Ketut Royson

Prem wrote:
> Ok I received some legal information, and in our case 'Tenants in
> Common' would apply.

No. You could be legal joint tenants under the arrangement you propose,
but in equity Tim would be 100% owner. There would be no Tenancy in
Common as the wife has no (not even 1%) beneficial ownership.

> I just wonder if the FIRB would agree with Tenants in Common for Tim
> with his (still temporary) spouse migration visa. If someone knows,
> please let me know.

They require any freehold or life interest in urban land to be a
primary place of residence and sold at the end of the temporary
residence period unless the person becomes a permanent resident. It
requires FIRB approval.

Prem

I called the FIRB and got a little extra information:

Tim, having his temporary visa (as spouse of his partner who already
has PV) , awaiting his permanent visa, is able to buy property to live
in (first house) WITHOUT the need for including his partner as co-owner
(I first thought they HAD to buy the property as a couple, but thats
not the case).

As tenants in common wiht 99% Tim - 1% partner is possible but will
attract a lot of attention by the FIRB, however, still possible. He
will need to explain why etc. Because they have a defacto relationship,
it makes things easier.

When he applies for First Home Owner Grant, the grant will probably be
rejected with 99%-1%, or he will have to give evidence of REAL good
reasons for this division of ownership. However, with 80%-20% he will
sure receive his FHOG in normal circumstances.

Prem

(...by the way, for those who dont know, First Home Owner Grant receiving $7000 from Aus Gov for first house bought, but at least one
of the new owners of the house has to be at least a PR.)

Ketut Royson

Prem wrote:
> I called the FIRB and got a little extra information:
>
> Tim, having his temporary visa (as spouse of his partner who already
> has PV) , awaiting his permanent visa, is able to buy property to live
> in (first house) WITHOUT the need for including his partner as co-owner
> (I first thought they HAD to buy the property as a couple, but thats
> not the case).
>
Tim could buy an urban residential property on his own only if it is
his ordinary place of residence. It does not depend on him awaiting a
permanent visa. Anyone ordinarily resident in Australia is allowed to
do that.

> As tenants in common wiht 99% Tim - 1% partner is possible but will
> attract a lot of attention by the FIRB, however, still possible. He
> will need to explain why etc. Because they have a defacto relationship,
> it makes things easier.

As for single ownership it depends on it being his ordinary place of
residence. 100%, 1% no difference.


>
> When he applies for First Home Owner Grant, the grant will probably be
> rejected with 99%-1%, or he will have to give evidence of REAL good
> reasons for this division of ownership. However, with 80%-20% he will
> sure receive his FHOG in normal circumstances.

He needs to be a permanant resident to apply get a first home owners'
grant, and it needs to be his principle place of residence. For him,
99% is better than or the same as 80%. Has his partner owned land
before? That could make a difference too.

Ketut Royson

Prem wrote:
> (...by the way, for those who dont know, First Home Owner Grant > receiving $7000 from Aus Gov for first house bought, but at least one
> of the new owners of the house has to be at least a PR.)

Oh I get it. First thing he does when he gets to Australia is put up a
sham whereby he pretends that an Aussie citizen owns land and he can
scam the first home owners' grant scheme. Beauty! He's a real ideas
man! The kind Australia really needs!

Prem

Dear Ketut Royson,

Allthough it might look so for you, Tim is my unce and is not
pretending anything. He has temp residency through spouse migration
with his partner as permanent resident.
I am helping him in the migration procedure plus to find options for
ownership of the house, which he funds. His primary concern is that
his application for permanent residency is not in danger by buying a
house.
He decided he should buy the house only on his own name, because
otherwise it would become too complicated with shared ownership etc.
This means that he is not able to apply for the First Home Owners
Grant, because he is a temp resident.
When I did the first post in this thread, I didnt even know there
existed something like First Home Owners Grant.>> I WAS INFORMED IN
ANOTHER THREAD THAT BUYING PROPERTY ON TEMP MIGRATION AS SPOUSE WAS
ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN PARTNERS WERE BOTH THE NEW OWNERS.
http://groups.google.be/group/misc.immigration.australia+nz/
browse_thread/thread/bcb8a5df6ad9af38/36b137b15dda7630?lnk=st&q=author
%3Apremmetje%40zonnet.nl&rnum=4&hl=nl#36b137b15dda 7630
This was proved wrong when I got info from FIRB by phone.
Dont you think it's a bit overdone to arrange a perm resident as
spouse, migrate on such visa, only to get a FHOG? Tim could choose to
buy the house as co-owner to get a grant, with his true and no-fake
partner (its increadible that you make such accusation in this post
without any intelligent arguments) just according to Australian Law
but now he won't even do that.
You must be very simple minded, Ketut. Since you mention the option
Ketut, maybe you would invest in years of fake relationship for $7000?
By the way, IF it were true what you think, I would agree with you
(that Australia does not need suckers). But Australia also doesnt need
dumb rednecks...please prove I'm wrong about you by apologizing to me,
Ketut.


