1 00:00:14,840 --> 00:00:17,360 Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to today's episode of The Money Puzzle. 2 00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:19,959 Speaker 1: I'm your host James Gerard, standing in one more time 3 00:00:20,000 --> 00:00:23,320 Speaker 1: for James Kirby in the last of our special focus series. 4 00:00:23,640 --> 00:00:25,680 Speaker 1: This week, we're going to dive into the area where 5 00:00:25,760 --> 00:00:29,120 Speaker 1: finance and the law meet head on. So get ready 6 00:00:29,160 --> 00:00:32,640 Speaker 1: for that because legal things can impact your financial life. 7 00:00:32,800 --> 00:00:35,760 Speaker 1: So from a state planning to superinnuation, to wills and 8 00:00:35,800 --> 00:00:38,760 Speaker 1: a state asset protection, the decisions that you make today 9 00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:41,320 Speaker 1: could have a big implication for your fair nature wellbeing 10 00:00:41,360 --> 00:00:43,879 Speaker 1: into the future. So in summary, we're going to unpack 11 00:00:43,960 --> 00:00:47,000 Speaker 1: how the law influences your finances and to do that, 12 00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:50,240 Speaker 1: today's test has a wealth of legal experience, back dating 13 00:00:50,320 --> 00:00:53,559 Speaker 1: two nineteen eighty four, which coincidentally is the year that 14 00:00:53,680 --> 00:00:56,880 Speaker 1: this year's AFL Grand Final performer Katie Perry was born. 15 00:00:57,240 --> 00:00:59,880 Speaker 1: Peter Kernan is a lawyer with Aubrey Brown Lawyers on 16 00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:02,240 Speaker 1: Sydney's Central Coast, and he is well known and well 17 00:01:02,240 --> 00:01:05,120 Speaker 1: regarded in the area. He acts as an honorary solicitor 18 00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:08,760 Speaker 1: for local sporting and community organizations, including the local Life 19 00:01:08,800 --> 00:01:11,240 Speaker 1: Saving Club, and is a board member of the Central 20 00:01:11,240 --> 00:01:14,600 Speaker 1: Coast Disability Options and not for profit that provides support 21 00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:17,919 Speaker 1: services for young people living with a disability. Peter Cernin 22 00:01:17,920 --> 00:01:20,400 Speaker 1: from Aubrey Brown Lawyers, Welcome to the Money Puzzle. 23 00:01:20,920 --> 00:01:22,520 Speaker 2: Thank you, James, pleasure to be here. 24 00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:25,640 Speaker 1: As is the case with every episode, what we discuss 25 00:01:25,760 --> 00:01:28,319 Speaker 1: is general advice and not to be taken as personal advice, 26 00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:31,400 Speaker 1: and listeners should seek professional advice before acting on anything 27 00:01:31,440 --> 00:01:34,440 Speaker 1: they hear. On today's episode, we're going to break up 28 00:01:34,480 --> 00:01:37,440 Speaker 1: our discussion into different areas, so let's start by talking 29 00:01:37,440 --> 00:01:40,760 Speaker 1: about property related legal matters. So the first thing I 30 00:01:40,760 --> 00:01:42,880 Speaker 1: want to ask you, Peter, is that I've heard recently 31 00:01:42,880 --> 00:01:44,800 Speaker 1: in the media about people being scammed out of their 32 00:01:44,840 --> 00:01:47,640 Speaker 1: property deposits. How does this happen and how can people 33 00:01:47,640 --> 00:01:48,919 Speaker 1: protect themselves from. 34 00:01:48,760 --> 00:01:53,720 Speaker 2: This, James, have been an increased number of these settlements scams, 35 00:01:53,760 --> 00:01:58,560 Speaker 2: as they're called. Hackers interposed themselves into usually some sort 36 00:01:58,600 --> 00:02:03,400 Speaker 2: of email chain between people who are instructing solicitor or 37 00:02:03,440 --> 00:02:08,200 Speaker 2: conveyancer to act on a property transaction. Often they just 38 00:02:08,520 --> 00:02:10,680 Speaker 2: change one little bit of an email or one little 39 00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:13,160 Speaker 2: bit of a number to enable them to then get 40 00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:17,320 Speaker 2: into the financial aspects of the transaction, so posing as 41 00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:21,400 Speaker 2: a party that's involved in that transaction and then being 42 00:02:21,400 --> 00:02:25,840 Speaker 2: able to divert funds not just deposits, but often settlement 43 00:02:25,919 --> 00:02:30,280 Speaker 2: funds too for the completion of that transaction. The reason 44 00:02:30,320 --> 00:02:32,600 Speaker 2: that there's been an increase in these is, of course 45 00:02:32,600 --> 00:02:36,160 Speaker 2: the increase in property prices, so the amount of money 46 00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:40,800 Speaker 2: involved that makes an attractive target to hackers is more. 47 00:02:40,720 --> 00:02:43,120 Speaker 1: Things done electronically these days. So we have that systems 48 00:02:43,160 --> 00:02:46,280 Speaker 1: at PEXA where I thought maybe using that type of 49 00:02:46,320 --> 00:02:48,560 Speaker 1: system to be less chance of this type of fraudulent 50 00:02:48,600 --> 00:02:50,640 Speaker 1: activity happening, but still seems to occur. 51 00:02:51,120 --> 00:02:54,440 Speaker 2: Yeah, the electronic workspace known as PEXA is where all 52 00:02:54,720 --> 00:02:58,280 Speaker 2: conveyancing matters in New South Wales in particular, but many 53 00:02:58,280 --> 00:03:01,320 Speaker 2: other states are carried out the days, and yes, there 54 00:03:01,320 --> 00:03:05,399 Speaker 2: are lots of checks and balances in that system, and 55 00:03:05,520 --> 00:03:09,080 Speaker 2: there has only been a very few number of PEXA 56 00:03:09,160 --> 00:03:14,040 Speaker 2: related transactions where that's happened. The main main cause of these, 57 00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:16,600 Speaker 2: or the main source of these appears to be from 58 00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:20,240 Speaker 2: hacking by the real estate agents before it gets to 59 00:03:20,280 --> 00:03:22,320 Speaker 2: the PEXA system. Got it. 60 00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:24,520 Speaker 1: So what would you suggest for people, say they're a 61 00:03:24,520 --> 00:03:27,640 Speaker 1: first home buyer, or maybe they're downsize in and haven't 62 00:03:27,680 --> 00:03:29,959 Speaker 1: bought a sold a property for forty years are we 63 00:03:30,040 --> 00:03:32,880 Speaker 1: talking about physically taking checks to real estate agents and 64 00:03:32,960 --> 00:03:37,080 Speaker 1: conveyances big bags of cash? How do we sidestep the scam? 65 00:03:37,120 --> 00:03:41,320 Speaker 2: Is here all potential options, James, for some of them 66 00:03:41,320 --> 00:03:44,000 Speaker 2: are bit unlikely. I guess that the check thing might 67 00:03:44,040 --> 00:03:46,160 Speaker 2: be possible, or a bag of cash maybe less. So 68 00:03:46,760 --> 00:03:50,280 Speaker 2: it's again about being vigilant. Like all scams, it is 69 00:03:50,320 --> 00:03:53,080 Speaker 2: making sure that you know who you're talking to, making 70 00:03:53,120 --> 00:03:56,000 Speaker 2: sure that every single number that you've been provided for 71 00:03:56,160 --> 00:04:00,360 Speaker 2: to transfer money to is correct, and that's verbally. In 72 00:04:00,480 --> 00:04:04,400 Speaker 2: legal practice, we insist on when we receive account numbers, 73 00:04:04,440 --> 00:04:06,960 Speaker 2: we make sure that there is a verbal discussion with 74 00:04:07,040 --> 00:04:10,600 Speaker 2: that client and just to confirm that number and then 75 00:04:10,800 --> 00:04:14,560 Speaker 2: we can carry out that transaction. The risks arise basically 76 00:04:14,640 --> 00:04:18,160 Speaker 2: when people are put under pressure. For example, if things 77 00:04:18,200 --> 00:04:20,120 Speaker 2: have been going along okay, and then all of a 78 00:04:20,160 --> 00:04:23,440 Speaker 2: sudden there's this rush to get to an exchange of contracts, 79 00:04:23,480 --> 00:04:26,840 Speaker 2: for example, and then you get flustered and people just 80 00:04:26,880 --> 00:04:30,480 Speaker 2: don't pay enough attention. So it really is about paying 81 00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:34,039 Speaker 2: attention and making sure that you know who you're talking to. 82 00:04:34,160 --> 00:04:36,120 Speaker 2: And if you have to go to someone's office to 83 00:04:36,160 --> 00:04:38,520 Speaker 2: make sure, then that's certainly an option. For you. 84 00:04:39,240 --> 00:04:41,920 Speaker 1: Yeah, it rings a bell and resonates when you say 85 00:04:41,960 --> 00:04:46,120 Speaker 1: that your team will call people when they've received instructions 86 00:04:46,320 --> 00:04:48,960 Speaker 1: to confirm before payments we have made and receive. We do 87 00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:52,000 Speaker 1: a similar thing in financial planning world, and that actually 88 00:04:52,560 --> 00:04:54,920 Speaker 1: was important. It's happened a couple of years ago. One 89 00:04:54,920 --> 00:04:57,359 Speaker 1: of our clients sent through an email or what we 90 00:04:57,400 --> 00:05:00,000 Speaker 1: thought was their email, saying, Hey, I've just found a property. 