What is a Solicitor’s Demand Letter?

Nautilus Law Group recommends issuing a Solicitor’s Demand Letter as the initial step in the debt recovery process.
A Demand Letter, referred to in the industry as the “Final Notice” is not a Court document; however, the Letter gives the Debtor one last chance to satisfy the outstanding debt before legal action commences.
Our Demand Letters require payment of the debt, including debt recovery and legal costs (depending on terms of credit offered to the debtor) within a specified period of time.  You, our client, can set that time period and even elect to have a tailored suite of “Demand Letters” relative to different products, services and/or terms of credit extended to your clients.
Whilst we will accept a referral of file based on no more than a debtor’s name, address and debt amount – we strongly encourage you provide as well:
1.  Your credit terms/contract/invoices and any relevant material to the dispute;
2.  Full legal name of the debtor(s) (including any trading names and/or ABNs and/or ACNS) with physical and mailing addresses; and
3.  Contact telephone numbers for the debtor(s).
With these details, we can provide the best possible chance of a powerful “First Strike”, with a ready payment of the debt obligation.
It is quite common for debtors to move or evade collection attempts.  If you provide the above information, we have the ability to service a lateral attack on your debtor matter with our Solicitor Demand Letters.
When the Demand Letter has expired and no contact or payments have been received by the Debtor, we will contact you to seek instructions to proceed with Magistrates Court legal action against the Debtor.  Our Court fees are based on Queensland “scale fees” set by the Courts, and we can provide a cost estimate and realistic recovery plan from the outset of each referral.
If the Debtor, however, makes contact and offers payment in full, or payment by terms – we will consult with you and determine how best to approach the next steps – which may include agreement to allow a payment plan with interest and costs being paid or legal action.
If you have an Accounts Receivable concern, please contact our Team to discuss your matters.  We are happy to assist you with your matters from start to finish.  If appropriate, we can even provide a referral to a Debt Collection Agency (as a pre-legal step).
We welcome you to contact our offices on (07) 5574 3560. We thank you for considering Nautilus Law Group.

What I learned from moving my hands two centimetres…

I have surfed for years – my launching style worked, although I always struggled and knew my style was incredibly ungraceful to watch. I got up and I stayed up.  I’m not your typical surfer – I was built big from birth, and I am incredibly physically awkward in the best of times thanks to malformed hips. My parents were told that I would never run, and would struggle with walking – but thanks to the dedication of my mother (an occupational therapist at that time), I learned to do both, found my way around many physical restraints, including surfing.
For those who fear surfing – yes, surfing is not easy – from the choppy surf, to the breaking waves which push a surfer as far back despite every effort to push forward.  But there is a peace, even when being rolled in the surf whilst trying to catch a wave, that cannot be found elsewhere.  Surfing involves a control of one’s fears and self doubts, whilst directing every physical movement with the mental determination to adapt and become one with the natural forces of the moon, wind and ocean.   When the self perfects the moment of symbiosis with nature, the bliss is beyond comphrehnension.
For years, my style has guided me well through waves, from flat to wild seas, to white water to perfect waves.  I have considered my style successful, because I have accomplished the bliss of surfing.
But yesterday, my surf coach, who despite my physical challenges has been entirely unimpressed with my launches, told me to move my hands two centimetres.  She has been pushing me to find a way around my fumbled launches.  Unfortunately, for me, she only had two students yesterday –  and she recommended that during the launch I let go of the board and move my hands back two centimetres to balance my hips during the lauch.  I tried and tried, but kept falling.  I could not get up, and I found the experience embarrasing and a waste of my time.  The battering I took was unrelentless, and embarassing.
As the class was to be completed, I realised I had not seen in my mind the launch.  I kept seeing myself launching with my trusted style. So, I did it – I saw myself gracefully launching onto the wave, and flowing through with the style of the skilled surfers I admired.
And then, on the next wave, I did it.  I let go of the board as I caught the wave and slipped my hands up two centimetres and breathed in, and launched.  And it happened, I launched with no acknwardness – no fumbling, I just did it.  It was the easiest launch I had ever achieved.  And the ride, it was unbelievable.  When it finished, I thought – that was an incredible fluke.  So, I paddled back out and did it again, and again I launched with fluent power into a stable stance.   When I looked back to my coach, she was jumping with enthusiasm, and beside her were others who were also cheering me on and waving.
As I walked off the beach with my board, one of the other surfers ran to me and thanked me.  I was stunned, as this was a surfer I had almost wiped out on at least two occasions during the lesson.  She said, she had seen me surf before and found my style painful to watch because it was so ungraceful.  She had watched me during the lesson, and had told her granddaughter to watch me struggle and fall. They had laughed and scored my wipe outs, and they thought I would give up because they could see that I was struggling to shift my hips.  But, when I got it (which she did not think I would), she was estatic and showed her granddaughter that anyone can achieve grace in life, if they do not give up but try – even when failure is virtually the only outcome.
I have learned that changing a mindset can overcome not only physical limitations, but also introduce useful improvements on existing skill sets.
May your day bring to you the joy of learning to better a skilll upon which you rely.
Submitted by:  Katrina Brown BA JD ATIA TEP SSA, Senior Commercial and Property Lawyer, Nautilus Law Group

