Good morning all, I’m reaching out in hopes someone would be able to provide some guidance. We have a property in Canberra which has tenants in a fix term until March next year. We reside in Sydney in a rental property. Unfortunately we are not able to borrow enough to purchase something while we still have the property in Canberra. Our son starts school next year and we wanted to have purchased a home before he starts school, the area we live in we can’t afford. Even the cheaper areas further out we would be stretching our budget for a not desirable property. Ideally we would like to be settled in a house before he can start school. The only other option I can see would be to sell our property in Canberra (Previous OO). However having a fixed term lease restricts us to only selling to another investor which isn’t ideal. Is there a way we can end the lease with the current tenants? Could we move back into the property temporarily, and then have it on the market a few weeks after. Technically I could move back there and work remotely. Is this possible? Or we move back to Canberra and reside at the property. I am conscious this wouldn't be ideal for the current tenants either and would be willing to compensate them. Please any feedback will be great. I’ve found this all quite stressful. Thanks
Everyone has thier price so as above, discuss with them what it will take to move early. Moving from Sydney, back to Canberra just to sit in a house until it sells, then moving back to Sydney later in the year just sounds like a stupid waste of effort. I'd just keep renting in Sydney, and when the fixed term ends (assuming the tenants won't cacate for a price you are happy with) sell up and buy something in Sydney. At the end of the day there is no rule to say kids can't start schooling if they are in a rental property, and I doubt the kids would be any the wiser either.
You only signed them up again recently, and already changed your mind? Or were they on a 2 year + lease?
First time that i have heard that you HAVE to sell to another investor. I would check about that with your real estate agent. Changes to rental laws in Canberra ban no-cause evictions and soliciting rental bids - ABC News Tenancy agreements can also be terminated if the landlord intends to sell the property,
I think what OP meant was that in ACT (if its a fixed-term agreement), then the property can be sold but the tenant simply remains on their property and their rental repayments go to the new owner. In that case, only an investor would be interested in the property. Armstrong Legal have published a factsheet on their website regarding selling a tenanted property in the ACT. It says: "A lessor or agent can give 8 weeks’ notice to end a fixed-term agreement if they intend to sell the property. After receiving such notice, the tenant can give notice to end the agreement with 3 weeks’ notice during that 8-week period. A tenant can apply to ACT for compensation. Once the Property is sold, the tenant should be given a written notice that states the buyer’s name and address and direct the tenant to make all future rent payments to the buyer or buyer’s agent."
Not much you can do other than try to negotiate with the tenants. Here is the link to the ACT Govt "tenancy termination grounds for landlords" info sheet. https://www.justice.act.gov.au/__da...nancy-Termination-Provisions-1-April-2023.pdf
That ACT govt website that @Todd posted says: "If the agreement is a fixed-term agreement, the tenancy cannot be ended for the purpose of selling the property. Instead, the property can be sold subject to the tenancy continuing for the duration of the fixed term." So what the OP was saying was that they are restricted to selling to another investor (because a prospective OO can't move in to the property until the fixed term is up)
Just a little. I'm surprised by the right to terminate upon death of a lessor but mortgagee in possession is pretty standard.
I don't assume what decision a tribunal will make so I was wondering about it. Only curiosity on my part. Also doesn't appear to cover where the property is in a SMSF and the member dies. Payment of death benefits and all that minor stuff. I suppose it could make for interesting times with Probate and the actions the Executor will need to take. Guess it's all up to the lawyers 20 paces at dawn.
Super law does have a protective mechanism. Excluding reversionary pensions etc a death benefit MUST BE CASHED. Hence an asset may need to be sold to facilitate this. Super law govens this by mention that : REG 6.21. (1) Subject to subregulation (3), a member's benefits in a regulated superannuation fund must be cashed as soon as practicable after the member dies. If a property must be sold to faciliate a death benefit to be paid patience may need to be used to sell. Now waiting four years isnt seemingly soon enough but waiting 6 months may be. However a tenant eviction may not be necessary to sell. BUT...The two paymnets rule can affect this. A fund may only cash by one OR two payments. Not more. This may delay a death benefit to meet that condition. A smsf property has no concern for probate other than for the legal personal representative to be a trustee director or trustee to administer the fund. The fund is not a matter for probate. It is infinitely continuing and doesnt die with the member. Depends how many surviving trustee/s there are. If its a single member fund with a sole Director its more a problem. BUT a spouse can be added as an additional Director and not wait for probate.