91 00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:02,040 Speaker 1: I need ninety thousand dollars out of my self managed 92 00:05:02,040 --> 00:05:06,240 Speaker 1: super fund bank account transferred over to my conveyances trust account. 93 00:05:06,680 --> 00:05:08,840 Speaker 1: And we have an internal control where we call our 94 00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:12,480 Speaker 1: clients before we make withdrawals on their accounts or process 95 00:05:12,520 --> 00:05:16,679 Speaker 1: it for them. And the difference was that the email 96 00:05:16,720 --> 00:05:19,760 Speaker 1: address was one letter off or one extra letter. And 97 00:05:19,760 --> 00:05:21,960 Speaker 1: when we rang the client, he said, what are you 98 00:05:22,000 --> 00:05:24,720 Speaker 1: talking about. I'm in hospital my wife's son. Well, she's 99 00:05:24,760 --> 00:05:27,560 Speaker 1: about to have surgery. And what happened was that that 100 00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:29,760 Speaker 1: the hackers had got into his computer, and this happened 101 00:05:29,800 --> 00:05:32,000 Speaker 1: about six months earlier, and they're just monitoring. They're just 102 00:05:32,000 --> 00:05:34,479 Speaker 1: sitting there and looking at his schedule, understanding where his 103 00:05:34,520 --> 00:05:38,159 Speaker 1: finances were, and saw that his wife had surgery planned 104 00:05:38,200 --> 00:05:39,839 Speaker 1: at a certain date, he'd be out of the office 105 00:05:39,839 --> 00:05:41,600 Speaker 1: for a week, and they thought he's probably not going 106 00:05:41,640 --> 00:05:43,760 Speaker 1: to be checking his emails. That's the right time to strike. 107 00:05:43,839 --> 00:05:46,560 Speaker 1: So they realized I was the advisor that made contact 108 00:05:46,880 --> 00:05:50,240 Speaker 1: with the bogus email account and the bogus trust account 109 00:05:50,279 --> 00:05:52,280 Speaker 1: details to send money to. But luckily we picked it up. 110 00:05:52,279 --> 00:05:54,640 Speaker 1: When we called the client, he freaked out. We sort 111 00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:56,599 Speaker 1: of put a freeze on his bank account for the 112 00:05:56,640 --> 00:05:59,200 Speaker 1: super fund, and then he changed his email addressed and 113 00:05:59,240 --> 00:06:02,360 Speaker 1: had his computer investigated and found that there was some 114 00:06:02,400 --> 00:06:04,200 Speaker 1: sort of a hacker who's managed to have to find 115 00:06:04,240 --> 00:06:06,360 Speaker 1: their way in there. So you can't be too careful. 116 00:06:06,600 --> 00:06:09,000 Speaker 1: There is scary yeah, indeed, Well let's move on to 117 00:06:09,120 --> 00:06:11,520 Speaker 1: buying property off the plan, Peter, what are the risks 118 00:06:11,520 --> 00:06:14,799 Speaker 1: of legal risks if a developer doesn't deliver the property 119 00:06:15,160 --> 00:06:17,359 Speaker 1: as promised. I've never bought a plan off the property 120 00:06:17,760 --> 00:06:19,960 Speaker 1: off the plan, I should say myself, so I'm not 121 00:06:20,000 --> 00:06:22,599 Speaker 1: too sure what happens if, say, the developer is late, 122 00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:26,440 Speaker 1: if they promised you three bedrooms but there's only two bedrooms, 123 00:06:26,600 --> 00:06:29,480 Speaker 1: can you cancel the contract you deposit back? And as 124 00:06:29,520 --> 00:06:31,440 Speaker 1: a secondary question, I've heard about this inn called a 125 00:06:31,480 --> 00:06:33,359 Speaker 1: sunset clause, but I'm not really sure what it is. 126 00:06:33,400 --> 00:06:34,680 Speaker 1: Could you explain that one as well. 127 00:06:34,920 --> 00:06:38,000 Speaker 2: Yes, I'll start with a second bit, James, because the 128 00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:42,039 Speaker 2: sunset clause is very important in that whole discussion. A 129 00:06:42,080 --> 00:06:45,279 Speaker 2: sunset clause or a sunset date is a period in 130 00:06:45,279 --> 00:06:48,080 Speaker 2: a contract, usually a couple of years out from for 131 00:06:48,120 --> 00:06:52,000 Speaker 2: a new build, and the obligation on the developer is 132 00:06:52,040 --> 00:06:55,480 Speaker 2: to complete and hand over a for example, a completed 133 00:06:55,520 --> 00:06:59,440 Speaker 2: apartment in accordance with the contract by that date. There 134 00:06:59,600 --> 00:07:02,960 Speaker 2: is to be position where if that didn't happen, the 135 00:07:03,200 --> 00:07:06,440 Speaker 2: developer could say, well, we've failed to meet the sunset date. 136 00:07:06,560 --> 00:07:08,520 Speaker 2: We're going to terminate the contract. You can have your 137 00:07:08,520 --> 00:07:10,960 Speaker 2: deposit back, but then you can go and sell it 138 00:07:10,960 --> 00:07:13,200 Speaker 2: to someone else for a lot more. And so that 139 00:07:13,720 --> 00:07:17,920 Speaker 2: was happening. So in December twenty nineteen some reforms came 140 00:07:17,960 --> 00:07:21,480 Speaker 2: out from the New South Wales government, including the requirement 141 00:07:21,600 --> 00:07:26,120 Speaker 2: to include firstly a disclosure statement in the contract setting 142 00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:28,960 Speaker 2: out all the dates and all the ability of developers 143 00:07:29,000 --> 00:07:32,760 Speaker 2: to terminate contracts and how the process worked in a 144 00:07:32,800 --> 00:07:37,520 Speaker 2: single maybe two pages, with development consents and all the 145 00:07:37,600 --> 00:07:41,960 Speaker 2: numbers that people can check easily, so that meant that 146 00:07:41,960 --> 00:07:45,040 Speaker 2: the developers are under a little bit more obligation to 147 00:07:45,080 --> 00:07:48,600 Speaker 2: give as much information to a purchaser as possible. So 148 00:07:48,720 --> 00:07:52,200 Speaker 2: at that point you enter a contract and if the 149 00:07:52,320 --> 00:07:56,640 Speaker 2: developer is unable to complete by the sunset date, the 150 00:07:56,720 --> 00:08:00,240 Speaker 2: developer now has to approach the Supreme Court before he's 151 00:08:00,280 --> 00:08:03,000 Speaker 2: able to terminate that contract. So in other words, the 152 00:08:03,040 --> 00:08:06,680 Speaker 2: purchaser is protected because the Supreme Court will only give 153 00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:10,400 Speaker 2: those sort of orders if there are exceptional circumstances so 154 00:08:10,440 --> 00:08:14,360 Speaker 2: that the developer has been completely unable to complete that 155 00:08:14,440 --> 00:08:18,800 Speaker 2: development due to things entirely outside of his control. So 156 00:08:18,840 --> 00:08:22,520 Speaker 2: that can be various things that I think COVID might 157 00:08:22,560 --> 00:08:26,120 Speaker 2: have worked for a while, but there are just generally 158 00:08:26,200 --> 00:08:28,760 Speaker 2: there's not many cases that get there and that the 159 00:08:28,840 --> 00:08:30,480 Speaker 2: developers are able to do that. 160 00:08:30,800 --> 00:08:33,760 Speaker 1: Got it so that they can't intentionally delay the build 161 00:08:33,880 --> 00:08:35,839 Speaker 1: because the property market's gone up by twenty percent and 162 00:08:35,880 --> 00:08:39,400 Speaker 1: they want to effectively resell that property off the plan. 163 00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:41,280 Speaker 1: And you mentioned New South Wales. Is it the sunset 164 00:08:41,280 --> 00:08:43,400 Speaker 1: calls just the New South Wales thing or is it 165 00:08:43,559 --> 00:08:44,719 Speaker 1: around the country. 