Monthly Archives: November 2015

Fixtures and fittings

Posted on by

A4BMany transfer attorneys have heard the question from a seller: “May I remove the stove or the curtain rails or the shelves or the …?”

The most common dispute that arises between a seller and a purchaser is a dispute as to what is regarded as fixtures and fittings. The simple answer is that this would be what the seller and purchaser agreed on in the offer to purchase, as the law leaves it to the seller and purchaser to make their own arrangements.

Usually the offer to purchase only states that the sale is “voetstoots and includes all improvements and all fixtures and fittings of a permanent nature”. It could also be that the offer to purchase does not refer to fixtures and fittings at all. If this is the case there are three factors that have to be considered to determine whether a movable item is a fixture or a fitting.

1. The nature and the purpose of the item

The item should be of a permanent nature and intended to always serve the immovable property. In other words it must be attached to the land or the structure erected on the land. Examples of this are a carport, steel security gates welded to door frames, and an irrigation system.

2. The manner and the degree of attachment

The question is whether the item loses its own identity and becomes an integral part of the immovable property or if the attachment is so secure that separation would involve substantial damage to either the immovable property or to the item itself. One must also take into account the method, time and costs involved in removing the item and whether the item could be used elsewhere.

3. The intention of the owner

One should look at the intention of the owner at the time when the attachment was made.

It is therefore important to address this issue in the offer to purchase and draft a comprehensive list of what is included in the sale. This could save both parties a lot of time and frustration.

The following is a list of items that are usually considered to be permanent fixtures:

Built-in extractor fans; built-in kitchen cupboards; fitted bookshelves; fitted curtain rails; wall mirrors; stoves; existing garden, trees, shrubs, plants; pool filter, pool pump and pool cleaning equipment; fitted carpets; light fittings; towel racks; tap fittings; tennis court net; fireplace; awnings; post box; alarm system; television aerial (but not satellite dishes) and door keys.

Some estate agents have amended their fixtures and fittings clause since the CPA came into operation, to read as follows: “The property is sold with all fixtures and fittings, including the following … which shall be in good working order on date of transfer.” The words “in good working order” are a very subjective assessment and opens the door to debate. The effect hereof is that the seller will be seen to have promised that all the fixtures and fittings will be in good working order, and to a large extent it will be eroding the protection of the voetstoots clause. Sellers should therefore take caution when signing the fixtures and fittings clause.

This newsletter is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

When is a tenant an illegal occupant?

Posted on by

A4B_newWhere the Contract of Lease is breached in any way by the tenant and he or she after receiving notice thereof has not remedied such a breach within the period agreed upon, then the landlord may cancel the contract. The tenant will be found to be an illegal occupier in this instance.

Where a tenant fails to perform as agreed upon in his Lease agreement, he will be found to be in breach of that agreement. An example of this is a failure to pay rent timeously or at all. The landlord must notify the tenant in writing of his decision to terminate the contract by means of a letter of cancellation, allowing the tenant a reasonable period, or such timeframe as agreed upon in terms of such a lease, to vacate the property.

If the tenant chooses to ignore the notice of cancellation of the lease agreement by remaining on the property and continuing to use and enjoy it, the tenant will be regarded as an illegal occupier of the property. The same applies if the tenant continues to occupy the property after the expiration of the initial lease period. An illegal occupier may be evicted from the rented property by the landlord or owner. This will be done at a Magistrate’s or High Court and for that the services of a lawyer will be required.

There is no longer a Common Law right to evict someone. Instead the owner or landlord must follow the procedures and provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of land Act 19 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “PIE Act”). The tenant must be notified of the pending action, by means of a Notice of Intention to Evict and this must be done at least 14 days before the date of the court hearing. This notice must also be sent to the respective Municipality involved.

On the date of the hearing, the court will consider factors such as whether the person is an unlawful occupier, whether the owner has reasonable grounds for eviction and alternative accommodation available to the tenant. It is now considered a criminal offence to evict someone without a court order to that effect. Constructive eviction, for instance, where a landlord cuts the water or electricity supply to the property in order to “drive” the tenants out, is a criminal offence.

The type of action or application that your legal representative will bring will vary depending on the facts and circumstances of the matter. Such actions or applications can be heard in the Magistrate’s or High Court, depending on the value of the occupation and not the leased property value. The lease agreement may also have a clause embodied in it where the parties agree to a particular court’s jurisdiction, where upon that will be followed. If the court proceedings are successful a Warrant of Ejectment may be issued, whereupon the owner or landlord may proceed with the eviction of the illegal occupier.

Once the owner or the proprietor of the leased property has followed all the prescribed procedures as laid out in the PIE Act and they have established that their tenant is considered an unlawful occupier then they may proceed with the above-mentioned steps in order to evict them from their property.

An unlawful occupier may be removed from the premises upon the instruction of an Eviction Order / Warrant of Eviction with the assistance of the Sheriff of the respective court at a minimal fee. The steps laid out in the PIE Act are simple to understand and follow allowing a transparent and fair chance to both the landlord and the tenant in these difficult situations.

This newsletter is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

Capital Gains Tax and the sale of a property

Posted on by

A3B_newCapital Gains Tax was introduced on 1 October 2001. Capital Gains Tax is payable on the profit a seller makes when disposing of his property.

