Retirement village developers still leave people unhappy over lack of payment
Belvedere Trust operating as Retirewell SA administrate multiple retirement villages across the West Rand
A search for peace and reflection tainted by potentially dubious dealings.
For over a decade, the Belvedere Trust operating under the Retirewell SA banner have been promoting a seemingly incomparable retirement lifestyle. Based on the life-right model, Belvedere Trust offer units in developments whereby retirees purchase a unit in the development and when the time comes, the unit is advertised and sold with the expectation that the previous owner is reimbursed from the proceeds.
Over the years, Belvedere Trust has been accused of not fulfilling their obligation to repay previous life-right holders timeously. With their parents either having passed on or needing to be moved into frail care, the children of these life-right owners have sat with the stress of fighting with the developers and agents who claimed to have the money repaid within 30 days of the resale of the unit.
Managing Director at SSLR Incorporated, Cilna Steyn, untangles the definition of a life right
“A life right is a personal right meaning that it is a right granted to a person that does not attach to an object, for instance it can’t compare to the right of ownership. The right of occupation can be dealt with either in the form of a rental, or a usufruct and many other transactions relating to this right, or if a person is granted a life right it means they are allowed to utilise the right of occupation for as long as they live.
“However, as much as this right is a personal right, the moment that right is registered against the title deed it changes from a personal right into a real right. This doesn’t give somebody the right of ownership, but it means that this personal right now carries more weight in the sense that it is enforceable against all third parties,” explained Cilna.
The children left behind to pick up the pieces
While well into their own adulthood, the children of the elderly people whose investments have not been repaid seethe at Belvedere Trust. One is Uwe Frinke whose mother, Lisa, purchased a unit at Wilgeheuwel Retirement Village and passed on in 2019. The unit was sold to a new occupant and since then Uwe is yet to receive the reimbursement of the R730 000.
Mervin van Rooyen’s parents bought their unit at Wilgeheuwel Retirement Village in 2007 and in 2018 cancelled their agreement to move into frail care. His parents passed in 2020 and after a lengthy court battle and over R200 000 in legal costs, Belvedere Trust was forced to pay his parents’ estate late in 2021. Mervin is one of almost 40 members of a WhatsApp group populated by families in the same predicament.
“It is criminal what they are doing,” vented Mervin.
Diane Cleary is the latest complainant to be left short-changed by Belvedere Trust.
Her parents bought a unit at Bushy Park Retirement Village for R1,3 million and when they both passed on in 2021, the unit was sold and new occupants moved in in October 2021.
“We did receive an email from lawyers in November stating that they were having some system problems but that the monies would be paid over with interest from November. Since then all correspondence with them has been ignored,” stated Diane.
Belvedere Trust and accomplices remain tight-lipped
The lawyers handling Diane’s payout, Casper Le Roux Inc Attorneys was afforded right of reply via media inquiry on May 31 at 12:30, but they did not elaborate on her situation stating that it was a case of attorney/client privilege.
Attempts to get feedback from Juliana Steyn, Belvedere Trust’s in-house attorney, about Uwe, Mervin and Diane’s situation in separate emails dated May 21 2021 and May 31 2022, and by the time the article was published online on June 6 at 12:00, no response has been received.
Questions to Retirewell SA’s agents, Arthur Butterfield and Lorraine Silva, who facilitate the sale of Belvedere Trust units, were also contacted via email on May 31 at 11.30am, but when the article was published on June 6 at 12:00, no response has been received.
Questions about their conduct was sent to the new Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority with feedback still pending.
Safety nets needed to prevent further abuse
The payout to someone relinquishing their life right is dependent on a new occupant having purchased the unit, creating reliance on a separate transaction to fulfil another obligation. Unless stated in the sale agreement, no amount is required to be held in trust for the life-right owner, and no level of liquidity is required of a developer, leaving the dangerous potential for cashflow shortages should an imbalance of incoming and outgoing residents occur.
“The potential administrative snags could be a list as long as my arm. Once again this is one of those things that should be dealt with in terms of the sale agreement, but the problem is most people enter into contracts but do not understand the implications of the terms of such agreement. Attorneys can notice red lights far before the first signature appears on paper, but there isn’t much you can do in a situation where the contracts have already been concluded,” advised Cilna.
The purpose of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 is to resolve disputes but again, Cilna stresses that litigation is the last resort. Ensuring peace of mind and tranquility for one’s final years is a goal achieved with the assistance and trust of others. Those who take that responsibility lightly or knowingly exploit their position of power should be cognisant of the livelihoods they hold in their hands.
*This article has been updated since the time of publishing to show right of reply was granted.
