Caveat Loans on Property You Own With Someone Else
How a caveat loan works on jointly owned property, what a caveat can attach to, and why funders want consent from every registered proprietor.
Property Lending Hub
Caveat Loans · Co-Ownership · Title
A caveat attaches to the interest of the owner who signed for it, not automatically to the whole of the land. On jointly owned property, that turns the first question into a title question rather than a loan-size question.
Quick Answer
A caveat loan over jointly owned property turns on who is on the title, because a caveat protects the interest of the owner who granted it rather than the whole of the land. Most funders want consent from every registered proprietor before they look at a caveat facility.
Can you use a jointly owned property as security on your own?
You own the warehouse with a partner and the funding need is yours alone. One owner cannot bind the other's interest, so what you can offer a funder is your own interest in the land, not the property. That single constraint sets the ceiling on everything that follows, and it sits above the valuation, the equity and the settlement date.
Most people arrive at this question thinking about the loan. What lenders actually look at first is the register. A search will show the registered proprietors, the manner of holding, and every existing dealing sitting over the land, including any registered mortgage and the first mortgage priority behind it. If two names appear, the credit conversation changes shape before the numbers are even discussed.
The reason is structural rather than commercial. A caveat is a statutory notice protecting a claimed interest in land, and the interest a funder can claim is the one you were actually able to grant. You can grant an interest in what you own. You cannot grant an interest in what your co-owner owns, and no drafting fixes that.
That explains most declines on jointly owned security across the property lending hub, and it explains why the workable deals are the ones where both signatures are lined up before anyone lodges anything.
How do joint tenants and tenants in common differ for lending?
Joint tenants move together and tenants in common do not, and that difference decides what a funder is actually being offered. Joint tenants hold the whole of the land together with a right of survivorship and no separate share to point at. Tenants in common hold defined shares, which may be equal or unequal, and each share is capable of being dealt with on its own.
State land registries record the distinction on the title itself, and the New South Wales guidance on buying and selling property is a reasonable starting point for how the manner of holding is captured. The terminology is consistent across states even where the lodgement machinery differs.
| Structural factor | Tenants in common | Joint tenants |
|---|---|---|
| What each owner holds | A defined undivided share | The whole, held together |
| Can one owner deal alone | With their own share | Doing so can sever the tenancy |
| Effect on the other owner | Their share is untouched | The manner of holding changes |
| On the death of an owner | Passes under the will | Passes to the surviving owner |
| What a caveat can attach to | The signing owner's share | The signing owner's interest |
| Registered mortgage over the whole | Needs every signature | Needs every signature |
| What funders typically ask for | Consent from both owners | Consent from both owners |
| Practical realisability | Harder than a whole title | Harder than a whole title |
Read the last three rows together, because they carry the point. The legal answer and the credit answer diverge. Legally, the share is securable and the whole property is not. Commercially, a funder that can only realise part of a property is holding an asset it would struggle to sell, so appetite tightens even where the paperwork is clean.
That gap between what is possible and what is fundable is where most of these conversations actually live, and it is covered in more depth in the Australian caveat loans guide.
What can a caveat attach to when only one owner signs?
When only one owner signs, a caveat can protect that owner's interest, which is an undivided share rather than half the house. The distinction matters because a share is not a physical part of the property. Nobody owns the front half of the factory. Each co-owner holds a proportionate interest in the entirety.
That is why a caveat drafted as though it captured the whole of the land is vulnerable to challenge and removal. The claimed interest has to match what was actually granted, and a caveat that overclaims invites a lapsing notice rather than a negotiation.
This is the point almost every general article about co-ownership skips, because it answers the mortgage question instead. A mortgage over the whole title needs every registered proprietor. A caveat is narrower, and narrower is not the same as easier.
Why do funders want every registered proprietor to sign?
Funders want every registered proprietor to sign because consent is what makes the security realisable at the far end, not because a caveat over a single share is legally defective. The question a credit desk asks is not whether the interest can be lodged. It is what happens at the far end if the position has to be enforced against a part interest in a property somebody else lives in or trades from.
That is a hard asset to sell and a slow one to realise, and the pricing reflects it before the file is even assessed. Where both owners are in the room, the same property becomes a conventional security and the whole conversation moves to a different lane.
| Item | Why it is asked for | Who provides it |
|---|---|---|
| Current title search | Confirms the registered proprietors and the manner of holding | Your solicitor or conveyancer |
| Co-owner consent or acknowledgment | Makes the position realisable rather than contested | Every registered proprietor |
| Existing mortgage details | Establishes what already ranks ahead and how far it can grow | The borrowing owner |
| Evidenced exit | Shows how the facility ends, since recovery control is limited | The borrowing owner |
| Independent legal advice for the non-borrower | Reduces the risk of the consent being set aside later | The co-owner's own solicitor |
The last row is the one owners most often try to skip, and it is the one that protects the arrangement. A consent given without advice is a weaker document than a consent given with it, and the funder knows that at the point it prices the file.
What happens when the co-owner will not sign?