What is meant by Capital Gain?

A person’s capital gain on an asset disposed of is the amount by which the proceeds exceed the base cost of that asset.

What is base cost?

The base cost of an asset is what you paid for it, plus the expenditure. The following can be included in calculating the base cost:

  1. The costs of acquiring the property, including the purchase price, transfer costs, transfer duty and professional fees e.g. attorney’s fees and fees paid to a surveyor and auctioneer.
  2. The cost of improvements, alterations and renovations which can be proved by invoices and/or receipts.
  3. The cost of disposing of the property, e.g. advertising costs, cost of obtaining a valuation for capital gains purposes, and estate agents’; commission.

How was base cost of assets held calculated before 1 October 2001?

If the property was acquired before 1 October 2001 you may use one of the following methods to value the property:

  1. 20% x (proceeds less expenditure incurred on or after 1 October 2001)
  2. The market value of the asset as at 1 October 2001, which valuation must have been obtained before 30 September 2004.
  3. Time-apportionment base cost method. Original cost (proceeds – original cost) x number of years held before 1 October 2001 divided by the number of years held before 1 October 2001 number of years held after 1 October 2001).

How is Capital Gains Tax paid?

Capital Gains Tax is not a separate tax from income tax. Part of a person’s capital gain is included in his taxable income. It is then subject to normal tax. A portion of the total of the taxpayer’s capital gain less capital losses for the year is included in the taxpayer’s taxable income and taxed in terms of normal tax tables.

How is Capital Gain calculated?

If you are an individual, the first R30 000 of your total capital gain will be disregarded. Then 33.3% of the capital gain made on disposal of the property must be included in the taxable income for the year of assessment in which the property is sold. When the property is owned by a company, a close corporation or an ordinary trust, 66.6% of the capital gain must be included in their taxable income.

Primary residence and Capital Gains Tax

As from 1 March 2012 the first R2 million of any capital gain on the sale of a primary residence is exempted from Capital Gains Tax. This exemption only applies where the property is registered in the name of an individual or in the name of a special trust. The property should furthermore not exceed 2 hectares. If the property is used partially for residential and partially for business purposes, an apportionment must be done.

If more than one person holds an interest in a primary residence, the exclusion will be in proportion to the interest held by each party. For example, if you and your spouse have an equal interest in the primary residence, you will each qualify for a primary residence exclusion of R1 million. You will also be entitled to the annual exclusion, currently R30 000.

This newsletter is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).

Trouble with the neighbours

Posted on by

A1BYou and your neighbour have been good friends for years; your children have grown up together and you have always thought of him as a reasonable man, but lately you’re not so sure. His trees’ branches overhang into your property, blocking your gutters with leaves, not to mention the root system creeping closer to your home’s foundation. When you confront him, he flatly refuses to do anything about it, since they are, after all, trees he and his wife planted when they bought the property 30 years ago!

The question in everyone’s mind is, what can I do about my neighbour’s trees and plants that are causing damage to my property and discomfort to me? He most certainly has the right to do on his property as he pleases, but what about my right to use and enjoy my property? Surely his enjoyment cannot be at the cost of someone else?

Trees with lateral root systems are often a culprit in neighbourly disputes. In the case Bingham v City Council of Johannesburg 1934 WLD 180, the municipality planted trees along the footpath for beautification purposes. The problem was that they chose to plant oak trees, which have strong lateral root systems that drain the soil surrounding them. The flowers and shrubs in Bingham’s garden died as a result of this, and even worse, the strong root system was making its way to the foundation of his home. Due to the threat to the property (the house) the court ordered the municipality to remove the trees.

In Vogel v Crewe and another [2004] 1 All SA 587 (T) the issue regarding roots was also discussed in court. Vogel and Crewe were neighbours and Crewe was of the opinion that a tree planted about two metres from the wall, separating the two properties, was the cause of all the problems on his property. According to him the tree’s root system was causing damage to the boundary wall and leaves from the tree were falling into his swimming pool and blocking his gutters and sewage system. The court’s approach was based on an objective test of reasonableness. They took into account the benefits of protecting the tree, being its visual pleasure, shade, and the oxygen it produced, as opposed to the trouble it was causing Crewe. Crewe was not able to prove that the problem with the leaves in his swimming pool, gutters and sewage system was caused by the tree in question, and the court found that the wall separating the two properties could easily be repaired. No drastic action, like removing the tree, was necessary and Crewe failed in his application.

From the above it is clear that the court will only order the removal of a tree should the roots pose a real and immediate threat of damaging the property. They will not order the removal of overhanging branches for the shedding of leaves.

In Malherbe v Ceres Municipality 1951 (4) SA 510 A it was confirmed that should a neighbour’s tree branches overhang or the roots spread into your property and the owner refuses to remove same, you may chop them off on the boundary line.

Hopefully you will be able to resolve tree-related issues with your neighbour in a courteous way, and remember, you also have the right to enjoy your property.

References:

  • Bingham v City Council of Johannesburg 1934 WLD 180
  • Vogel v Crewe and another [2004] 1 All SA 587 (T)
  • Malherbe v Ceres Municipality 1951 (4) SA 510 A

This newsletter is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE).