THE Court of Three Judges is deliberating over how three lawyers should be taken to task for their roles in making a court wrongly pay out $4.27million.
In hearing the matter last Thursday, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said it was clear the court had been 'made use of'.
The question though, said the CJ, was the intent of the three lawyers - Ms Nor'ain Abu Bakar, Ms Ruby Tan and MrPeter Chua.
In 2005, Justice V.K. Rajah had a disciplinary committee look into their conduct. He also referred the case to the Attorney-General's Chambers.
The lawyers' passports were impounded by commercial crime investigators but have since been returned. No criminal charges were filed.
Still, the disciplinary committee found the case serious enough to be referred to the Court of Three Judges, which hears cases on errant lawyers and has the power to suspend or strike lawyers off the rolls.
Ms Nor'ain and Ms Tan were acting for Indonesian company JAK Alhadad & Co, in a complicated battle over properties left by an Indonesian millionaire who died in 1953.
In July 2004, $4.6 million from the sale of the properties was handed over to the courts, pending a decision on how it should be split. Two months later, the two women lawyers applied to a court for $4.27 million to be paid to JAK.
However, they made this application under a different lawsuit between JAK and MrChua's clients, two Indonesian lawyers acting for some of the beneficiaries.
None of the three lawyers told the assistant registrar about the competing claims. The assistant registrar ordered the release of the money to JAK.
Justice Rajah has ordered JAK to return the money to the courts but that may prove to be an uphill task as it has been split among multiple parties, including lawyers and various parties in Indonesia.
After a four-hour hearing on Thursday, the Court of Three Judges reserved judgment. It will give its decision later.
Senior Counsel Andre Yeap, representing the Law Society, called it a classic case of lawyers 'saying things they know are false, not saying things they should - all with a view to depriving other people of benefits and entitlement'.
Ms Nor'ain's lawyer, Mr N. Sreenivasan, conceded that her non-disclosure amounted to grossly improper conduct, but said it did not constitute fraud and deceit.
Ms Tan's lawyer, Mr Shashi Nathan, said his client, who now lives in Austria, was 'naive' and was acting on MsNor'ain's instructions. MsTan, who received $64,000 in legal fees for the case, has repaid $15,000 and will pay $1,000 more each month, he said.
Mr Chua's lawyer, Senior Counsel Deborah Barker, argued that he did not think he had any duty to feed the court 'background' information.
She said that even if the court found that he had a duty to inform, his failure to do so could not be seen as fraud or deceit. She also pointed out that MrChua got nothing out of the $4.27 million paid out.
Showing posts with label legal issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal issues. Show all posts
Monday, April 07, 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Lawyers in trouble: In the soup again over conflict of interest
Three counsel have become the first this year to be referred to the Court of Three Judges, which hears cases of serious misconduct by lawyers. Law Correspondent K.C. Vijayan reports
SUSPENDED lawyer Vasantha Vardan will have to face the Court of Three Judges again on four new charges involving different clients - in circumstances similar to that for which she was penalised over a year ago.
In November 2006, she was found guilty of acting improperly in the case of a property agent who fleeced his clients, and was suspended for two years.
She had acted for the property agent as well as his clients, placing herself in a conflict-of-interest situation.
Ms Vardan, a lawyer since 1994, had failed to explain the contents of the documents to the clients - a couple trying to sell their home - and they ended up being cheated by housing agent Shaik Raheem Abdul Shaik Shaikh Dawood in 2001.
Shaik, 55, is serving 22 months behind bars for cheating.
In the present charges, Ms Vardan is said to have acted improperly in relation to three other couples and another woman who went to Shaik to sell their HDB flats and ended up short-changed by him.
The complainants were generally illiterate couples who were cash-strapped. The complaints occurred in 2001.
The disciplinary committee found no dishonesty on Ms Vardan’s part, but held that she had placed herself in a conflict- of-interest position.
Senior Counsel Tan Tee Jim, prosecuting for the Law Society, said Ms Vardan had placed her own as well as Shaik’s interests over those of the complainants. ‘Members of the profession would be well advised to avoid all such situations of conflict of interest and to conscientiously advance the interests of their clients.’
Her lawyer, Mr Thangavelu, urged the committee to reprimand her or impose a fine instead of referring the case to the Court of Three Judges. Rejecting the plea, the committee said these were serious breaches of duty.
Entrapment defence fails in touting case
ENTRAPMENT as a defence did not save lawyer Rayney Wong from being referred to the Court of Three Judges for touting.
Mr Wong, a lawyer for the last 23 years, had offered referral fees to a Ms Jenny Lee, who had approached him with a property deal for his firm.
It turned out that Ms Lee was a private investigator working undercover, who recorded their conversations and then complained to the Law Society.
Ms Lee was part of a group of private investigators hired by some lawyers to check if competing law firms were offering fees to estate agents.
Faced with disciplinary committee hearings in 2005, Mr Wong refused to enter his defence then, claiming that Ms Lee’s evidence should be excluded because it was obtained by entrapment.
Mr Wong took this argument to the High Court and even to the Court of Appeal, but was turned down each time as the courts ruled that there was no entrapment.
When the case returned to the committee and it reconvened last year, Mr Wong pleaded guilty to the charge and urged the committee to reprimand or fine him instead of referring it to the Court of Three Judges.
His lawyer, Senior Counsel Sant Singh, said the fact that Mr Wong was entrapped and that he pleaded guilty were mitigating factors.
But the committee, chaired by Senior Counsel Steven Chong, said there was ‘no entrapment’, as Mr Wong offered the incentive to Ms Lee without incitement from her.
The committee also said it was ‘apparent’ this was not the first time Mr Wong had offered a referral fee.
It also said he decided to plead guilty only upon realising that his defence was almost certainly bound to fail and the guilty plea therefore carried ‘little weight’.
Accused of overcharging clients
A LAWYER has been referred to the Court of Three Judges for allegedly overcharging his clients.
It follows a hearing by a disciplinary committee, set up by the Chief Justice, which decided that lawyer Low Yong Sen had billed a couple three times more than what it felt would have been fair.
In all, Mr Low, a sole proprietor who has been in practice for about 15 years, billed his clients $4,300 in expenses he incurred in a property deal he handled for them in November 2005.
The committee felt $1,385 would have been a more reasonable amount, based on the Law Society’s submissions.