Body Corporate News – Febuary 2013 Update – Insurance and Levy Arrears

Insurances:  We have posted articles about the state of Queensland floods, and the concerns raised by clients with regards to the price of insurance – but most hard hit being Northern and Central Queensland coast communities.  Coming into February, and following “Ex” Cyclone Oswald – we fear the blow to Queensland body corporate owners will be a harsh one from yet another premium rise.  If all goes well (and we are concerned that it will), the insurers will maintain premiums at 2012 levels, with only CPI increases.  We all keenly remember the justifications offered by the insurers from the 2012 rate hike – in that Queensland bodies corporate were not charged enough to cover the risk of global change.  Well, here we are in 2013, with yet another global weather event – and we ask – will the decide Queensland body corporate owners are still underpaying?  We are hoping not, but expecting the worst.
Our best advice to bodies corporate for February 2013 – speak to your manager about the potential for insurance premium hikes. If you can “shop around”, consider it early. Also, consider whether there are property improvements you can make on the grounds to make them more resistant to damage resulting from storm damage. For example, if you suffer flooding, has the body corporate considered building retaining walls or upgrading the storm water drainage system. Preventative measures can assist in insurance premium reviews, by demonstrating a lower – or nil claim rate.
Levy Litigation:  There appears to be stabilising of body corporate levy litigation referrals, meaning (at least in our understanding from the bodies corporate we represent) that owners are beginning to catch up with their levy arrears.  Unfortunately, the most notable files are those which have lingered for one+ years as a result of owners which cannot be found, or insolvent owners for whom enforcement sales (if no mortgagee is secured against title) and/or mortgagee dealings offer the only option.  We have been employing lateral solutions for recoveries in these instances.
Our dealings with mortgagees continues to be positive and beneficial to the bodies corporate where owners are either unwilling, or unable to service ongoing arrears.  As sad as the circumstances may be at the stage a mortgagee is forced to intervene, the fact remains that the innocent “financial” owners should not be required to bear the burden of the few who are “non-financial.”
The advice to many of our bodies corporate remains the same – if you can reach a payment plan with the owner, and you have properly resolved penalty interest, then seriously consider agreeing to a plan.  This is not to say that any payment plan should be considered. Definitely not.  If we report to an owner has proposed a payment plan, we require the owner to acknowledge the liability to indemnify the body corporate for its legal fees and costs, as well as stipulate to remaining current with all future levies – whilst spreading the arrears over a reasonable term (we generally recommend a term greater than one year is unreasonable, unless extenuating circumstances present themselves).
Our second advice for February 2013 is to ensure your body corporate has properly documented resolutions supporting the maximum penalty interest available under the legislation, which is 2.5% per month (30% per annum).  In the absence of a body corporate regulation, the body corporate is prevented from claiming interest other than that which is available under the Civil Proceedings Act, which is currently 10% per annum.
Submitted by Katrina Brown BA JD ATIA TEP SSA, Senior Property and Commercial Lawyer, Nautilus Law Group

Ruling From the Grave Requires an Undertaker

There is nothing wrong with ruling from the grave!  But, without an undertaker – your plans may be buried with you!