When the co-owner will not sign, the realistic outcome is that the file moves to a different security rather than to a smaller caveat. Three routes tend to be workable, and they are worth testing in this order because they run from fastest to slowest.
- Secure the facility against a different property you hold in your own name, which sidesteps the co-ownership question entirely.
- Ask the co-owner to sign a second mortgage over the whole title as a consenting party rather than a borrower, which is a stronger position for the funder and typically prices better than a caveat.
- Restructure the ownership itself, which is slower, carries stamp duty and tax consequences, and belongs with your accountant and solicitor rather than your broker.
- If none of those fit, reset the timing rather than the security, and speak to a broker before you commit to a settlement date.
What does not work is lodging first and negotiating afterwards. A caveat that overclaims can be met with a lapsing notice, and the cost of defending it usually exceeds whatever the facility was going to fund. If a settlement deadline is already running, the guide on a notice to complete sets out how little room there is once the clock starts.
Does a trust behind the register change the answer?
A trust behind the register changes the analysis, because the registered proprietor and the person holding the real benefit may not be the same party. Where a beneficial owner sits behind a registered proprietor through a trust or a bare trust arrangement, the documents have to be read rather than assumed, and the trust deed governs what the trustee is permitted to grant.
Two things get checked. The first is whether the trustee has power to encumber trust property at all, which is a deed question rather than a title question. The second is whether the consent of beneficiaries or an appointor is required before the trustee acts, because a security granted outside the trustee's power is a fragile one.
| Question | What is checked | Where the answer sits |
|---|---|---|
| Who is the registered proprietor | The name on title, which may be a trustee | The title search |
| Can the trustee encumber trust property | The power to mortgage or charge | The trust deed |
| Is anyone else's consent needed | Beneficiary or appointor consent requirements | The trust deed |
| Is the trustee a company | Directors' authority and the constitution | The company constitution and ASIC records |
| Who benefits from the borrowing | Whether the purpose is proper for the trust | The trustee's own advice |
Corporate trustees add a further layer, since the company's own constitution and the directors' authority both sit in the chain. None of that makes the deal impossible, but it does mean the document pack is larger and the timeline is longer than a plain two-name title, which is worth knowing before you promise anyone a settlement date.
What should you have ready before you approach a funder?
Have the title search and your co-owner's position settled before you get a valuation, because those two facts decide whether the rest of the work is worth doing. A file that arrives with both owners already briefed moves. A file that arrives with an assumption about the co-owner does not.
The same logic governs consent behind an existing bank, which is set out in the post on whether a caveat loan can breach the mortgage you already hold. Where both a co-owner and a first mortgagee are involved, you are collecting two consents rather than one, and they are best pursued in parallel.
Beyond that, the funder is looking at the same things it looks at everywhere behind a first mortgage: what the money is for, how the facility ends, and whether the exit is evidenced rather than intended. Where the answer to the second question is a sale or a refinance already in progress, the file reads very differently from one where it is an intention.
If you are unsure which of the routes above fits your title, speak to a broker before you commit to a settlement date, and bring the title search rather than a description of it.
Jointly owned property does not rule out a caveat facility, but it changes the order of the questions. Confirm who is actually on the title and the manner of holding first, because joint tenants move together, tenants in common do not, and that alone determines what can be granted. From there the legal position and the credit position separate: the share is securable, the whole property is not, and most funders will still want every registered proprietor to sign before they will price the risk at all.
Key takeaway: Get the title search and your co-owner's position settled before you get a valuation, because one owner cannot bind the other's interest.Frequently asked questions
A co-owner can challenge a caveat that claims an interest wider than the one actually granted, usually by serving a lapsing notice that forces the caveator to support the claim in court within a short statutory window. A caveat properly limited to the borrowing owner's interest is far harder to dislodge than one drafted over the whole of the land. That is why the drafting is worth more attention than the pricing, and why the caveat blocking settlement guide is worth reading before anything is lodged.
Dealing separately with one owner's security interest can sever a joint tenancy, which converts the holding to a tenancy in common and removes the right of survivorship for everyone on the title. That is a permanent change to how the property passes on death, and it affects the co-owner who did not borrow. It belongs in a conversation with your solicitor before the funding decision, not after it.
Any interest lodged against a co-owned property appears on the title search for that title, even where the interest is limited to one owner's share. Anyone searching the property will see it, including the other owner's lender, an incoming purchaser, and any bank assessing a future application by either party. The visibility is the point of registered dealings, and it is why a quiet lodgement is rarely quiet for long.
A co-owner who signs as a consenting party is agreeing to their interest in the land being encumbered, which is not the same as guaranteeing the debt personally. A guarantee puts their other assets and income at risk, while a consent limits the exposure to the property. The two documents are often presented together, so the co-owner should have their own solicitor confirm which one they are actually signing.
Unwinding a contested caveat that overclaims generally costs more than the facility was going to fund, because it moves from a conveyancing task to a litigated one with legal costs on both sides and a settlement or refinance stalled in the middle. The expense is rarely the lodgement fee and almost always the delay. Sizing the facility realistically at the outset avoids the whole category, and a broker can tell you early whether the structure is fundable at all.
FBAA Accredited