As part of that $4,300 bill, Mr Low had charged $1,850 for expenses related to his dealings with eight government departments.
The society’s valuation of that bit of work: $193.
For incidental expenses such as phone charges, Mr Low charged $350, seven times what the committee felt was reasonable.
A second misconduct charge involved Mr Low engaging his brother’s firm to undertake some services for his clients without informing them about their relationship, as required under the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.
Mr Low’s brother, Mr Michael Low, was also a secretary in his law firm.
The committee, chaired by Senior Counsel Steven Chong, held that the two charges were sufficiently serious to be referred to the Court of Three Judges.
The committee has alternative powers to fine or reprimand a lawyer if it considers the charge to be less serious.
Another charge for billing his clients $3,000 in legal fees was dropped as the committee felt it was not excessive.
Source : Straits Times - 7 Apr 2008
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Mum dead for two years, but no sign of probate yet
Q I am the executor and trustee for the estate of my mother, who died in April 2006. Her estate is worth less than $600,000, and I have a certified true copy of her will.
Soon after my mother’s death, my father and I engaged her lawyer to prepare and file duty returns. However, it has been almost two years and we still have not obtained the grant of probate.
In the two years, the lawyer switched to another law firm without informing us. My father later managed to trace her to her new firm.
More recently, some shares that form part of my mother’s estate dropped in price. And a cheque worth $3,700, which was issued to my father by an insurance company, cannot be banked in as my mother was the trustee.
This long process of waiting has created a lot of distress for my father. He and I have urged the lawyer to speed up the process on many occasions, but we are still waiting for the grant of probate.
We wish to know what we can do to help reduce the waiting time. We are also concerned that the legal and court fees and the drop in value of shares owned by my mother will increase as the process lengthens. Can you suggest what we should do?
A I note that you did not mention the cause(s) of the delay. If you are unsure of the actual cause(s), you should ask your lawyer and try to understand what are the obstacles she faces so as to take appropriate measures to solve the problem.
As there is no dispute over the validity of the will, I assume that the delay is due to an inability to obtain the certificate from the Commissioner of Estate Duties, which enables you to obtain the grant of probate from the court.
Generally, the entire procedure for obtaining the grant of probate for deaths before Feb 15 can be divided into three stages:
1. Apply to the court and obtain a tentative order of grant of probate. (This takes about two weeks to one month.)
2. File the estate duty affidavit, cooperate fully with the Estate Duty Branch (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore) if it has queries or requires documentation. (This takes about one month onwards depending on whether you are able to address inquiries made by the Commissioner of Estate Duties.)
3. If no estate duty is payable, the Commissioner will issue a certificate to confirm this. If the Commissioner’s assessment is that estate duty is payable, there will be a request for payment, after which a certificate will be issued to confirm that estate duty has been paid. With the certificate, you can return to court to obtain the final grant of probate. (This takes about one month.)
I believe the delay in your case is because it was held up at the second stage. You need to know why the Commissioner of Estate Duties is not able to issue the certificate. Even if your mother’s estate does not attract estate duty because it is worth less than $600,000, you still need to address the Commissioner’s queries so as to obtain a certificate stating that no estate duty is payable.
Before issuing such a certificate, the Commissioner needs to be satisfied, among other things, that your mother did not make any gift within five years of her death. Such gifts might attract duty. The Commissioner also needs to be satisfied that the sum of $3,700, which you say is due to your father, should be excluded from the assessment of estate duty because your mother was only the trustee.
To reduce the processing time, you need to cooperate fully with the Commissioner of Estate Duties. Attend to all the queries that have not been satisfactorily addressed. Locate and deliver all the documents the Commissioner has requested. If you are unable to supply the answers or documents, you should inform the Commissioner, who might then make certain assumptions so as to proceed with the assessment.
Source : Sunday Times - 6 Apr 2008
Soon after my mother’s death, my father and I engaged her lawyer to prepare and file duty returns. However, it has been almost two years and we still have not obtained the grant of probate.
In the two years, the lawyer switched to another law firm without informing us. My father later managed to trace her to her new firm.
More recently, some shares that form part of my mother’s estate dropped in price. And a cheque worth $3,700, which was issued to my father by an insurance company, cannot be banked in as my mother was the trustee.
This long process of waiting has created a lot of distress for my father. He and I have urged the lawyer to speed up the process on many occasions, but we are still waiting for the grant of probate.
We wish to know what we can do to help reduce the waiting time. We are also concerned that the legal and court fees and the drop in value of shares owned by my mother will increase as the process lengthens. Can you suggest what we should do?
A I note that you did not mention the cause(s) of the delay. If you are unsure of the actual cause(s), you should ask your lawyer and try to understand what are the obstacles she faces so as to take appropriate measures to solve the problem.
As there is no dispute over the validity of the will, I assume that the delay is due to an inability to obtain the certificate from the Commissioner of Estate Duties, which enables you to obtain the grant of probate from the court.
Generally, the entire procedure for obtaining the grant of probate for deaths before Feb 15 can be divided into three stages:
1. Apply to the court and obtain a tentative order of grant of probate. (This takes about two weeks to one month.)
2. File the estate duty affidavit, cooperate fully with the Estate Duty Branch (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore) if it has queries or requires documentation. (This takes about one month onwards depending on whether you are able to address inquiries made by the Commissioner of Estate Duties.)
3. If no estate duty is payable, the Commissioner will issue a certificate to confirm this. If the Commissioner’s assessment is that estate duty is payable, there will be a request for payment, after which a certificate will be issued to confirm that estate duty has been paid. With the certificate, you can return to court to obtain the final grant of probate. (This takes about one month.)
I believe the delay in your case is because it was held up at the second stage. You need to know why the Commissioner of Estate Duties is not able to issue the certificate. Even if your mother’s estate does not attract estate duty because it is worth less than $600,000, you still need to address the Commissioner’s queries so as to obtain a certificate stating that no estate duty is payable.
Before issuing such a certificate, the Commissioner needs to be satisfied, among other things, that your mother did not make any gift within five years of her death. Such gifts might attract duty. The Commissioner also needs to be satisfied that the sum of $3,700, which you say is due to your father, should be excluded from the assessment of estate duty because your mother was only the trustee.