166 00:08:44,480 --> 00:08:48,360 Speaker 2: There are sunset dates in varying forms, but my understanding is, 167 00:08:48,360 --> 00:08:51,040 Speaker 2: for example, in Queensland, they don't have this obligation for 168 00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:55,000 Speaker 2: disclosure in these types of contracts. But I also understand 169 00:08:55,040 --> 00:08:57,280 Speaker 2: that he is coming up there that I couldn't be 170 00:08:57,320 --> 00:09:00,160 Speaker 2: sure about Victoria or elsewhere, but I think there are 171 00:09:00,240 --> 00:09:03,880 Speaker 2: various pieces of legislation that are not dissimilar to them 172 00:09:03,880 --> 00:09:04,520 Speaker 2: in South Wales. 173 00:09:04,559 --> 00:09:07,439 Speaker 1: One got it, And then back to the first question 174 00:09:07,480 --> 00:09:10,120 Speaker 1: around what happens if the developer doesn't deliver the property 175 00:09:10,120 --> 00:09:13,560 Speaker 1: that they promised. One that I've seen commonly is where 176 00:09:14,000 --> 00:09:16,080 Speaker 1: there was a say, a cast space or two cast 177 00:09:16,080 --> 00:09:18,240 Speaker 1: spaces on tidle and now side by side, but due 178 00:09:18,280 --> 00:09:20,400 Speaker 1: to reconfiguration of the basement, they've had to turn them 179 00:09:20,400 --> 00:09:23,320 Speaker 1: into tandem so head to toe car spots, which are 180 00:09:23,440 --> 00:09:27,040 Speaker 1: less desirable. So where there's things like that, some may 181 00:09:27,040 --> 00:09:29,480 Speaker 1: be minor, there might be one or two square meters difference, 182 00:09:29,520 --> 00:09:32,640 Speaker 1: maybe smaller, some of more major. What happens in these 183 00:09:32,640 --> 00:09:36,320 Speaker 1: type of situations at that point when settlement's. 184 00:09:35,760 --> 00:09:40,120 Speaker 2: Ready, there is in the vast majority of contracts a 185 00:09:40,320 --> 00:09:45,000 Speaker 2: clause that says if the variation to the property, for 186 00:09:45,120 --> 00:09:49,520 Speaker 2: example in floor space, is more than five percent, then 187 00:09:49,600 --> 00:09:53,480 Speaker 2: they could resind. Now that's one issue, So if you 188 00:09:53,559 --> 00:09:56,080 Speaker 2: again had a bedroom that was a certain size and 189 00:09:56,160 --> 00:09:59,520 Speaker 2: it comes down by ten percent in size just that bedroom, 190 00:09:59,640 --> 00:10:02,719 Speaker 2: then the overall place obviously comes down by that too. 191 00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:05,320 Speaker 2: But the point is that you could resind that because 192 00:10:05,360 --> 00:10:07,559 Speaker 2: it's not the size of the bedroom that you contracted 193 00:10:07,640 --> 00:10:11,640 Speaker 2: by it, it does become more difficult when there the 194 00:10:11,720 --> 00:10:16,080 Speaker 2: issues aren't just size wise, So the cases all revolve 195 00:10:16,120 --> 00:10:20,080 Speaker 2: around whether you would have seated with that purchase. If that, 196 00:10:20,520 --> 00:10:22,719 Speaker 2: for example, and you're using your example that it was 197 00:10:22,760 --> 00:10:26,480 Speaker 2: a tandem instead of a side by side and you 198 00:10:26,520 --> 00:10:28,800 Speaker 2: said we were there is if you can show the 199 00:10:28,840 --> 00:10:30,480 Speaker 2: court that there is no way in the world that 200 00:10:30,559 --> 00:10:32,920 Speaker 2: you would have purchased an apartment with a tandem car 201 00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:36,280 Speaker 2: space and have reasons for that, whether it be mobility 202 00:10:36,360 --> 00:10:38,680 Speaker 2: or the like, then the court will assist you in 203 00:10:38,960 --> 00:10:41,000 Speaker 2: getting out of that contract or at the very least 204 00:10:41,040 --> 00:10:45,120 Speaker 2: getting compensation. And it will all come down to what 205 00:10:45,920 --> 00:10:50,800 Speaker 2: negotiations happen with the outset, would either developer or the agent. 206 00:10:51,400 --> 00:10:54,680 Speaker 2: And again if there is a for example, you wanted 207 00:10:54,679 --> 00:10:57,199 Speaker 2: the car space next to the lift and you were 208 00:10:57,240 --> 00:11:00,480 Speaker 2: assured of that and it doesn't happen, then again another 209 00:11:00,559 --> 00:11:03,200 Speaker 2: mobility question I guess is that would be a real 210 00:11:03,240 --> 00:11:05,760 Speaker 2: issue for you, and therefore you don't want that apartment. 211 00:11:06,520 --> 00:11:10,040 Speaker 2: So it's a matter of degree as to how much 212 00:11:10,600 --> 00:11:15,520 Speaker 2: the contract contracted apartment, for example, differs from that which 213 00:11:15,559 --> 00:11:18,080 Speaker 2: you thought you were going to get, and hues come 214 00:11:18,120 --> 00:11:21,320 Speaker 2: into it that you the glossy brochures give a view 215 00:11:21,400 --> 00:11:25,040 Speaker 2: that goes all a long way up over the other buildings, 216 00:11:25,040 --> 00:11:27,080 Speaker 2: to the coast or whatever, and all of a sudden, 217 00:11:27,160 --> 00:11:29,400 Speaker 2: the ultimate viewers of that you are at all. 218 00:11:29,480 --> 00:11:31,640 Speaker 1: Right then when it gets to the point of choosing 219 00:11:31,720 --> 00:11:34,640 Speaker 1: the ownership structure, so barely in mind, our listeners are 220 00:11:34,640 --> 00:11:36,560 Speaker 1: all around the country, and some of them are all 221 00:11:36,600 --> 00:11:39,280 Speaker 1: around the world. A lots of Aussie expats listen to this. 222 00:11:40,080 --> 00:11:42,040 Speaker 1: There's options in your South Wales that I know of, 223 00:11:42,200 --> 00:11:44,240 Speaker 1: But if they're different interstate, maybe you might want to 224 00:11:44,280 --> 00:11:48,320 Speaker 1: just highlight that they may be different interstate around tenants 225 00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:52,520 Speaker 1: in common versus joint tenancy ownership of property. So my 226 00:11:52,600 --> 00:11:57,400 Speaker 1: understanding is that joint tenancy there's no identifiable percentage split. 227 00:11:57,440 --> 00:12:00,880 Speaker 1: It's just joined wholly together. If one person dies, the 228 00:12:00,960 --> 00:12:04,800 Speaker 1: surviving person takes that property one hundred percent. But tenants 229 00:12:04,800 --> 00:12:07,319 Speaker 1: in common there's a percentage ownership, So it could be 230 00:12:07,360 --> 00:12:10,640 Speaker 1: fifty to fifty could be thirty three, thirty three, thirty fourth, 231 00:12:10,679 --> 00:12:14,200 Speaker 1: there's three people or whatever you determine that split to be. 232 00:12:14,440 --> 00:12:17,320 Speaker 1: So I was curious around what's the default structure, is 233 00:12:17,360 --> 00:12:20,280 Speaker 1: this a national thing? And any commentsal guidance you have 234 00:12:20,320 --> 00:12:20,960 Speaker 1: around this. 235 00:12:21,400 --> 00:12:24,120 Speaker 2: Well, I think you've almost answered your own question. Jatly, 236 00:12:24,559 --> 00:12:27,520 Speaker 2: joint tenancy operates under the law of survivorship. Yes, the 237 00:12:27,600 --> 00:12:30,880 Speaker 2: survivor will take and there will be a notice of death. 238 00:12:31,080 --> 00:12:34,360 Speaker 2: For example, if a deceased joint tenant is there, then 239 00:12:34,559 --> 00:12:37,280 Speaker 2: the surviving joint tenant will be able to transfer that 240 00:12:37,320 --> 00:12:40,959 Speaker 2: property to themselves without stamp duty because that law of 241 00:12:41,000 --> 00:12:46,280 Speaker 2: survivorship overrides any duty transaction. If, however, it's tenants in common, 242 00:12:46,320 --> 00:12:49,840 Speaker 2: you're correct. They can be in any number of percentage shares. 243 00:12:50,360 --> 00:12:54,199 Speaker 2: The front page of the new South Wales Standard Contract 244 00:12:54,240 --> 00:12:57,679 Speaker 2: the Sale of Land has a capitalized box at the 245 00:12:57,679 --> 00:13:01,480 Speaker 2: bottom which says joint tenancy. But you have a choice 246 00:13:01,559 --> 00:13:03,960 Speaker 2: to tick a second box to have a tenants in 247 00:13:03,960 --> 00:13:07,920 Speaker 2: common and then a further option to say what percentage shares. 248 00:13:08,000 --> 00:13:11,200 Speaker 2: That that tendency in common is to be there quite 249 00:13:11,240 --> 00:13:14,240 Speaker 2: often and you'd be well aware of this through the 250 00:13:14,280 --> 00:13:17,520 Speaker 2: finance world is that there is often a requirement, often 251 00:13:17,559 --> 00:13:20,720 Speaker 2: a request to have a one percent ownership of a 252 00:13:20,760 --> 00:13:23,680 Speaker 2: party with a ninety nine percent to the other as 253 00:13:23,720 --> 00:13:27,880 Speaker 2: tenants in common. And that's often just for asset protection purposes, 254 00:13:28,280 --> 00:13:30,480 Speaker 2: so you can, but you can choose any number of 255 00:13:30,559 --> 00:13:35,120 Speaker 2: percentages that you need to reflect the arrangement between the parties. 