Confused by NZ cross lease. Help needed, please.

[OnTheMove]

Possibly a silly question which I should know the answer, but being use to Aussie land, Im a bit confused if I have it right or not.

Im viewing properties that are stand alone, with a back yard, yet they are cross lease.

I thought cross lease meant its shared land that you don't own? And the RV has a Value on the land, how can you value the land on cross lease if you dont own it?

[eri]

There will be a pre-existing agreement about who gets to use what. Ie a large block can be shared 5 ways with 5 flats, each getting a car port and use of the lawn outside their flat
The end unit might get a bigger lawn

[OnTheMove]

There will be a pre-existing agreement about who gets to use what. Ie a large block can be shared 5 ways with 5 flats, each getting a car port and use of the lawn outside their flat
The end unit might get a bigger lawn

Thanks for fast response eri.

This is why Im confused, they are stand alone houses, not units or even townhouses.

[OnTheMove]

Ok its a 999yr cross lease, 400sqm with a fence between the 2 homes. So Theoretically can it be called a house not a townhouse if the land is not owned?

[gintaman1]

Hiya just piggybacking off this because I'm in a similar boat -

A property that I looked at was leasehold with a 999years lease - similar to yours, and it's a 1050sqm with Fenching between the two homes - so like a crosslease? Does yours have a leasehold title too? Or is it a cross lease title instead? I saw the leasehold title and immediately alarm bells started ringing, so not sure if it's a good idea actually.

[Beano]

Ok its a 999yr cross lease, 400sqm with a fence between the 2 homes. So Theoretically can it be called a house not a townhouse if the land is not owned?

You do have to reach a new agreement at the end of the 999 years with the others :-)

[OnTheMove]

Haha excactly but it isnt ideal, I think giving a Lease the same value as owning is a bit off.

Anyway, the whole cross lease system in the 80s was a bit unnecessary I thought....?

The Mrs saw it and thought lease = lease hold so wanted to get my facts straight before putting her straight.

I dont think the numbers add up regardless. But is good to fully understand for future reference.

Arent there restrictions on being able to make changes to your house though on cross lease/

[Bob Kane]

Ok its a 999yr cross lease, 400sqm with a fence between the 2 homes. So Theoretically can it be called a house not a townhouse if the land is not owned?

That was a common thing about 30 years ago.
There were funny rules about subdividing sections.
I assume your section was 800m2 with one house.
The owner set up the cross lease for 999 years with the lease amount = 10 cents.
He makes two cross-lease sections of 400 m2 each and builds another house on the other 400 m2- or maybe demolishes the old house and erects two new houses.
Either way, two houses, two sections and a cross lease.
Each owner owns a half share of the 800 m2.
No big deal, quite common.
Couple of funny points though - could be restrictions on the number of rooms/bedrooms for the 800 m2 lot.
Also, the actual land doesn't have firm boundaries - you own a half share of 800 m2, not this particular 400 m2 at the front.
Buy both houses, convert the cross lease into a conventional sub-divide and sell both at a profit.

[eri]

the council now hate the various cross-leases they created years ago (because more selfish owners don't seem to be able to share with co-owners)

council would love to convert all cross-leases into the more modern strata? title with clearly defined individual property area and less shared areas

but the politicisation of modern councils means they are more interested in "vote-harvesting" policies than the expensive legal work required to change titles

cross-leases work well as long as everyone works together for the common good and respects other's "share"

but they go pear-shaped quickly and badly if someone new? disputes their agreed share and decides they can do whatever they like on other's agreed shares

there seems no quick + cheap legal structure to stop them doing this

ie if someone buys a boat on a trailer and instead of putting it outside their unit, decides to put it on the grass outside another unit......doing this breaks no laws that council can act on

instead afaik a civil court action has to be started at great expense

[OnTheMove]

Eri that is the exact Mrs worry, that somebody can do stuff like you mentioned. Its based on Trust, and thats a bad idea.

Also I heard you cannot make certain alterations to your house.

I dont get why a simple sub division wasnt in vogue.

[OnTheMove]

instead afaik a civil court action has to be started at great expense

In fact it sounds as bad as renting. But you are paying the cost of onwership, yet you dont actually own the property. Technically who does own the property?

[eri]

all of the owners own everything but agree to just use their bit

[OnTheMove]

all of the owners own everything but agree to just use their bit

That really sounds like a hazard waiting to happen. So essentially you are paying full price to be in a renting type situation :-) haha.

I know it prob works most of the time, so do most apartment rentals, new show coming to TV1, "When Cross-Lease Attacks" lol.

[Wayne]

In fact it sounds as bad as renting. But you are paying the cost of onwership, yet you dont actually own the property. Technically who does own the property?

Cross lease - you all own the property with rights to exclusive and shared space as set out in the lease agreement