To reduce the processing time, you need to cooperate fully with the Commissioner of Estate Duties. Attend to all the queries that have not been satisfactorily addressed. Locate and deliver all the documents the Commissioner has requested. If you are unable to supply the answers or documents, you should inform the Commissioner, who might then make certain assumptions so as to proceed with the assessment.
Source : Sunday Times - 6 Apr 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
How to deny my father a share of my assets after I die?
Q I AM a 29-year-old executive with no assets except for some small savings, several insurance plans that will pay out on my death and an HDB flat that I will eventually co-own with my older sister.
I am estranged from my father, who divorced my mother more than 10 years ago and has not supported us since. I do not wish to leave a cent to him, my step-siblings or my step-mother.
I have nominated beneficiaries for the payouts from my insurance plans, and I have excluded my father.
If I do not make a will, is this enough to ensure that my father cannot get a share of my money when I die?
A IF YOU die intestate, that is, without a will, your estate will be distributed to your parents in equal shares if you are single at that point. If you are married without children, half will go to your parents and the other half to your spouse.
Thus, you should make a will if you do not wish to leave anything to your father.
The death proceeds from your life insurance policies will go to the beneficiaries you have named. In the unlikely event that your named beneficiaries do not file a claim with the insurance companies, your executor (if you die with a will) or administrator (if you die without one), or any legitimate claimant under insurance laws (such as your father), can seek to have the proceeds paid to them.
The recipient would then be legally obligated to distribute the proceeds in accordance with the law, that is, as specified under your will, in accordance with intestacy laws or to your named beneficiaries, as the case might be.
If your co-owned HDB flat is held under a joint tenancy, your share would go to the surviving joint tenants. If it is held under a tenancy in common, your share would be distributed in accordance with your will, or intestacy laws if you die without a will.
Leong Sze Hian
President, Society of Financial Service Professionals
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 30 Mar 2008
I am estranged from my father, who divorced my mother more than 10 years ago and has not supported us since. I do not wish to leave a cent to him, my step-siblings or my step-mother.
I have nominated beneficiaries for the payouts from my insurance plans, and I have excluded my father.
If I do not make a will, is this enough to ensure that my father cannot get a share of my money when I die?
A IF YOU die intestate, that is, without a will, your estate will be distributed to your parents in equal shares if you are single at that point. If you are married without children, half will go to your parents and the other half to your spouse.
Thus, you should make a will if you do not wish to leave anything to your father.
The death proceeds from your life insurance policies will go to the beneficiaries you have named. In the unlikely event that your named beneficiaries do not file a claim with the insurance companies, your executor (if you die with a will) or administrator (if you die without one), or any legitimate claimant under insurance laws (such as your father), can seek to have the proceeds paid to them.
The recipient would then be legally obligated to distribute the proceeds in accordance with the law, that is, as specified under your will, in accordance with intestacy laws or to your named beneficiaries, as the case might be.
If your co-owned HDB flat is held under a joint tenancy, your share would go to the surviving joint tenants. If it is held under a tenancy in common, your share would be distributed in accordance with your will, or intestacy laws if you die without a will.
Leong Sze Hian
President, Society of Financial Service Professionals
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 30 Mar 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Will I be forced to sell home upon divorce?
Q MY husband and I have been separated for nine months. He has moved out of our home, but my children and I are still living in the condominium, which is under both his name and mine.
When we divorce, what will happen to the condo? Will I be forced to sell it and split the money 50:50? What are our options if my children and I want to continue living in the condo? My husband is currently paying half of the mortgage loan.
A THE fate of your matrimonial home can be affected in two scenarios - if there is a default in the mortgage repayments and upon divorce.
If there is a default in the mortgage payments, the mortgagee bank would be entitled to recover possession of the property and sell it off.
In the event of a divorce, the division of the matrimonial home will be adjudged by the court if the parties are unable to reach an amicable settlement. When it falls to the court to decide, there are various factors that it takes into account.
The starting point is the parties’ respective direct financial contributions to the initial payments and the monthly mortgage. Payments for these through Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies are also taken into account. The court then takes into account indirect financial contributions such as renovations, payment for furniture, fittings and furnishings, monthly maintenance charges, utilities bills and other outgoings on the home.
Finally, the court takes into account indirect non-financial contributions such as looking after the children and the welfare of the family, cooking, housekeeping, looking after an aged or disabled member of the family.
In raising your children and looking after them, you would have earned an additional equity or share in the matrimonial home that would be added to your share due to your financial contributions.
The court also takes into account that if you have the care and control of your children, you would continue contributing towards their upbringing and welfare. If there was an agreement, its terms (for instance in a separation deed) would also be a factor to be considered.
However, the court does not embark on a detailed calculation of mathematical precision. Instead, it adopts a ‘broad brush’ approach and understandably so, as no one keeps such neat and precise accounts as in a business.
The court is also not compelled to order an equal division as the law requires the division to be just and equitable, although in some cases, an equal division may be the most just and equitable one.
In short, the court will be fair to both parties. Having arrived at your share or equity in the home, the next issue is to decide how to satisfy that equity, for instance whether you have the financial means and capability to buy out your husband’s share.
Depending on your age and the amount of funds available in your CPF account, you may be able to use some of those funds to buy out your husband’s share. You may also be able to find a bank willing to enter into a fresh loan agreement with you for the apartment.
If your husband is agreeable, you may also be able to postpone the sale until, say, when the youngest child reaches 21 years of age or completes his or her education, whichever occurs later.
The apartment may have to be sold as a last resort, and after deducting the outstanding loan, the refund to your respective CPF accounts and expenses of the sale, the rest of the money will then be distributed according to you and your husband’s shares as determined by the court.
While it is true that it is possible to maintain the standard of living that both parties have been used to during marriage, it is also true that upon a divorce, there will almost always be a lowering of the standard. You may have to find alternative affordable accommodation for yourself and your children and look to your husband to contribute towards the expenses as part of his monthly maintenance obligations.
With the recent amendments to the CPF Act, you may be able to persuade the courts to transfer the apartment to you without having to refund your husband’s CPF account first, but it may not be reasonable for you to insist on living in a private condo when there is ample affordable public housing available.
Amolat Singh
Lawyer, Amolat & Partners
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 23 Mar 2008
When we divorce, what will happen to the condo? Will I be forced to sell it and split the money 50:50? What are our options if my children and I want to continue living in the condo? My husband is currently paying half of the mortgage loan.