256 00:13:35,320 --> 00:13:35,600 Speaker 2: Got it. 257 00:13:35,600 --> 00:13:38,920 Speaker 1: So joint tendency is the default unless you elect otherwise 258 00:13:38,920 --> 00:13:41,800 Speaker 1: for tenants in common. And is this to your knowledge? 259 00:13:41,800 --> 00:13:43,400 Speaker 1: I know that you're more an expert in yourself Wales. 260 00:13:43,400 --> 00:13:46,760 Speaker 1: But across the country, do they have a similar system. 261 00:13:46,920 --> 00:13:50,080 Speaker 2: Yeah, they do because it's based on common law, that 262 00:13:50,160 --> 00:13:52,960 Speaker 2: law of survivorship, so yes they do. The how it 263 00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:55,400 Speaker 2: comes out in a contract might be slightly different, but 264 00:13:55,480 --> 00:13:58,720 Speaker 2: the basic, the fundamental law behind it will be national. 265 00:13:59,240 --> 00:14:02,280 Speaker 2: And I guess the tenants in common aspect is often 266 00:14:02,559 --> 00:14:05,960 Speaker 2: for parties who are joining together to invest, for example, 267 00:14:06,280 --> 00:14:08,720 Speaker 2: And there are other aspects of it in a state 268 00:14:08,760 --> 00:14:11,280 Speaker 2: planning that can be useful. But but you're correct that 269 00:14:11,679 --> 00:14:14,520 Speaker 2: New South Wales is a largely joint tendency to fault 270 00:14:14,559 --> 00:14:17,920 Speaker 2: in contracts, but it's available in all other jurisdictions. 271 00:14:18,480 --> 00:14:21,160 Speaker 1: Okay, Now, let's roll our sleeves up. We've got a 272 00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:26,560 Speaker 1: theoretical property dispute around boundaries. So say we'll call him John. 273 00:14:26,640 --> 00:14:30,000 Speaker 1: John wants to build a fence, but his neighbor Steve 274 00:14:30,160 --> 00:14:33,040 Speaker 1: doesn't want to share in the cost so or doesn't 275 00:14:33,040 --> 00:14:35,640 Speaker 1: want to help with the conveyance in. So how can 276 00:14:35,880 --> 00:14:38,440 Speaker 1: John build this retaining wall that's in the risk of 277 00:14:38,480 --> 00:14:41,400 Speaker 1: collapse in And what happens if there's one person on 278 00:14:41,400 --> 00:14:43,400 Speaker 1: the higher side or the lower side. Does that make 279 00:14:43,520 --> 00:14:47,200 Speaker 1: a difference, And just boundaries in general, because that can 280 00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:49,680 Speaker 1: cause a lot of contention between neighbors. 281 00:14:50,200 --> 00:14:53,760 Speaker 2: Yeah, the distinction you need to draw is between a 282 00:14:53,840 --> 00:14:57,760 Speaker 2: boundary fense and a retaining wall. So in New South 283 00:14:57,800 --> 00:15:01,280 Speaker 2: Wales again, and there are I'm aware of similar pieces 284 00:15:01,280 --> 00:15:04,200 Speaker 2: of legislation in other states, so I'm sure that the 285 00:15:04,280 --> 00:15:07,960 Speaker 2: law is basically the same with different legislation though. But 286 00:15:08,080 --> 00:15:11,560 Speaker 2: in New South Wales the Dividing Fences Act deals with 287 00:15:12,160 --> 00:15:17,680 Speaker 2: various definitions, and a dividing fence is basically a fence, 288 00:15:18,000 --> 00:15:21,960 Speaker 2: whether it's made of color, bond, piling fence, whatever, just 289 00:15:22,000 --> 00:15:26,200 Speaker 2: to divide two pieces of land. It can be exactly 290 00:15:26,240 --> 00:15:28,880 Speaker 2: on the boundary or close enough, so it defines a 291 00:15:29,000 --> 00:15:33,440 Speaker 2: distinction between the two different lots. A retaining wall is 292 00:15:33,520 --> 00:15:37,840 Speaker 2: excluded from the definition of dividing fence unless it is 293 00:15:38,080 --> 00:15:42,680 Speaker 2: supporting a fence. So in your example of higher and lower, 294 00:15:43,000 --> 00:15:46,080 Speaker 2: if it's only supporting an embankment or a garden of 295 00:15:46,080 --> 00:15:49,560 Speaker 2: a terrace or a pool or whatever, and it doesn't 296 00:15:50,240 --> 00:15:54,120 Speaker 2: support an actual fence, so for example, it hasn't got 297 00:15:54,320 --> 00:15:58,280 Speaker 2: fence posts secured into it, then it isn't covered under 298 00:15:58,320 --> 00:15:59,880 Speaker 2: the Act and you'd have to deal with that. You're 299 00:16:00,960 --> 00:16:04,000 Speaker 2: with the Dividing Fences Act. If you do have a 300 00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:07,120 Speaker 2: need to make a dividing fence between you and your neighbor, 301 00:16:07,560 --> 00:16:10,040 Speaker 2: then the idea is to go and get a quote 302 00:16:10,200 --> 00:16:13,080 Speaker 2: and preferably too, and present those to your neighbor and 303 00:16:13,120 --> 00:16:15,360 Speaker 2: have the discussion about what you want to put up. 304 00:16:15,840 --> 00:16:19,720 Speaker 2: Then if that's agreed, then each party would contribute half 305 00:16:19,760 --> 00:16:22,280 Speaker 2: the cost and off you go. The key to this 306 00:16:22,640 --> 00:16:24,960 Speaker 2: type of discussion is not to just go out and 307 00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:27,320 Speaker 2: do the fence and expect the neighbor to pay half 308 00:16:27,360 --> 00:16:29,760 Speaker 2: when you've finished, because the Act won't give you any 309 00:16:29,800 --> 00:16:33,000 Speaker 2: protection there. You'll be left with the whole cost. So 310 00:16:33,960 --> 00:16:36,960 Speaker 2: if the neighbor, however, is difficult and just says I 311 00:16:36,960 --> 00:16:40,480 Speaker 2: don't want a fence. Then the person who does want 312 00:16:40,520 --> 00:16:44,320 Speaker 2: the fence needs to go to a local court local 313 00:16:44,400 --> 00:16:48,920 Speaker 2: land board to get orders that the neighbor agreed to 314 00:16:49,080 --> 00:16:53,320 Speaker 2: construct a dividing fence. Now a lot of disputes arise 315 00:16:53,360 --> 00:16:56,480 Speaker 2: around what sort of dividing fence is going to be 316 00:16:56,520 --> 00:16:59,760 Speaker 2: put there. So one party wants a five foot pailing, 317 00:17:00,120 --> 00:17:03,200 Speaker 2: the otherland wants a fancy lapped and captain this, that 318 00:17:03,320 --> 00:17:06,679 Speaker 2: and the other, or a color bond. Then there can 319 00:17:06,760 --> 00:17:09,399 Speaker 2: be dispute about that. The Act says it's got to 320 00:17:09,400 --> 00:17:12,560 Speaker 2: be a standard fence for the area, so that if 321 00:17:12,600 --> 00:17:17,200 Speaker 2: you live in a subdivision that's got ninety percent paling fence, 322 00:17:17,720 --> 00:17:20,440 Speaker 2: then you're not going to get much support from a court. 323 00:17:20,440 --> 00:17:22,920 Speaker 2: If you want to put an eight foot color bond fence, 324 00:17:23,600 --> 00:17:28,240 Speaker 2: it will be a general discussion about what is standard 325 00:17:28,240 --> 00:17:30,480 Speaker 2: for the area, and you get to a point where 326 00:17:30,480 --> 00:17:32,720 Speaker 2: you have to prove that by photos and the like 327 00:17:32,840 --> 00:17:35,119 Speaker 2: to prove, and then a court has to decide whether 328 00:17:35,160 --> 00:17:37,840 Speaker 2: they think that is or is a standard. Rural properties 329 00:17:37,880 --> 00:17:42,960 Speaker 2: have another issue surrounding what is required on a dividing 330 00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:45,280 Speaker 2: fence and what the use of the land is, so 331 00:17:45,520 --> 00:17:47,679 Speaker 2: you know, do you need something that keeps cattle in 332 00:17:47,760 --> 00:17:51,119 Speaker 2: do you not? Is it a full on post and 333 00:17:51,240 --> 00:17:53,760 Speaker 2: rail which is very expensive, or is it just barb 334 00:17:53,800 --> 00:17:57,000 Speaker 2: wire and a couple of star pickets. So there are 335 00:17:57,000 --> 00:17:59,040 Speaker 2: all discussions that you need to have with your neighbor 336 00:17:59,080 --> 00:18:00,640 Speaker 2: otherwise you can up in court. 337 00:18:01,600 --> 00:18:04,760 Speaker 1: Lovely, very clear. I thank you, Peter. Now, before we 338 00:18:04,880 --> 00:18:07,120 Speaker 1: move on and have a look at retirement and estate 339 00:18:07,160 --> 00:18:18,120 Speaker 1: plan in, let's take a short break. Hello, and welcome 340 00:18:18,160 --> 00:18:20,280 Speaker 1: back to the Money Puzzle. I'm James Gerard right, a 341 00:18:20,280 --> 00:18:22,520 Speaker 1: contributor to the Wealth section of The Australian and also 342 00:18:22,600 --> 00:18:25,919 Speaker 1: financial advisor with Financial Advisor dot com dot Au. And 343 00:18:26,080 --> 00:18:28,360 Speaker 1: this week on the show I have Peter Kernan from 344 00:18:28,400 --> 00:18:31,800 Speaker 1: Aubrey Brown Lawyers. Now, Peter, everyone tells us it's bad 345 00:18:31,840 --> 00:18:34,360 Speaker 1: to die without a will, but is it really that bad? 346 00:18:34,400 --> 00:18:36,919 Speaker 1: What happens if we do die without a will in Australia? 347 00:18:37,200 --> 00:18:39,320 Speaker 1: How are your assets divided and who decides? 348 00:18:40,400 --> 00:18:43,000 Speaker 2: Well, if you'll excuse the pun, James, it's not fatal 349 00:18:43,040 --> 00:18:46,000 Speaker 2: to your estate planning, but it is certainly going to 350 00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:49,320 Speaker 2: make life a lot more complicated in more cases than 351 00:18:49,359 --> 00:18:53,040 Speaker 2: not to have a will will allow you to determine 352 00:18:53,080 --> 00:18:55,879 Speaker 2: where your estate goes. If you don't have a will, 353 00:18:56,160 --> 00:18:58,000 Speaker 2: there is a risk that it doesn't go to where 354 00:18:58,040 --> 00:19:02,160 Speaker 2: you want, so the term is intestate. If you die 355 00:19:02,160 --> 00:19:05,159 Speaker 2: without a will, you die and testate, then that brings 356 00:19:05,200 --> 00:19:08,760 Speaker 2: in a pieces of legislation, being the Succession Act in 357 00:19:08,800 --> 00:19:12,880 Speaker 2: New South Wales and they're very similar provisions in other jurisdictions, 358 00:19:13,400 --> 00:19:16,359 Speaker 2: so that there is a statutory order. So if you 359 00:19:16,440 --> 00:19:20,439 Speaker 2: pass away and your only living relatives are your parents, 360 00:19:20,800 --> 00:19:23,960 Speaker 2: then they would share equally. Then it goes down to 361 00:19:24,240 --> 00:19:27,720 Speaker 2: so it goes to spouse, children and then parents and 362 00:19:27,760 --> 00:19:30,119 Speaker 2: then write down in New South Wales to a first cousin. 363 00:19:30,800 --> 00:19:35,680 Speaker 2: But the issues arise it's largely surrounding spouses and children 364 00:19:35,760 --> 00:19:38,639 Speaker 2: and determining who is a spouse and who is a child. 365 00:19:39,680 --> 00:19:44,200 Speaker 2: So simple example of a bad result from not having 366 00:19:44,240 --> 00:19:48,320 Speaker 2: a will is if, for example, a child died in 367 00:19:48,359 --> 00:19:53,920 Speaker 2: a work accident and received a payout from an insurance 368 00:19:53,920 --> 00:19:58,000 Speaker 2: company and didn't have a will and there were and 369 00:19:58,320 --> 00:20:01,040 Speaker 2: didn't have any children, then it would go to the 370 00:20:01,080 --> 00:20:05,840 Speaker 2: parents of that child. Now, if those parents are both 371 00:20:05,880 --> 00:20:08,520 Speaker 2: living together and have been forever, then that's great, But 372 00:20:08,600 --> 00:20:11,120 Speaker 2: if one parent hasn't been on the scene for ten 373 00:20:11,200 --> 00:20:14,199 Speaker 2: years and hasn't spoken to that child, for example, for 374 00:20:14,280 --> 00:20:18,480 Speaker 2: ten years, then it's certainly not ideal because that parent 375 00:20:18,520 --> 00:20:22,439 Speaker 2: would share in half that insurance pay out without without 376 00:20:22,480 --> 00:20:25,199 Speaker 2: any real knowledge of the child or any involvement in 377 00:20:25,240 --> 00:20:29,520 Speaker 2: that child's life. That's just one pretty simple example. Then 378 00:20:29,640 --> 00:20:34,080 Speaker 2: the other issues arise is, well, if you are a spouse, 379 00:20:34,280 --> 00:20:37,280 Speaker 2: then you can still be a spouse even though you've separated. 380 00:20:37,760 --> 00:20:40,960 Speaker 2: So you might have been separated from your partner for 381 00:20:41,160 --> 00:20:44,280 Speaker 2: ten years just haven't got around to divorcing, then you're 382 00:20:44,320 --> 00:20:47,440 Speaker 2: still a spouse. You can be in another relationship completely. 383 00:20:47,920 --> 00:20:50,840 Speaker 2: If you pass away, then your ex spouse, for example, 384 00:20:51,119 --> 00:20:53,200 Speaker 2: can share in your estate. If you don't have a will, 385 00:20:53,760 --> 00:20:56,639 Speaker 2: then there's the other spouse related discussion is around to 386 00:20:56,720 --> 00:20:59,879 Speaker 2: facto partners and proving that they are or are not 387 00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:04,960 Speaker 2: a de facto partner. And once you've been together as 388 00:21:05,000 --> 00:21:08,000 Speaker 2: a de facto partner for living together as man and 389 00:21:08,040 --> 00:21:11,080 Speaker 2: wife for say two years, and or there's a child 390 00:21:11,160 --> 00:21:15,639 Speaker 2: involved or child from that relationship, then it's likely that 391 00:21:15,720 --> 00:21:19,240 Speaker 2: there is a de facto relationship. However, there are lots 392 00:21:19,320 --> 00:21:23,520 Speaker 2: of cases where this hasn't been so clear where there's 393 00:21:23,560 --> 00:21:28,360 Speaker 2: been periods of cohabitation, periods of breaks in cohabitation, and 394 00:21:28,480 --> 00:21:32,920 Speaker 2: just generally more than one person potentially suggesting their de 395 00:21:33,000 --> 00:21:36,879 Speaker 2: factos with the deceased. Then you have the children problem 396 00:21:37,080 --> 00:21:40,320 Speaker 2: is determining who is a child, and there are often 397 00:21:40,480 --> 00:21:44,959 Speaker 2: arguments about that and or children that may potentially come 398 00:21:44,960 --> 00:21:47,359 Speaker 2: out of the woodwork where that to the other party 399 00:21:47,359 --> 00:21:50,320 Speaker 2: doesn't know about this child, and so that's another risk 400 00:21:50,880 --> 00:21:56,280 Speaker 2: and the having a valid will will do it's best 401 00:21:56,320 --> 00:21:58,480 Speaker 2: to make sure that your estate goes to where you 402 00:21:58,520 --> 00:21:59,080 Speaker 2: want it to go. 403 00:22:00,040 --> 00:22:02,040 Speaker 1: Sounds like that's the case. And something I can add 404 00:22:02,080 --> 00:22:04,880 Speaker 1: is that my first job was a traineeship with the 405 00:22:04,960 --> 00:22:08,000 Speaker 1: public Trustee about twenty years ago, maybe a little bit 406 00:22:08,040 --> 00:22:11,439 Speaker 1: longer than that ago, and my observation I was in 407 00:22:11,440 --> 00:22:14,240 Speaker 1: the finance and accounting area, but my observation in the 408 00:22:14,560 --> 00:22:17,600 Speaker 1: estate's administration team was that it's quite a lengthy process. 409 00:22:17,600 --> 00:22:19,800 Speaker 1: It wasn't something that's happened in a month or two. 410 00:22:19,880 --> 00:22:22,680 Speaker 1: It could go into years in some cases to wind 411 00:22:22,720 --> 00:22:24,840 Speaker 1: up a states if there was no wills, trying to 412 00:22:24,920 --> 00:22:27,760 Speaker 1: locate that the family members and make decisions and wind 413 00:22:27,800 --> 00:22:30,359 Speaker 1: up assets, and of course there's costs as well, and 414 00:22:30,840 --> 00:22:32,720 Speaker 1: they may not be accurate today because my reference point 415 00:22:32,760 --> 00:22:34,399 Speaker 1: is twenty years ago, but it was a few percent 416 00:22:34,480 --> 00:22:36,160 Speaker 1: of the state at that time that the government would 417 00:22:36,160 --> 00:22:40,320 Speaker 1: take as their administration fees to look after the assets 418 00:22:40,320 --> 00:22:43,159 Speaker 1: and distribute as per the legislation if there's no will 419 00:22:43,280 --> 00:22:46,760 Speaker 1: in place. So moving on to writing the will or 420 00:22:46,800 --> 00:22:49,879 Speaker 1: updating a will, any tips on who you should appoint 421 00:22:49,960 --> 00:22:55,280 Speaker 1: as an executor. Should it be your spouse, parents, brothers, sisters, 422 00:22:55,480 --> 00:22:59,119 Speaker 1: your accountant, what do you think they're Yeah. 423 00:22:58,800 --> 00:23:02,360 Speaker 2: The executive is from someone who's close to the family. 