until next time,
• 37:46
  Speaker 1: I'm James Gerrard.
• 37:47
  Speaker 2: Talk to you soon.