A THE fate of your matrimonial home can be affected in two scenarios - if there is a default in the mortgage repayments and upon divorce.
If there is a default in the mortgage payments, the mortgagee bank would be entitled to recover possession of the property and sell it off.
In the event of a divorce, the division of the matrimonial home will be adjudged by the court if the parties are unable to reach an amicable settlement. When it falls to the court to decide, there are various factors that it takes into account.
The starting point is the parties’ respective direct financial contributions to the initial payments and the monthly mortgage. Payments for these through Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies are also taken into account. The court then takes into account indirect financial contributions such as renovations, payment for furniture, fittings and furnishings, monthly maintenance charges, utilities bills and other outgoings on the home.
Finally, the court takes into account indirect non-financial contributions such as looking after the children and the welfare of the family, cooking, housekeeping, looking after an aged or disabled member of the family.
In raising your children and looking after them, you would have earned an additional equity or share in the matrimonial home that would be added to your share due to your financial contributions.
The court also takes into account that if you have the care and control of your children, you would continue contributing towards their upbringing and welfare. If there was an agreement, its terms (for instance in a separation deed) would also be a factor to be considered.
However, the court does not embark on a detailed calculation of mathematical precision. Instead, it adopts a ‘broad brush’ approach and understandably so, as no one keeps such neat and precise accounts as in a business.
The court is also not compelled to order an equal division as the law requires the division to be just and equitable, although in some cases, an equal division may be the most just and equitable one.
In short, the court will be fair to both parties. Having arrived at your share or equity in the home, the next issue is to decide how to satisfy that equity, for instance whether you have the financial means and capability to buy out your husband’s share.
Depending on your age and the amount of funds available in your CPF account, you may be able to use some of those funds to buy out your husband’s share. You may also be able to find a bank willing to enter into a fresh loan agreement with you for the apartment.
If your husband is agreeable, you may also be able to postpone the sale until, say, when the youngest child reaches 21 years of age or completes his or her education, whichever occurs later.
The apartment may have to be sold as a last resort, and after deducting the outstanding loan, the refund to your respective CPF accounts and expenses of the sale, the rest of the money will then be distributed according to you and your husband’s shares as determined by the court.
While it is true that it is possible to maintain the standard of living that both parties have been used to during marriage, it is also true that upon a divorce, there will almost always be a lowering of the standard. You may have to find alternative affordable accommodation for yourself and your children and look to your husband to contribute towards the expenses as part of his monthly maintenance obligations.
With the recent amendments to the CPF Act, you may be able to persuade the courts to transfer the apartment to you without having to refund your husband’s CPF account first, but it may not be reasonable for you to insist on living in a private condo when there is ample affordable public housing available.
Amolat Singh
Lawyer, Amolat & Partners
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 23 Mar 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Will dependants be liable for my debts when I die?
Q What happens to a person’s liabilities when he dies? For example, if he is in debt to a bank for his personal credit line, will his dependants - say, his wife - be required to repay the debt even though she has no interest in the account, which is held in his name only?
A YOUR dependants, such as your wife, are not liable for your debts unless, for instance, they were joint-account holders with you, or acted as guarantors for your loan.
Your estate is liable for your debts. The estate includes your assets other than an HDB flat, the balance in your CPF account, and any life insurance expressed for the benefit of your spouse or children at the inception of the policy.
As the CPF Dependants’ Protection Scheme (DPS) was transferred to two private insurers about two years ago, and CPF nominations are no longer applicable to DPS, DPS death proceeds will also form part of your estate.
While the balance in your CPF account is protected from creditors, any CPF used for investment will not be protected from creditors on death. You should therefore consider liquidating any CPF investments before death.
As in the high-profile case of former NKF chairman Richard Yong, when someone, while in a state of insolvency, makes any asset transfers that could be construed as an attempt to defraud creditors, those assets may be recovered by creditors too.
Leong Sze Hian
President, Society of Financial Service Professionals
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 16 Mar 2008
A YOUR dependants, such as your wife, are not liable for your debts unless, for instance, they were joint-account holders with you, or acted as guarantors for your loan.
Your estate is liable for your debts. The estate includes your assets other than an HDB flat, the balance in your CPF account, and any life insurance expressed for the benefit of your spouse or children at the inception of the policy.
As the CPF Dependants’ Protection Scheme (DPS) was transferred to two private insurers about two years ago, and CPF nominations are no longer applicable to DPS, DPS death proceeds will also form part of your estate.
While the balance in your CPF account is protected from creditors, any CPF used for investment will not be protected from creditors on death. You should therefore consider liquidating any CPF investments before death.
As in the high-profile case of former NKF chairman Richard Yong, when someone, while in a state of insolvency, makes any asset transfers that could be construed as an attempt to defraud creditors, those assets may be recovered by creditors too.
Leong Sze Hian
President, Society of Financial Service Professionals
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 16 Mar 2008
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Who inherits flat depends on type of home co-ownership
Q I HAVE a Housing Board (HDB) flat that I had applied for together with my father before my marriage. Should anything happen to me, will the flat go to my wife or my father, who is a co-owner of the flat?
My wife has her own income but ever since we got married, she has not contributed a single cent to the household. I feel she does not deserve to get anything should I suffer any mishap.
What can I do to protect my assets from her? I want my father to at least have the bigger share of my assets, including the flat.
A IT IS important to first ascertain how the HDB flat is co-owned by your father and you. Co-ownership can be in the form of a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common.
Joint tenancy basically means the owners own the whole flat together. Tenancy in common would mean that each owner has a stipulated share in the said flat, for example, you might own 70 per cent while your father owns 30 per cent.
In the case of a joint tenancy, upon the death of one owner, the other, surviving joint owners will retain the flat in their own names. This is the right of survivorship.
Joint tenants cannot will their share in the flat. If they do so, the will becomes ineffective.
In the case of tenants in common, the share of the deceased owner will not go to the surviving owner but will instead be inherited by the estate of the former.
If you and your father own the flat as joint tenants, then should you die before your father, your share will go automatically to your father and he will become the absolute owner of the flat. Your wife will not get any share.
Similarly, if your father dies before you, you will become the absolute owner.
Should you die later on, your estate will inherit the flat. If you have made a will, the flat will be inherited by the person to whom you have willed it.