424 00:23:02,760 --> 00:23:05,760 Speaker 2: So the obvious and the usual case in a husband 425 00:23:05,880 --> 00:23:09,040 Speaker 2: wife arrangement or the facto partner arrangement is that each 426 00:23:09,560 --> 00:23:12,880 Speaker 2: party would appoint the other as their executor. So that's 427 00:23:12,960 --> 00:23:17,399 Speaker 2: fairly simple. That's not again, it's not essential to have 428 00:23:17,440 --> 00:23:20,359 Speaker 2: a valid will. You can, even with a partner, appoint 429 00:23:20,400 --> 00:23:23,960 Speaker 2: another executor, for example, an accountant or a lawyer, because 430 00:23:24,040 --> 00:23:28,480 Speaker 2: the spouse has a little aptitude in financial matters and 431 00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:31,960 Speaker 2: the party making the world decides that won't be very 432 00:23:31,960 --> 00:23:35,359 Speaker 2: easy on that other spouse. And sometimes there can be 433 00:23:35,520 --> 00:23:38,520 Speaker 2: the language barriers as well. It might be better to 434 00:23:38,520 --> 00:23:42,080 Speaker 2: have someone who is a little bit more across financial 435 00:23:42,119 --> 00:23:46,520 Speaker 2: matters in the relevant country. The other aspect with executors 436 00:23:46,560 --> 00:23:50,480 Speaker 2: is how many your point and in the case of 437 00:23:50,760 --> 00:23:53,520 Speaker 2: the husband wife arrangement, we have appointed one, you have 438 00:23:53,600 --> 00:23:57,680 Speaker 2: to appoint a substitute. For example, both of you pass 439 00:23:57,760 --> 00:24:01,320 Speaker 2: and pass away in an accident, so you would normally 440 00:24:01,359 --> 00:24:04,240 Speaker 2: then appoint, for example, one or two of your children. 441 00:24:05,320 --> 00:24:08,280 Speaker 2: So that's all fine, and that makes sense because they're 442 00:24:08,400 --> 00:24:12,480 Speaker 2: likely to be the beneficiaries. It becomes another discussion if 443 00:24:12,840 --> 00:24:15,560 Speaker 2: there are no children and who you might choose to 444 00:24:15,600 --> 00:24:18,600 Speaker 2: be the executor in those cases. Your example of an 445 00:24:18,600 --> 00:24:22,440 Speaker 2: accountant is clearly one. A lawyer quite often does that role, 446 00:24:22,880 --> 00:24:26,320 Speaker 2: but it's often best to have someone who is close 447 00:24:26,400 --> 00:24:30,080 Speaker 2: to the family, for example siblings, and this is particularly 448 00:24:30,119 --> 00:24:32,960 Speaker 2: so if there are a minor children involved, so that 449 00:24:33,119 --> 00:24:35,679 Speaker 2: the bit of a knowledge of family dynamics for the 450 00:24:35,720 --> 00:24:39,120 Speaker 2: executor will help them get the money where you want 451 00:24:39,160 --> 00:24:43,320 Speaker 2: it to go. So it's an important role and something 452 00:24:43,359 --> 00:24:46,720 Speaker 2: that people need to think seriously about because it can 453 00:24:48,040 --> 00:24:51,119 Speaker 2: mean that there are different outcomes. Despite the fact that 454 00:24:51,160 --> 00:24:54,479 Speaker 2: the will says where it's got to go, where your 455 00:24:54,560 --> 00:24:56,960 Speaker 2: estate's got to go, how it gets there would be 456 00:24:57,280 --> 00:24:59,400 Speaker 2: determined by the attitude of the executive. 457 00:25:00,520 --> 00:25:03,040 Speaker 1: Let's move on to blended families. They're becoming more common 458 00:25:03,200 --> 00:25:07,920 Speaker 1: in Australia. It's a complex area. I'll try and describe 459 00:25:07,920 --> 00:25:11,400 Speaker 1: this as simply as possible, But let's just say there's 460 00:25:11,440 --> 00:25:15,000 Speaker 1: a couple, husband and wife, that they're married, they have children, 461 00:25:15,359 --> 00:25:19,680 Speaker 1: they divorce, the husband moves on, he finds a new partner. 462 00:25:20,240 --> 00:25:24,040 Speaker 1: This new partner she has children as well. They get married, 463 00:25:24,200 --> 00:25:27,520 Speaker 1: so they have step children from each former marriage, and 464 00:25:27,560 --> 00:25:29,800 Speaker 1: then they decide to have a child themselves. So there's 465 00:25:29,920 --> 00:25:33,600 Speaker 1: children from the husband's first marriage, he has step children, 466 00:25:33,760 --> 00:25:37,439 Speaker 1: and he has a child from the second marriage. Now 467 00:25:37,520 --> 00:25:40,399 Speaker 1: it's difficult for him to set his will because he 468 00:25:40,480 --> 00:25:43,919 Speaker 1: may want to provide something for his child from the 469 00:25:43,920 --> 00:25:47,119 Speaker 1: first marriage, but the wife from the second marriage may 470 00:25:47,119 --> 00:25:50,119 Speaker 1: have different views on that and may want more of 471 00:25:50,160 --> 00:25:52,320 Speaker 1: the line's share of the wealth to go to their 472 00:25:52,400 --> 00:25:56,560 Speaker 1: joint child. And there's the risk that if he predeceases 473 00:25:56,680 --> 00:25:59,520 Speaker 1: her the second wife, that the second wife could change 474 00:25:59,520 --> 00:26:02,520 Speaker 1: her will and cut out the child from his first 475 00:26:02,520 --> 00:26:06,840 Speaker 1: marriage and maybe give money to her daughter, which is 476 00:26:06,840 --> 00:26:09,360 Speaker 1: not biologically his. So I guess, in a long way 477 00:26:09,359 --> 00:26:13,160 Speaker 1: of saying, is that if he passes away, his intention 478 00:26:13,240 --> 00:26:15,760 Speaker 1: of where he wanted his money to go could change. 479 00:26:15,800 --> 00:26:18,360 Speaker 1: If it's the case of well, I'll leave you everything 480 00:26:18,400 --> 00:26:20,520 Speaker 1: i e. My spouse, and then when you pass away, 481 00:26:21,040 --> 00:26:23,720 Speaker 1: you distribute it as per what we've mutually agreed. But 482 00:26:23,760 --> 00:26:26,679 Speaker 1: that mutual agreement could change after someone passes away. So 483 00:26:26,960 --> 00:26:28,000 Speaker 1: how do we protect against this? 484 00:26:28,359 --> 00:26:31,639 Speaker 2: Yeah, they're like trust in the relationship is of course 485 00:26:31,760 --> 00:26:34,879 Speaker 2: very very important. You can just trust your partner to 486 00:26:34,920 --> 00:26:36,920 Speaker 2: do the right thing. Now, a lot of people don't 487 00:26:36,920 --> 00:26:38,800 Speaker 2: have any issue with that when you ask the question, 488 00:26:39,119 --> 00:26:41,040 Speaker 2: but a lot of people, of course do. And as 489 00:26:41,080 --> 00:26:44,400 Speaker 2: you say, a second spouse, Mike might feel threatened by 490 00:26:44,520 --> 00:26:48,040 Speaker 2: a child from a previous relationship. There are various ways 491 00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:50,800 Speaker 2: to do it. You can, for example, if you have 492 00:26:50,840 --> 00:26:53,680 Speaker 2: a principal place of residence, you can have that in 493 00:26:53,840 --> 00:26:57,840 Speaker 2: the previously discussed tenants in common, so that fifty percent 494 00:26:58,119 --> 00:27:01,879 Speaker 2: of the property would go for exams would go pursue 495 00:27:01,920 --> 00:27:04,320 Speaker 2: it to your will to whoever you leave it to. So, 496 00:27:04,480 --> 00:27:09,040 Speaker 2: for example, a husband might leave his half the house 497 00:27:09,240 --> 00:27:12,560 Speaker 2: to children from his first marriage, and that would enable 498 00:27:12,960 --> 00:27:16,480 Speaker 2: the wife to do the same. In that case, the 499 00:27:16,520 --> 00:27:19,159 Speaker 2: primary concern should be for the wife to still have 500 00:27:19,160 --> 00:27:21,960 Speaker 2: accommodation and be able to live in that home. So 501 00:27:22,440 --> 00:27:24,840 Speaker 2: you can leave a life estate in that home to 502 00:27:25,480 --> 00:27:28,600 Speaker 2: the wife so that or the husband so that they 503 00:27:28,640 --> 00:27:31,760 Speaker 2: can live there until they no longer are able or 504 00:27:31,800 --> 00:27:35,479 Speaker 2: willing to, and then the estate can be passed on 505 00:27:35,520 --> 00:27:39,240 Speaker 2: that basis. So that's one possibility. You've referred to the 506 00:27:39,320 --> 00:27:43,440 Speaker 2: changing of the intention of parties after one party dies, 507 00:27:43,480 --> 00:27:47,399 Speaker 2: and that's common in that the relationship survived because of 508 00:27:47,480 --> 00:27:50,840 Speaker 2: the influence, for example, the father of a children from 509 00:27:50,880 --> 00:27:53,159 Speaker 2: a previous relationship, But as soon as the father is 510 00:27:53,160 --> 00:27:58,600 Speaker 2: not there, then the wife sort of feels less threatened, 511 00:27:58,600 --> 00:28:02,560 Speaker 2: perhaps able to then perhaps change to what you really 512 00:28:02,560 --> 00:28:05,040 Speaker 2: always wanted the whole way along was to get rid 513 00:28:05,119 --> 00:28:08,159 Speaker 2: of the children from the first marriage. You can do 514 00:28:08,240 --> 00:28:12,920 Speaker 2: what's called mutual wills, where you are making a contract 515 00:28:13,000 --> 00:28:16,280 Speaker 2: not to change your will after the party passes away. 516 00:28:17,200 --> 00:28:21,400 Speaker 2: They are not recommended in common in recent times if 517 00:28:21,720 --> 00:28:24,320 Speaker 2: it's been a while since have been recommended really because 518 00:28:24,720 --> 00:28:29,080 Speaker 2: things change too much and it does stop a spouse remarrying, 519 00:28:29,560 --> 