This is why careful record keeping is essential, and this is even more important for when you die because the executor and/or beneficiaries need to find this information.

yes

1. Exempt from CGT if sold within 2 years. Thereafter if you rent it the cost base will be the value at death.
2. Cost base will be his cost base.
3. cost base will be his cost base.

Confirm this with your tax advisor as I have made a few assumptions.

Don’t you need the diploma course now, and not just the Cert IV?

I’ve never looked into this, but a colleague did a conveyancing matter where the vendor used a put and call option to delay entering the contract (but lock it all in) and when asked why they stated for CGT reasons.

This year

It would have been pre CGT, but subdivision would change this. It probably could be sold and the main residence claimed if they had lived in both sides of the house, it was rented for less than 6 years, they had no other main residence which they claimed and they moved back into both sides of the house and it is on less than 2 hectares and hasn’t been used to produce income other than described.

They need to seek specific tax advice.

entire

If a borrower doesn’t pay the bank will take possession of the house, sell it, and recover the money they lent and the associated recovery costs. If they property is valued at $800k and they only need to recover $400k it should be pretty simple. Not sure why they would contemplate sending someone to london to investigate – even if you had hidden assets in London, they are not out of pocket.
If the mortgagee did do something totally unnecessary and unjustifiable you would be able to argue to have these costs excluded from your debt. This doesn’t make sense to me.

You would have all the usual selling costs and legal costs which would vary depending how long it drags out – say $10k to $20k usually.

Yes the owner would get back any excess money – the mortgagee would be holding that money on trust for the owner until it passed back.

An unregistered mortgage isn’t indefeasible as it is unregistered. Lodging a caveat doesn’t register it, the caveat just notifies others there is an unregistered interest. It may give priority over other non registered interests though. To make the mortgage stronger it should be registered.

There is also a section in the bankruptcy act which makes contracts and deeds void, including mortgages, if they are undermarket value or done to defeat creditors. So would is the reason you would be giving a mortgage to a trust? You may use the gift and borrow back strategy. Gift money to the trust and then borrow it back but give the trust security for its loan. However then your gift is subject to the clawback provisions of s120 and also the s121 and even the conveyancing act -s34A i think in NSW – if you are trying to defeat creditors.

What does she fear about an ‘all monies’ clause?
If someone ends up bankrupt the bank can use its mortgage agreement with the borrower to secure all monies owed to it.

So I guess you are asking if there is a second mortgage to a related trustee would the bank take priority over the 2nd mortgagee. I think that will depend on the wording of the clause, and the circumstances. It did happen in a NSW SC case Meldov Pty Ltd v BOQ [2015] NSWSC 378

But usually the amount owed to the bank would be less than the property value.

A caveat is just notification to the world that someone other than the legal owner also has an interest in a property. It is not a form of security like a mortgage.