If you die without a will, your flat will go to your estate under the laws of intestacy. In other words, your wife and children, if any, will inherit the said flat, in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act Cap 146.
If you do not want your wife to inherit the flat, you can make a will stating whom you want the property to be inherited by, if your father dies before you.
If your father and you own the flat as tenants in common, you can make a will to state who is to inherit your share of the flat, should you die.
If you die without a will, then your share of the flat will go to your estate under the laws of intestacy, that is, your wife and children, if any, would inherit the said share of the flat, in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act Cap 146.
Sharanjit Kaur
Partner, Khattarwong
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 9 Mar 2008
My wife has her own income but ever since we got married, she has not contributed a single cent to the household. I feel she does not deserve to get anything should I suffer any mishap.
What can I do to protect my assets from her? I want my father to at least have the bigger share of my assets, including the flat.
A IT IS important to first ascertain how the HDB flat is co-owned by your father and you. Co-ownership can be in the form of a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common.
Joint tenancy basically means the owners own the whole flat together. Tenancy in common would mean that each owner has a stipulated share in the said flat, for example, you might own 70 per cent while your father owns 30 per cent.
In the case of a joint tenancy, upon the death of one owner, the other, surviving joint owners will retain the flat in their own names. This is the right of survivorship.
Joint tenants cannot will their share in the flat. If they do so, the will becomes ineffective.
In the case of tenants in common, the share of the deceased owner will not go to the surviving owner but will instead be inherited by the estate of the former.
If you and your father own the flat as joint tenants, then should you die before your father, your share will go automatically to your father and he will become the absolute owner of the flat. Your wife will not get any share.
Similarly, if your father dies before you, you will become the absolute owner.
Should you die later on, your estate will inherit the flat. If you have made a will, the flat will be inherited by the person to whom you have willed it.
If you die without a will, your flat will go to your estate under the laws of intestacy. In other words, your wife and children, if any, will inherit the said flat, in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act Cap 146.
If you do not want your wife to inherit the flat, you can make a will stating whom you want the property to be inherited by, if your father dies before you.
If your father and you own the flat as tenants in common, you can make a will to state who is to inherit your share of the flat, should you die.
If you die without a will, then your share of the flat will go to your estate under the laws of intestacy, that is, your wife and children, if any, would inherit the said share of the flat, in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act Cap 146.
Sharanjit Kaur
Partner, Khattarwong
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 9 Mar 2008
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Dividing assets after divorce easier now
Recent CPF rule changes will help divorced women get their fair share from sale of matrimonial home.
DIVORCED couples have benefited from recent changes in Central Provident Fund (CPF) rules, which allow for a more ‘equitable’ distribution of their CPF monies when they divide their matrimonial assets.
Previously, divorced women often got very little from the sale of the matrimonial home. The changes, which came into effect on Oct1 last year, are an attempt to help them get more money and not face financial hardship.
One of the changes allows a member to transfer money from his or her CPF account into the CPF account of his or her former spouse.
For instance, under the old ruling, if $100,000 had been used out of a member’s CPF account to buy the matrimonial property , the $100,000 would have had to go back into his CPF account together with the accrued interest once the property was sold. This was the case even if the court had awarded his ex-spouse half the proceeds, or $50,000. The reason was that members were not allowed to withdraw their CPF money until the age of 55.
With the change, the court can order the transfer of $50,000 from the member’s CPF account into his ex- spouse’s account.
Another change allows for the immediate transfer of a piece of property to the former spouse.
In the past, when a member had used his CPF money to buy property and the court ordered ownership to be transferred to his ex-spouse, the member had to return the due amount to his CPF account.
In cases where a wife had no money to make the refund to her ex-husband’s account, the transfer could not take place. The court might then have to order a sale of the property , which might not be ideal in a weak property climate.
With the rule change, the member or his former spouse no longer needs to put back into his CPF account whatever money had been taken out for the property .
But should the former wife wish to sell the property later, she will be required to refund her own CPF monies withdrawn, as well as what her ex-husband had withdrawn.
So far, five divorce cases handled by law firm KhattarWong have benefited from the revised rulings. So too four handled by another law firm, Characterist.
Source : Sunday Times - 2 Mar 2008
DIVORCED couples have benefited from recent changes in Central Provident Fund (CPF) rules, which allow for a more ‘equitable’ distribution of their CPF monies when they divide their matrimonial assets.
Previously, divorced women often got very little from the sale of the matrimonial home. The changes, which came into effect on Oct1 last year, are an attempt to help them get more money and not face financial hardship.
One of the changes allows a member to transfer money from his or her CPF account into the CPF account of his or her former spouse.
For instance, under the old ruling, if $100,000 had been used out of a member’s CPF account to buy the matrimonial property , the $100,000 would have had to go back into his CPF account together with the accrued interest once the property was sold. This was the case even if the court had awarded his ex-spouse half the proceeds, or $50,000. The reason was that members were not allowed to withdraw their CPF money until the age of 55.
With the change, the court can order the transfer of $50,000 from the member’s CPF account into his ex- spouse’s account.
Another change allows for the immediate transfer of a piece of property to the former spouse.
In the past, when a member had used his CPF money to buy property and the court ordered ownership to be transferred to his ex-spouse, the member had to return the due amount to his CPF account.
In cases where a wife had no money to make the refund to her ex-husband’s account, the transfer could not take place. The court might then have to order a sale of the property , which might not be ideal in a weak property climate.
With the rule change, the member or his former spouse no longer needs to put back into his CPF account whatever money had been taken out for the property .
But should the former wife wish to sell the property later, she will be required to refund her own CPF monies withdrawn, as well as what her ex-husband had withdrawn.
So far, five divorce cases handled by law firm KhattarWong have benefited from the revised rulings. So too four handled by another law firm, Characterist.
Source : Sunday Times - 2 Mar 2008
Getting a divorce without losing her home
Recent CPF changes allow for a more eqitable distribution of the matrimonial home and let the ex-wife keep a roof over her head.
DIVORCING couples come under even greater emotional strain when they try to sort out who gets what.
Last October, measures were put in place that tilt the balance towards divorced women who would otherwise get little from the sale of the matrimonial home - or could even lose the roof over their heads.
Under the revised Central Provident Fund (CPF) rules, retirement funds will be distributed more equitably when coupples split their matrimonial property .