00:28:31,760 Speaker 2: for example, if that's and you might not want to 520 00:28:31,800 --> 00:28:34,040 Speaker 2: do that and want to put that pressure and or 521 00:28:34,200 --> 00:28:39,000 Speaker 2: restriction on a spouse. Then also it has the potential 522 00:28:39,120 --> 00:28:43,040 Speaker 2: is that the spouse just dissipates the estate anyway, because 523 00:28:43,080 --> 00:28:46,440 Speaker 2: it doesn't the will doesn't change, but what the will 524 00:28:46,880 --> 00:28:50,160 Speaker 2: deals with changes a lot because they can just move 525 00:28:50,200 --> 00:28:53,200 Speaker 2: the assets out of the estate without fear or favor, 526 00:28:53,360 --> 00:28:56,560 Speaker 2: and then that doesn't really have any effect. So the 527 00:28:56,640 --> 00:28:59,560 Speaker 2: only other way, the only other way, but another way 528 00:28:59,640 --> 00:29:02,640 Speaker 2: is that the use of a testamentary trust in a 529 00:29:02,720 --> 00:29:06,360 Speaker 2: will where you specify that the spouse is to have 530 00:29:06,520 --> 00:29:09,920 Speaker 2: the benefit of the estate and it's managed by another 531 00:29:10,200 --> 00:29:13,480 Speaker 2: independent trustee. You can manage it the estate for the 532 00:29:13,560 --> 00:29:16,880 Speaker 2: spouse's benefit and then ensuring that the capital of the 533 00:29:17,040 --> 00:29:19,719 Speaker 2: estate is at least preserved to a degree so that 534 00:29:19,800 --> 00:29:23,200 Speaker 2: the children can be nominated as the default beneficiaries after 535 00:29:23,280 --> 00:29:24,720 Speaker 2: the white passes away. 536 00:29:25,760 --> 00:29:29,000 Speaker 1: Thank you, Peter. Very clear from sounds that it's not 537 00:29:29,120 --> 00:29:31,080 Speaker 1: a case of right your own will if you have 538 00:29:31,080 --> 00:29:34,080 Speaker 1: a blended family. Really seeks like it's worthwhile getting proper 539 00:29:34,120 --> 00:29:37,720 Speaker 1: legal advice on that one. So before we go any further, 540 00:29:37,800 --> 00:29:48,040 Speaker 1: let's take another short break. Hello and welcome back to 541 00:29:48,080 --> 00:29:50,480 Speaker 1: the Money Puzzle. I'm James Gerard, writer contributor to the 542 00:29:50,520 --> 00:29:53,080 Speaker 1: Wealth section of the Australian and also Financial advisor with 543 00:29:53,200 --> 00:29:56,360 Speaker 1: financial advisor dot Com today you and on this week's show, 544 00:29:56,360 --> 00:29:59,600 Speaker 1: I have Peter Kernan from Aubrey Brown Lawyers. Now, before 545 00:29:59,640 --> 00:30:02,480 Speaker 1: we get in to the subject of general taxation, general 546 00:30:02,560 --> 00:30:04,959 Speaker 1: law matters, well, I just want to say that to 547 00:30:04,960 --> 00:30:06,840 Speaker 1: all our listeners that this is general advice and not 548 00:30:06,880 --> 00:30:09,640 Speaker 1: personal advice, so please seek out a qualified advisor before 549 00:30:09,640 --> 00:30:12,960 Speaker 1: making any decisions. The first one we cover is on 550 00:30:13,280 --> 00:30:17,160 Speaker 1: family and friends buying investments together. This could be Peter 551 00:30:17,280 --> 00:30:21,120 Speaker 1: maybe starting a business or buying an investment property together. 552 00:30:21,160 --> 00:30:24,520 Speaker 1: They're pulling their resources together to try and start or 553 00:30:24,520 --> 00:30:26,400 Speaker 1: buy something good or bad idea. 554 00:30:26,480 --> 00:30:31,000 Speaker 2: In your experience, it's always a good idea at the start, James. 555 00:30:31,080 --> 00:30:35,000 Speaker 2: It's these things always start from great ideas and quite 556 00:30:35,040 --> 00:30:37,400 Speaker 2: often you know, everything works well and the parties are 557 00:30:37,440 --> 00:30:40,680 Speaker 2: successful and it works really well for everyone's mutual benefit. 558 00:30:41,200 --> 00:30:44,440 Speaker 2: But there are of course plenty that don't work very well. 559 00:30:45,040 --> 00:30:48,560 Speaker 2: The critical thing in these is always documenting what the 560 00:30:48,600 --> 00:30:52,040 Speaker 2: agreement is between you. A simple example would be that 561 00:30:52,200 --> 00:30:54,600 Speaker 2: two people want to get together and buy a house 562 00:30:54,960 --> 00:30:58,640 Speaker 2: which they intend to do a renovation and sell for 563 00:30:58,760 --> 00:31:00,920 Speaker 2: profit and then move on to actually to do more. 564 00:31:01,280 --> 00:31:05,120 Speaker 2: The issues there become what happens if one party has 565 00:31:05,320 --> 00:31:07,880 Speaker 2: something before them that needs meets, they need the money 566 00:31:07,920 --> 00:31:10,400 Speaker 2: back out. How do you get the money out? And 567 00:31:10,480 --> 00:31:13,600 Speaker 2: the agreements can deal with that. The main thing, though, 568 00:31:13,680 --> 00:31:15,880 Speaker 2: is to document how it's to work until you get 569 00:31:15,880 --> 00:31:18,959 Speaker 2: to that point. So for example, if one party is 570 00:31:19,000 --> 00:31:24,400 Speaker 2: going to contribute maybe their expertise in architectural terms, and 571 00:31:24,480 --> 00:31:27,040 Speaker 2: another one he's a plumber and he's going to contribute 572 00:31:27,040 --> 00:31:29,240 Speaker 2: his labor, all that sort of stuff is as long 573 00:31:29,240 --> 00:31:32,000 Speaker 2: as it's documented, then you can at least have a 574 00:31:32,040 --> 00:31:35,360 Speaker 2: starting point if there any dispute arises as to what 575 00:31:35,400 --> 00:31:39,000 Speaker 2: the agreement really was. You can also have a co 576 00:31:39,080 --> 00:31:42,720 Speaker 2: owners agreement, so for example, people buy a house to 577 00:31:42,800 --> 00:31:44,840 Speaker 2: a pre existing house, they're just going to rent it 578 00:31:45,040 --> 00:31:47,560 Speaker 2: and hang on to it and hopefully settle it a 579 00:31:47,560 --> 00:31:50,040 Speaker 2: profit in the future. You've got to set out who 580 00:31:50,080 --> 00:31:53,640 Speaker 2: pays the rates, who maintains it, the insurance, what happens 581 00:31:53,680 --> 00:31:57,040 Speaker 2: if something needs fixing. And then again the critical one 582 00:31:57,160 --> 00:31:59,960 Speaker 2: is what happens if someone wants to leave the arrangement. 583 00:32:00,360 --> 00:32:04,480 Speaker 2: And that's always where the problems arise, because if someone 584 00:32:04,520 --> 00:32:07,440 Speaker 2: wants their money out of the arrangement and the other 585 00:32:07,480 --> 00:32:12,040 Speaker 2: one doesn't want to, then there's a stalemate, so that 586 00:32:12,280 --> 00:32:16,040 Speaker 2: because you can't sell the property without everyone agreeing. So 587 00:32:16,400 --> 00:32:20,360 Speaker 2: either it's mediation, which you should always have mediation clauses 588 00:32:20,400 --> 00:32:23,320 Speaker 2: in agreements of this nature, or you have to head 589 00:32:23,320 --> 00:32:26,640 Speaker 2: to court to have an arrangement approved and or finalized 590 00:32:26,680 --> 00:32:29,040 Speaker 2: by the court so that one party can get out. 591 00:32:29,480 --> 00:32:31,640 Speaker 2: You know, you can of course get someone else in 592 00:32:31,680 --> 00:32:34,120 Speaker 2: to take over the share of the other party, but 593 00:32:34,480 --> 00:32:38,240 Speaker 2: it's often the case that that's when the disputes arise. 594 00:32:38,760 --> 00:32:41,120 Speaker 2: Same in business, if you go to start a company, 595 00:32:41,640 --> 00:32:44,720 Speaker 2: to run a business, then you should have a shareholder's 596 00:32:44,760 --> 00:32:48,960 Speaker 2: agreement or a partnership agreement, depending upon the structure, which 597 00:32:49,040 --> 00:32:52,560 Speaker 2: documents who does what and how money gets spent, and 598 00:32:52,640 --> 00:32:55,920 Speaker 2: again what happens if someone wants to leave, how do 599 00:32:55,960 --> 00:32:57,920 Speaker 2: they leave, how do their shares get sold, how do 600 00:32:57,920 --> 00:33:00,280 Speaker 2: they get valued? All of those clauses should. 