Are you scratching your head, wondering what in the heck I am trying to say?  Probably – so let me tell you what I am talking about.  Our clients have authorised us to discuss this case, so no confidentiality has been violated in the publishing of this article…here it goes…

Mr Smith (he’s always our favourite when it comes to grave stories) was a wealthy man, with his own ideas on investing money, family and friend relationships, and who could be trusted.  Lawyers, not unexpectedly, was not high on that list!  Mr Smith, bless his heart, loved looking the top of his game – and so employed a number of advisors, to do important things…he just did not tell the various advisors he had others, and he did not share with one advisor what he was doing with another.  Mr Smith, being the important person he was, hired a typist from time to time to record his directions for his various estate matters.

I do not know at this stage he decided lawyers were not to be trusted, but he had purchased a Family Trust Deed in the mid-1990’s from one Law Firm, had it varied by another Law Firm later in the 1990’s and then lodged it with yet another office in the mid 2000’s. He had his first Will drawn in mid the mid 1990’s.  It would appear that in the mid-2000s Mr Smith was advised of the benefits of tax planning through the use of “bucket companies” and so opened a company.  Now, Mr Smith was later in his life, and whilst I am told he had capacity, he certainly had a difficulty understanding what assets he had and where, which was evident especially in the last two decades of his life.

To help this illustrate, we will call Mr Smith’s Family Trust – the Smith Family Trust.  We will call Mr Smith’s Company – Smith Company.  Unfortunately, Mr Smith could not keep these names straight, and he certainly did not take advice on how these vehicles worked because by the time of his death, he had “Directions” to the Executors of his Estate with incredible and bizarre stipulations.

Now, Mr Smith owned his waterfront home in his own name.  He also owned all the shares in Smith Company.  He was the “Apppointor” of the Smith Family Trust (see our Article Page on the discussion of Family Trusts and the use of Appointors).  Within the Smith Family Trust, he had approximately $2M in mixed currencies.  There was a small parcel of shares in the Family Trust as well.  Smith Company’s only asset was unpaid loan accounts due from Smith Family Trust.

Mr Smith left a Will appointing a government department to act as the Executor of his Estate and directed his Executor to:
1.   Transfer his home to “Smith Company Trust” – no such entity exists;
2.   Required that his home be held for over 40 years, with stipulations such as the type of paint that could be used on the walls and a complete restriction on the keeping of animals or hanging of pictures, a demand that the home be occupied at all times – and other useful requirements (yes, I am being sarcastic – as none of his beneficiaries actually want to reside on the Gold Coast);
3.    Demanded that all money in the Estate (and presumably in the Trust) be invested in New Zealand currency or Australian Currency, with newspaper clippings of when the currency exchanges could best be achieved; and
4.   Provided strict limitations on the types of distributions possible from the Estate and Trust (such as no capital for over 40 years!).

Mr Smith, just to be thorough, over the years had written a number of “Directions” to the Executors and/or Trustees of the Smith Company Trust (remember, it doesn’t exist – it is the Smith Company or Smith Family Trust…so go figure, which was he referring to?!).  In the last valid Deed, he completely rewrote the entire Smith Family Trust…permitting only five beneficiaries of the Trust.  The the following years, however, he distributed income from the Trust to Smith Company – even though the Smith Company was not a beneficiary as a result of his Deed.  (Quite a problem when he did not inform the various accountants, that another of the accountants had varied his Deed, whilst another created a new beneficiary to distribute funds to.)  Then, the fun really started, because he strated to write “Directions” appointing different people to do different things after his death – but again, with no communication – who knows what was a wish and what was a proper direction by Deed.  Without boring you, it turned into a mess.

The only thing that was consistent between his last valid Will and the last valid Deed, was that he had nominated his sole child and the child’s children as equal beneficiaries of his Will and Trust.