In a nutshell, the changes allow CPF assets such as property or unit trusts, or sale proceeds from these assets, to be transferred immediately to the ex-spouse’s account.
Most Singaporeans use CPF monies to buy the matrimonial home. In some cases, the husband is more willing to transfer it to his former wife, says lawyer Amolat Singh of Amolat Singh & Partners, especially if she can show she’s entitled to a big share.
CPF rules
The old system
The property could not be transferred to the wife until and unless all the monies used by her ex-husband for the mortgage had been fully reimbursed into his CPF account, together with the accrued interest.
Often, the parties did not have the funds to do so, so they were left with no choice but to sell the flat.
This could place them in financial straits, especially if they’d paid a high price for the home. Also, the spouse with the kids would probably have to find alternative accommodation.
This was what happened to Madam Shirley Chong (not her real name), who downgraded to a three-room flat from a four-roomer. Her two kids had to move to a new school as well.
The court had ruled that the flat should go to her, but she did not have the money to make the reimbursement, so the transfer could not take place. The flat was sold and a charge placed on her ex-husband’s account.
He is not yet 55 years old and it remains to be seen whether she will get her money when he reaches that age, as a mandatory Minimum Sum has to be retained in his CPF account.
The new system
The property can be transferred immediately from one spouse to the other even if the funds have not been fully reimbursed into the CPF account.
A charge is placed on the account so as to secure the refund of the CPF monies in the event of a sale.
If the wife sells the property , she must make a reimbursement equivalent to the total amount of the CPF monies used by her ex-husband, into her own CPF account.
This ensures that there is no leakage of funds from the CPF system.
The refund is just postponed until there is a sale, and the refund or reimbursement is made into her own account.
Madam Chong would be far better off under the new rules as the court could order an immediate transfer of the flat to her with or without a reimbursement.
Here are three real-life cases where divorced couples have benefited from the new rules.
Couples who have benefited
Case 1
MARRIED for six years, Mr and Mrs Victor Lee (not their real names) bought a three-room HDB flat now worth $200,000 on the resale market. He owed her $9,000 for maintenance in arrears.
Finally, they divided the flat in such a way that she took over his share by paying $60,000 into his CPF account. This represented the CPF monies he had withdrawn to buy the flat, plus accrued interest, less the debt of $9,000.
Said Ms Lie Chin Chin, the managing director of law firm Characterist: ‘Without the revised ruling, the $9,000 would have remained an outstanding debt. This ruling permits a partial refund of CPF monies into the ex-husband’s account, so Mrs Lee managed to offset the debt with the sum that was supposed to be refunded into his CPF account.’
When she sells the flat, however, she is required to refund any CPF monies she used for the property , plus the sum of $9,000, into her CPF account.
Case 2
AFTER 10 years of marriage, Mr and Mrs David Lim (not their real names) called it quits. At the point of divorce, she had no income and was thus unable to secure a housing loan. She had custody of a child and they needed a roof over their heads.
The Lims agreed that he would transfer his share in their five-room flat worth $400,000 to her without making any refunds into his CPF account. She managed to take over the flat in her sole name and continued living there with her child.
Without the revised CPF ruling, the division of the matrimonial flat could have posed a financial burden. The flat would have had to be sold or she would have had to take it over.
If the flat had been sold, most of the proceeds would have been refunded into his CPF account. There would have been little cash left over to be distributed. She would not have had the funds to buy another flat.
If she had taken over the flat, she would have had to get a loan so she could refund the monies into his CPF account. But she had no income, so her chances of getting a loan would have been practically non-existent.
Case 3
WHEN Mr and Mrs Joseph Ang (not their real names) bought their matrimonial home for $550,000 more than 10 years ago, they put in equal contributions using CPF monies.
The property is now worth $1.8 million. She paid for the renovation costs of $450,000.
They agreed to divide the house 80:20 in her favour. This meant he should receive $360,000.
But the sum due to be refunded into his CPF account was about $420,000 as the refund had to include the accrued interest on the CPF monies used. They agreed that she would take over his share by paying only $360,000 into his account.
Court order needed
Lawyers point out that the new CPF rules do not automatically apply in all divorce cases. A court order must first be made.
The onus is on the court to explicitly state that one spouse can transfer his or her share of the property to the other without having to refund the monies used. Only then can the transfer take place.
If the court does not make such an order, and it is purely the couple’s decision to buy over each other’s share of the property , the old rules still apply. The transaction must be done at fair market value and the monies must go back to the respective CPF accounts.
Dividing the assets
IN DECIDING who gets what, the law requires any division of matrimonial assets to be just and equitable.
Courts weigh certain factors when determining how assets should be split.
Matrimonial home
Contribution of each spouse: The starting point is the financial contribution that each party has made to initial payments and monthly mortgage payments.
Any payments made through the Central Provident Fund are also taken into account, said lawyer Amolat Singh.
Non-financial contributions: The court looks at who paid for the renovations; who bought the furniture, fittings or furnishings; who settled the monthly maintenance charges; and who paid the utility bills.
Also covered are expenses incurred for the welfare of the family and while looking after children or an aged or disabled family member.
Other assets
Efforts and contributions made by each party towards their acquisition: For example, for a business, the party making a claim must prove he or she has contributed to its success. One way is to show he or she has been involved in its administration or operations.
The court might not divide up these assets in the same proportion that it would the matrimonial home. For instance, the home might be split 50:50, but not the other assets.
Other factors: The court will consider the length of the marriage, the age and health of each spouse, and the couple’s standard of living during the marriage.
Source : Sunday Times - 2 Mar 2008
DIVORCING couples come under even greater emotional strain when they try to sort out who gets what.
Last October, measures were put in place that tilt the balance towards divorced women who would otherwise get little from the sale of the matrimonial home - or could even lose the roof over their heads.
Under the revised Central Provident Fund (CPF) rules, retirement funds will be distributed more equitably when coupples split their matrimonial property .
In a nutshell, the changes allow CPF assets such as property or unit trusts, or sale proceeds from these assets, to be transferred immediately to the ex-spouse’s account.
Most Singaporeans use CPF monies to buy the matrimonial home. In some cases, the husband is more willing to transfer it to his former wife, says lawyer Amolat Singh of Amolat Singh & Partners, especially if she can show she’s entitled to a big share.