On Jan 22, 11:49 am, "Ketut Royson" <s...@220-244-78-94.tpgi.com.au>
wrote:
> Prem wrote:
> > (...by the way, for those who dont know, First Home Owner Grant > > receiving $7000 from Aus Gov for first house bought, but at least one
> > of the new owners of the house has to be at least a PR.)Oh I get it. First thing he does when he gets to Australia is put up a
> sham whereby he pretends that an Aussie citizen owns land and he can
> scam the first home owners' grant scheme. Beauty! He's a real ideas
> man! The kind Australia really needs!

Ketut Royson

On Jan 28, 7:58 pm, "Prem" <premme...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> DearKetutRoyson,
>
> Allthough it might look so for you, Tim is my unce and is not
> pretending anything. He has temp residency through spouse migration
> with his partner as permanent resident.
> I am helping him in the migration procedure plus to find options for
> ownership of the house, which he funds. His primary concern is that
> his application for permanent residency is not in danger by buying a
> house.
> He decided he should buy the house only on his own name, because
> otherwise it would become too complicated with shared ownership etc.
> This means that he is not able to apply for the First Home Owners
> Grant, because he is a temp resident.
> When I did the first post in this thread, I didnt even know there
> existed something like First Home Owners Grant.>> I WAS INFORMED IN
> ANOTHER THREAD THAT BUYING PROPERTY ON TEMP MIGRATION AS SPOUSE WAS
> ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN PARTNERS WERE BOTH THE NEW OWNERS.http://groups.google.be/group/misc.immigration.australia+nz/
> browse_thread/thread/bcb8a5df6ad9af38/36b137b15dda7630?lnk=st&q=author
> %3Apremmetje%40zonnet.nl&rnum=4&hl=nl#36b137b15dda 7630
> This was proved wrong when I got info from FIRB by phone.
> Dont you think it's a bit overdone to arrange a perm resident as
> spouse, migrate on such visa, only to get a FHOG? Tim could choose to
> buy the house as co-owner to get a grant, with his true and no-fake
> partner (its increadible that you make such accusation in this post
> without any intelligent arguments) just according to Australian Law
> but now he won't even do that.
> You must be very simple minded,Ketut. Since you mention the optionKetut, maybe you would invest in years of fake relationship for $7000?
> By the way, IF it were true what you think, I would agree with you
> (that Australia does not need suckers). But Australia also doesnt need
> dumb rednecks...please prove I'm wrong about you by apologizing to me,Ketut.
>
> On Jan 22, 11:49 am, "KetutRoyson" <s...@220-244-78-94.tpgi.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Prem wrote:
> > > (...by the way, for those who dont know, First Home Owner Grant > > > receiving $7000 from Aus Gov for first house bought, but at least one
> > > of the new owners of the house has to be at least a PR.)Oh I get it. First thing he does when he gets to Australia is put up a
> > sham whereby he pretends that an Aussie citizen owns land and he can
> > scam the first home owners' grant scheme. Beauty! He's a real ideas
> > man! The kind Australia really needs!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What a tangled web thee weave....
Why the post for tricky ways to own land in his girlfriend's name? If
he owns the land and is funding it, why not just put his name on teh
title, on the up-and-up?
Why the post about 80-20 is more likely to get the grant than 99-1?
You don't fool me and you won't fool the first home owners grant/FIRB
people either.

Prem

Ok, I see you don't even bother reading my posts carefully. Again:
We first got info that buying on his own name was not possible, only
together (see link in my previous post in which I got that info)
Then, as solution, we thought about 99%-1% (99% Tim)
Then, I discovered FGOH and called for FHOG info line who told that
99%-1% would probably be problematic and that 80-20 would better,
otherwise grant probably wouldnt be given.
Then, I called FIRB and they informed me that Tim could buy property,
even on a spouse migration visa in temp period. Us happy!
So, now we dropped the whole co-ownership idea (the 7000 isnt worth
the fuss of co-ownership).

....satisfied Ketut?

Ketut Royson

On Feb 1, 2:04 am, "Prem" <premme...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> Ok, I see you don't even bother reading my posts carefully. Again:
> We first got info that buying on his own name was not possible, only
> together (see link in my previous post in which I got that info)
> Then, as solution, we thought about 99%-1% (99% Tim)
> Then, I discovered FGOH and called for FHOG info line who told that
> 99%-1% would probably be problematic and that 80-20 would better,
> otherwise grant probably wouldnt be given.
> Then, I called FIRB and they informed me that Tim could buy property,
> even on a spouse migration visa in temp period. Us happy!
> So, now we dropped the whole co-ownership idea (the 7000 isnt worth
> the fuss of co-ownership).
>
> ....satisfiedKetut?

Yes, Honesty is the best policy.
However, you may want to consider that in assessing a spouse visa the
question may get asked by immigration why they didn't buy the house in
joint names if they really do have a genuine relationship. So they are
between a rock & a hard place & can't please everyone. My early
comments remain i.e. if you see a lawyer see one who is aware of
1)Immigration 2)FIRB 3)Family Law implications.