Now, for whatever reason, his list of nominees to work on the Will and Trust remained a long list in his planning.  Over the year following his death, and over $125,000 in legal costs (charged by the Executor and the various people competing to have control over the structures — IMPORTANTLY, none of which were the beneficiaries who had been left out by Mr Smith in terms having any control, even though they were the beneficiaries) – the Court found in favour of our clients and passed the Estate and Trust over to the beneficiaries to with as they wish.  So how were these costs incurred, well the Executors contacted the various accountants and house keeper nominated by Mr Smith and asked if they wanted to act, then the Executors engaged in a costly (and unnecessary, benefitting only themselves) investigation of what they should do to “help” these four beneficiaries – whilst refusing to relinquish control to the four beneficiaries and/or make any distributions to the four beneficiaries.

Do you want to know the funniest part of this story (if there is one)…Mr Smith’s neighbor, oddly enough, is a client of mine.  On the eve of the hearing in this case, it dawned on me, that my client had told me about Mr Smith a few years earlier and had told him to come see me – but he had told her he didn’t trust lawyers, and never came.  Had he come, I would have fixed his Estate and Trust and ensured the total wastage of over $125,000 by the Executor and their merry crew of advisors would not have resulted, but instead of a proper estate plan, with legal tax planning and asset structuring protocols would have been implemented.

So, what’s the lesson here – well, to go through them all, I need a few more Articles posts! However, to be brief – DON’T WRITE YOUR OWN LEGAL DOCUMENTS!!!!!! Okay, let’s say you have an estate of a few thousand dollars – go ahead, write your own, you aren’t losing much. But if you have an estate larger than $100,000 or if you have minor children – GET YOURSELF AN UNDERTAKER who can write a proper Will and help you actually achieve what you wanted from the outset.   If you want to rule from the grave, and I fully support the idea, do it with designs that won’t have you rolling over in your grave!

Submitted by Katrina E Brown BA JD ATIA TEP SSA
katrina@nautiluslaw.com.au

Nautilus supports Autism Advocacy

Nautilus Law Group is a proud sponsor of Autism Gold Coast.

Our Practice Director, Katrina, works with families and service providers to provide mentoring in adaptive behaviours and parenting styles, implementation of dietary changes, and education and employment advocacy. Katrina also advises government and business sectors on various issues specific to protections, programs and provisions for people with autism spectrum disorder. She has also presented on legal issues specific to estate planning, Centrelink planning, and social integration of people on the autism spectrum disorder.
As a mother of two children who are on the spectrum, Katrina has experienced the heartbreak of schooling rejection, criticisms from medical providers who were not open to alternative therapies, frustration from judgment and refusal to integrate by those who do not understand the different-abilities offered by those with autism spectrum disorder and the physical and emotional exhaustion associated with protecting children with special needs from themselves and others.
Katrina advocates for the “even playing field” of all people, especially those with the different-abilities of autism spectrum disorder. She is a recognised leader in estate and personal planning for families with loved ones effected by autism spectrum disorder, for which she advocates integration of wealth planning, insurance coverage, family and friend support circles and development of the coping skills of each member of the family to change (including disability, changes in employment/stages of life of key persons and the death of key persons).
Katrina’s recommended sites for those who are effected by autism spectrum disorder, or a friend, family or service provider of such persons:
AGC is based on the Gold Coast, Queensland. This organisation offers a wide range of support services to families and service providers to those who are effected by autism spectrum disorder.
Mindd is an exceptional resource for dietary interventions in Australia for not only those effected by autism spectrum disorder, but any person who experiences difficulties with attention, allergies, Alzheimer’s, mental illness and arthritis, to name a few. Katrina swears personally to the integrity and merit of the lessons and resources available through the Mindd Foundation.
Parent to Parent is a QQueenslandbased advocacy group which provides a network of support services for families with special needs support. Katrina consults with the Parent to Parent team on various matters, and highly recommends the group to those who are new to education, workplace and personal advocacy.
Submitted by Katrina Brown BA JD ATIA TEP SSA, Senior Commercial and Property Lawyer, Nautilus Law Group