CPF rules
The old system
The property could not be transferred to the wife until and unless all the monies used by her ex-husband for the mortgage had been fully reimbursed into his CPF account, together with the accrued interest.
Often, the parties did not have the funds to do so, so they were left with no choice but to sell the flat.
This could place them in financial straits, especially if they’d paid a high price for the home. Also, the spouse with the kids would probably have to find alternative accommodation.
This was what happened to Madam Shirley Chong (not her real name), who downgraded to a three-room flat from a four-roomer. Her two kids had to move to a new school as well.
The court had ruled that the flat should go to her, but she did not have the money to make the reimbursement, so the transfer could not take place. The flat was sold and a charge placed on her ex-husband’s account.
He is not yet 55 years old and it remains to be seen whether she will get her money when he reaches that age, as a mandatory Minimum Sum has to be retained in his CPF account.
The new system
The property can be transferred immediately from one spouse to the other even if the funds have not been fully reimbursed into the CPF account.
A charge is placed on the account so as to secure the refund of the CPF monies in the event of a sale.
If the wife sells the property , she must make a reimbursement equivalent to the total amount of the CPF monies used by her ex-husband, into her own CPF account.
This ensures that there is no leakage of funds from the CPF system.
The refund is just postponed until there is a sale, and the refund or reimbursement is made into her own account.
Madam Chong would be far better off under the new rules as the court could order an immediate transfer of the flat to her with or without a reimbursement.
Here are three real-life cases where divorced couples have benefited from the new rules.
Couples who have benefited
Case 1
MARRIED for six years, Mr and Mrs Victor Lee (not their real names) bought a three-room HDB flat now worth $200,000 on the resale market. He owed her $9,000 for maintenance in arrears.
Finally, they divided the flat in such a way that she took over his share by paying $60,000 into his CPF account. This represented the CPF monies he had withdrawn to buy the flat, plus accrued interest, less the debt of $9,000.
Said Ms Lie Chin Chin, the managing director of law firm Characterist: ‘Without the revised ruling, the $9,000 would have remained an outstanding debt. This ruling permits a partial refund of CPF monies into the ex-husband’s account, so Mrs Lee managed to offset the debt with the sum that was supposed to be refunded into his CPF account.’
When she sells the flat, however, she is required to refund any CPF monies she used for the property , plus the sum of $9,000, into her CPF account.
Case 2
AFTER 10 years of marriage, Mr and Mrs David Lim (not their real names) called it quits. At the point of divorce, she had no income and was thus unable to secure a housing loan. She had custody of a child and they needed a roof over their heads.
The Lims agreed that he would transfer his share in their five-room flat worth $400,000 to her without making any refunds into his CPF account. She managed to take over the flat in her sole name and continued living there with her child.
Without the revised CPF ruling, the division of the matrimonial flat could have posed a financial burden. The flat would have had to be sold or she would have had to take it over.
If the flat had been sold, most of the proceeds would have been refunded into his CPF account. There would have been little cash left over to be distributed. She would not have had the funds to buy another flat.
If she had taken over the flat, she would have had to get a loan so she could refund the monies into his CPF account. But she had no income, so her chances of getting a loan would have been practically non-existent.
Case 3
WHEN Mr and Mrs Joseph Ang (not their real names) bought their matrimonial home for $550,000 more than 10 years ago, they put in equal contributions using CPF monies.
The property is now worth $1.8 million. She paid for the renovation costs of $450,000.
They agreed to divide the house 80:20 in her favour. This meant he should receive $360,000.
But the sum due to be refunded into his CPF account was about $420,000 as the refund had to include the accrued interest on the CPF monies used. They agreed that she would take over his share by paying only $360,000 into his account.
Court order needed
Lawyers point out that the new CPF rules do not automatically apply in all divorce cases. A court order must first be made.
The onus is on the court to explicitly state that one spouse can transfer his or her share of the property to the other without having to refund the monies used. Only then can the transfer take place.
If the court does not make such an order, and it is purely the couple’s decision to buy over each other’s share of the property , the old rules still apply. The transaction must be done at fair market value and the monies must go back to the respective CPF accounts.
Dividing the assets
IN DECIDING who gets what, the law requires any division of matrimonial assets to be just and equitable.
Courts weigh certain factors when determining how assets should be split.
Matrimonial home
Contribution of each spouse: The starting point is the financial contribution that each party has made to initial payments and monthly mortgage payments.
Any payments made through the Central Provident Fund are also taken into account, said lawyer Amolat Singh.
Non-financial contributions: The court looks at who paid for the renovations; who bought the furniture, fittings or furnishings; who settled the monthly maintenance charges; and who paid the utility bills.
Also covered are expenses incurred for the welfare of the family and while looking after children or an aged or disabled family member.
Other assets
Efforts and contributions made by each party towards their acquisition: For example, for a business, the party making a claim must prove he or she has contributed to its success. One way is to show he or she has been involved in its administration or operations.
The court might not divide up these assets in the same proportion that it would the matrimonial home. For instance, the home might be split 50:50, but not the other assets.
Other factors: The court will consider the length of the marriage, the age and health of each spouse, and the couple’s standard of living during the marriage.
Source : Sunday Times - 2 Mar 2008
How can I make uncle honour dead grandpa’s self-made will?
Q I AM from Malaysia. My grandfather, a Malaysian, died six years ago.
According to his self-made will, his properties were to be distributed among his six sons. His eight daughters were not given a share in the will.
My grandfather signed this self-made will and so did his six sons. There were no signatures from the daughters.
However, immediately after my grandfather died, one of his sons, who is my third uncle, declared that he did not agree with the will. Because of his refusal to accept the will, all my grandfather’s properties are at the moment still under my grandfather’s name.
My third uncle is the one who manages the plantation and the company. He took all the income and did not distribute any to the shareholders.
My father was older than my third uncle and could have challenged my uncle, but unfortunately, he died in June last year.
According to my father’s will, which has been certified by a lawyer, I am the executor.
I want to get back what belongs to my sister, my brother and myself, and I have approached my third uncle. But he told me that, as his nephew, I have no right to ask for anything.
I personally feel that the only way to retrieve what is rightfully ours is to make my grandfather’s self-made will valid in the eyes of Malaysian law. But I have only a photocopy of the will and it was written in Chinese.
In your opinion, is the will of any use in the eyes of the law? Is there a solution to my problem?