601 00:33:00,080 --> 00:33:03,040 Speaker 1: Be in there absolutely and you get the nail on 602 00:33:03,040 --> 00:33:05,240 Speaker 1: the head with regards to it. All looks good in 603 00:33:05,480 --> 00:33:11,400 Speaker 1: the beginning but sometimes ends in flames and disaster. What 604 00:33:11,480 --> 00:33:15,080 Speaker 1: I suggest to people, not legally informally, is that they 605 00:33:15,120 --> 00:33:17,600 Speaker 1: think about, even though they go into this with best intentions, 606 00:33:17,680 --> 00:33:20,280 Speaker 1: all of the bad, the worst scenarios that could happen, 607 00:33:20,520 --> 00:33:23,280 Speaker 1: and pre plan if this was to occur, how do 608 00:33:23,400 --> 00:33:25,440 Speaker 1: we deal with it? So as much as you can 609 00:33:25,440 --> 00:33:28,640 Speaker 1: think about from the beginning. If these circumstances occur, somebody 610 00:33:28,680 --> 00:33:32,440 Speaker 1: loses interest, they don't have financial capacity anymore, all those 611 00:33:32,480 --> 00:33:35,080 Speaker 1: type of things, how will we deal with about to 612 00:33:35,120 --> 00:33:36,800 Speaker 1: deal with it, so there's an agreement before you go 613 00:33:36,840 --> 00:33:38,880 Speaker 1: into it, so that if these things do happen, that 614 00:33:39,360 --> 00:33:44,560 Speaker 1: it's less likely that it gets messy. Now, next one, 615 00:33:44,840 --> 00:33:47,440 Speaker 1: let's just say that you're a director. You're asked to 616 00:33:47,440 --> 00:33:49,680 Speaker 1: become a director of a business, so you're an employee, 617 00:33:49,720 --> 00:33:54,080 Speaker 1: but you've been promoted and something bad happens at the business. 618 00:33:54,160 --> 00:33:57,000 Speaker 1: So say that the other director has a gambling problem 619 00:33:57,040 --> 00:33:59,000 Speaker 1: and they're spending all the money out of the company 620 00:33:59,000 --> 00:34:01,160 Speaker 1: bank account, but they've been saying they've been paying the 621 00:34:01,240 --> 00:34:05,040 Speaker 1: tax bill. What happens in that case? Are you personally 622 00:34:05,080 --> 00:34:08,080 Speaker 1: liable for this? If the company's been traded in insolvents? 623 00:34:08,120 --> 00:34:10,880 Speaker 1: I guess I'm asking a broader question of although it 624 00:34:10,960 --> 00:34:14,000 Speaker 1: sounds great to be promoted as a director of a business, 625 00:34:14,040 --> 00:34:17,840 Speaker 1: there may be some legal liability or obligations attached to 626 00:34:18,000 --> 00:34:20,520 Speaker 1: that people should think about as well. So could you 627 00:34:20,520 --> 00:34:22,920 Speaker 1: talk us through that at a high level, Peter, Yeah. 628 00:34:22,800 --> 00:34:26,960 Speaker 2: Sure, it's the concept of insolvency you've mentioned that has 629 00:34:27,000 --> 00:34:30,160 Speaker 2: a training. Insolvently means you are unable to pay your 630 00:34:30,200 --> 00:34:33,840 Speaker 2: debts as and when they fooled you. Now, once that happens, 631 00:34:33,960 --> 00:34:37,000 Speaker 2: it's an issue to the directors because they can be 632 00:34:37,040 --> 00:34:39,600 Speaker 2: personally liable for the debts of the company. In that case. 633 00:34:40,440 --> 00:34:45,200 Speaker 2: The example of the gambling director is not uncommon, and 634 00:34:45,400 --> 00:34:47,960 Speaker 2: the risk for the other director is that they'll be 635 00:34:48,040 --> 00:34:50,440 Speaker 2: left holding the bag for one hundred percent of the 636 00:34:50,480 --> 00:34:53,719 Speaker 2: debts of the company. If, for example, the gambling director's 637 00:34:53,719 --> 00:34:56,799 Speaker 2: been the one who has been running their business day 638 00:34:56,800 --> 00:34:59,600 Speaker 2: to day and the other director's been just turning up 639 00:34:59,600 --> 00:35:02,400 Speaker 2: to board meetings, for example, once a month, and hasn't 640 00:35:02,440 --> 00:35:06,279 Speaker 2: really had his finger on the pulse, then then that 641 00:35:06,400 --> 00:35:09,120 Speaker 2: is very liable to be a case of well, you 642 00:35:09,160 --> 00:35:11,799 Speaker 2: didn't know, but you should have known, and then he 643 00:35:11,840 --> 00:35:14,440 Speaker 2: can be held to be personally liable for one hundred 644 00:35:14,440 --> 00:35:17,320 Speaker 2: percent of the debts. For example, if the gambling director 645 00:35:17,640 --> 00:35:21,600 Speaker 2: goes bankrupt or leaves the jurisdiction, then absolutely you can 646 00:35:21,640 --> 00:35:25,880 Speaker 2: be personally liable. The idea if a company is to 647 00:35:25,920 --> 00:35:31,239 Speaker 2: protect directors from from personal liability. But in the case 648 00:35:31,280 --> 00:35:35,359 Speaker 2: of insolvent trading, for example, if a company goes into 649 00:35:35,400 --> 00:35:40,560 Speaker 2: liquidation it's been trading insolvent solvently, then the liquidator is 650 00:35:40,600 --> 00:35:44,040 Speaker 2: going to look very carefully at the directors to determine 651 00:35:44,160 --> 00:35:47,200 Speaker 2: what assets they have and whether they should be pursued 652 00:35:47,239 --> 00:35:51,440 Speaker 2: for insolvent trading to therefore make more money available to creditors. 653 00:35:51,480 --> 00:35:54,480 Speaker 2: So it's something that liquidators look at very closely. 654 00:35:55,760 --> 00:35:57,960 Speaker 1: So for someone who hasn't been a director before but 655 00:35:58,440 --> 00:36:00,480 Speaker 1: has been asked to become one as part of a promotion, 656 00:36:01,440 --> 00:36:03,960 Speaker 1: should they seek legal advice? Is there anything that they 657 00:36:04,000 --> 00:36:07,640 Speaker 1: should do to be prudent and cautious around this if 658 00:36:07,640 --> 00:36:10,360 Speaker 1: they have also a little experience of being a company 659 00:36:10,360 --> 00:36:11,640 Speaker 1: director previously. 660 00:36:11,680 --> 00:36:16,480 Speaker 2: Yeah, I would always recommend that they have a serious 661 00:36:16,600 --> 00:36:20,680 Speaker 2: review of the company's past performance whatever there might be 662 00:36:20,680 --> 00:36:24,840 Speaker 2: publicly available. But if it's a smaller entity, then you 663 00:36:24,880 --> 00:36:29,120 Speaker 2: would certainly be going to the company accountant, and I 664 00:36:29,160 --> 00:36:31,799 Speaker 2: would be putting your own account in touch with the 665 00:36:31,840 --> 00:36:35,160 Speaker 2: company accountant so that they can ask all the pertinent questions. 666 00:36:35,200 --> 00:36:38,600 Speaker 2: Once they've had a look at the passed financials, profit loss, 667 00:36:38,600 --> 00:36:40,600 Speaker 2: the balance sheet, all of those things would need to 668 00:36:40,600 --> 00:36:43,560 Speaker 2: be looked at, and then you make a decision based 669 00:36:43,600 --> 00:36:46,880 Speaker 2: on that advice. Then going forward, you just have to 670 00:36:46,920 --> 00:36:48,680 Speaker 2: have your finger on the pulse. You have to be 671 00:36:48,680 --> 00:36:51,719 Speaker 2: paying attention. You can't let you're not going to get 672 00:36:51,719 --> 00:36:54,320 Speaker 2: away with an excuse. Well he was doing that because 673 00:36:54,360 --> 00:36:57,040 Speaker 2: he was a managing director. I didn't know good advice, 674 00:36:57,719 --> 00:36:58,279 Speaker 2: all right, Beata. 675 00:36:58,280 --> 00:36:59,719 Speaker 1: Well that's a wrap for today. Thank you so much 676 00:36:59,760 --> 00:37:01,800 Speaker 1: for joining us. That was really interesting. We brought to 677 00:37:01,840 --> 00:37:04,279 Speaker 1: the surface a lot of legal issues at intersect with 678 00:37:04,400 --> 00:37:07,120 Speaker 1: finances and our listeners may have been aware of, but 679 00:37:07,160 --> 00:37:09,160 Speaker 1: now they've got a lot more color around it thanks 680 00:37:09,200 --> 00:37:12,200 Speaker 1: to your comments. So Peter Kernan from Aubury Brown Lawyers, 681 00:37:12,200 --> 00:37:13,880 Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today on The 682 00:37:13,880 --> 00:37:14,480 Speaker 1: Money Puzzle. 683 00:37:14,880 --> 00:37:18,280 Speaker 2: James, thank you for having me lean a pleasure, my pleasure. 684 00:37:18,320 --> 00:37:20,279 Speaker 1: Indeed, now to our listeners, thank you for tuning in 685 00:37:20,320 --> 00:37:23,279 Speaker 1: too today's episode of The Money Puzzle. Next week we'll 686 00:37:23,320 --> 00:37:26,560 Speaker 1: return to regular programming. James Kirby, We'll be back from holidays, 687 00:37:26,560 --> 00:37:28,759 Speaker 1: no doubt, full of energy and ready to tackle the 688 00:37:28,800 --> 00:37:30,960 Speaker 1: hot topics of the week and sink his teeth into 689 00:37:31,360 --> 00:37:34,160 Speaker 1: all of the great questions that have accumulated since he's 690 00:37:34,200 --> 00:37:36,439 Speaker 1: been away. And speaking of that, don't forget to send 691 00:37:36,480 --> 00:37:38,120 Speaker 1: us what do you think? Send us your questions and 692 00:37:38,160 --> 00:37:40,960 Speaker 1: comments by tweeting us using the hashtag the Money Puzzle 693 00:37:41,080 --> 00:37:43,600 Speaker 1: or one word, or email us on the Money Puzzle 694 00:37:43,640 --> 00:37:46,480 Speaker 1: at the Australian dot com dot au. Until next time, 695 00:37:46,520 --> 00:37:48,040 Speaker 1: I'm James Gerard. Talk to you soon.