A I MIGHT not be able to help very much. As your grandfather and father were Malaysians, Malaysian law would apply.
My advice as follows is based on Singapore law as I am not conversant with Malaysian law. You may wish to seek the advice of a Malaysian lawyer.
There are many dangers in relying on a self-made will. In this instance, it is not clear, based on what you have said, whether the will was properly executed and witnessed.
Also, when the six sons put their signatures on the will, it is not clear in what capacity they did so. Were they witnesses to the will? If so, the gift to them under the will is void as they were also the named beneficiaries under the will.
Under the Wills Act, a beneficiary of a will cannot also be a witness to it; the same applies to his or her spouse. Otherwise, the gift to that person under the will is utterly null and void. If the will includes other gifts and an appointment of executors, it is still valid where these are concerned.
In your grandfather’s case, if the will is void with regard to the gifts to the six sons, you will need to see whether there are other gifts stated in the will. For example, if your grandfather left the residuary estate to all his children, then all his sons and daughters would get a share.
If nothing else is said in the will, intestacy laws would apply. Under Singapore law, when a widower dies (assuming your grandmother died before your grandfather), all his assets will be divided among all his children. In this case, this would include the six sons and eight daughters. You and your siblings would inherit your father’s portion of your grandfather’s estate.
You might wish to get one or more of the other uncles or aunts to apply for letters of representation from the Malaysian court.
You might apply - as executor for your father’s estate - together with them.
You would need to produce the original will to the court when applying for the letters of representation. You would need to get a translation as well.
After the letters of representation have been extracted from the court, the personal representatives can request that your third uncle give an account of the income earned and expenses incurred by your grandfather’s estate during the time your uncle managed the assets.
Ang Kim Lan, Goodwins Law Corporation
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 2 Mar 2008
According to his self-made will, his properties were to be distributed among his six sons. His eight daughters were not given a share in the will.
My grandfather signed this self-made will and so did his six sons. There were no signatures from the daughters.
However, immediately after my grandfather died, one of his sons, who is my third uncle, declared that he did not agree with the will. Because of his refusal to accept the will, all my grandfather’s properties are at the moment still under my grandfather’s name.
My third uncle is the one who manages the plantation and the company. He took all the income and did not distribute any to the shareholders.
My father was older than my third uncle and could have challenged my uncle, but unfortunately, he died in June last year.
According to my father’s will, which has been certified by a lawyer, I am the executor.
I want to get back what belongs to my sister, my brother and myself, and I have approached my third uncle. But he told me that, as his nephew, I have no right to ask for anything.
I personally feel that the only way to retrieve what is rightfully ours is to make my grandfather’s self-made will valid in the eyes of Malaysian law. But I have only a photocopy of the will and it was written in Chinese.
In your opinion, is the will of any use in the eyes of the law? Is there a solution to my problem?
A I MIGHT not be able to help very much. As your grandfather and father were Malaysians, Malaysian law would apply.
My advice as follows is based on Singapore law as I am not conversant with Malaysian law. You may wish to seek the advice of a Malaysian lawyer.
There are many dangers in relying on a self-made will. In this instance, it is not clear, based on what you have said, whether the will was properly executed and witnessed.
Also, when the six sons put their signatures on the will, it is not clear in what capacity they did so. Were they witnesses to the will? If so, the gift to them under the will is void as they were also the named beneficiaries under the will.
Under the Wills Act, a beneficiary of a will cannot also be a witness to it; the same applies to his or her spouse. Otherwise, the gift to that person under the will is utterly null and void. If the will includes other gifts and an appointment of executors, it is still valid where these are concerned.
In your grandfather’s case, if the will is void with regard to the gifts to the six sons, you will need to see whether there are other gifts stated in the will. For example, if your grandfather left the residuary estate to all his children, then all his sons and daughters would get a share.
If nothing else is said in the will, intestacy laws would apply. Under Singapore law, when a widower dies (assuming your grandmother died before your grandfather), all his assets will be divided among all his children. In this case, this would include the six sons and eight daughters. You and your siblings would inherit your father’s portion of your grandfather’s estate.
You might wish to get one or more of the other uncles or aunts to apply for letters of representation from the Malaysian court.
You might apply - as executor for your father’s estate - together with them.
You would need to produce the original will to the court when applying for the letters of representation. You would need to get a translation as well.
After the letters of representation have been extracted from the court, the personal representatives can request that your third uncle give an account of the income earned and expenses incurred by your grandfather’s estate during the time your uncle managed the assets.
Ang Kim Lan, Goodwins Law Corporation
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 2 Mar 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Temple's acquisition appeal dismissed
THE High Court has dismissed an application by three devotees of the Jin Long Si Temple, off Bartley Road, to declare that the acquisition of the temple site violates the Constitution.
The government will now go ahead with the redevelopment of the land unless an appeal is lodged. Temporary and permanent sites have been offered to the temple trustees and committee members, as well as compensation. They will have to move out within two months.
Dismissing the application, the court said the applicants had no standing to make it, and that even if they did, there was no merit in their argument that the government had breached the Constitution. The case was heard in chambers on Jan 29.
The 60-year-old temple in Lorong How Sun was acquired in January 2003 for redevelopment in conjunction with the Circle Line MRT system.
The government gave the temple trustees five years - up to Jan 31 this year - to relocate from the site. Repeated appeals to the government to rethink the acquisition were rejected after due consideration.
The site, with adjoining state land that was formerly the Millenia Institute site, is slated for redevelopment to high-density residential use. The combined plot is scheduled for sale under the Government Land Sales programme in the second half of the year.
The acquisition has generated some controversy. A 100-year-old Bodhi tree, which is important to Buddhists, stands in the grounds and many have called for the tree to be preserved.
It is feared that redevelopment of the temple site, which sits on 1,840 sq metres of land, may damage the tree.
But the government has said measures will be taken to help preserve the Bodhi tree, which is more than 30 metres high.
The tender conditions for the redevelopment of the site will require the developer to retain the tree, the government has said.
Source : Business Times - 26 Feb 2008
The government will now go ahead with the redevelopment of the land unless an appeal is lodged. Temporary and permanent sites have been offered to the temple trustees and committee members, as well as compensation. They will have to move out within two months.
Dismissing the application, the court said the applicants had no standing to make it, and that even if they did, there was no merit in their argument that the government had breached the Constitution. The case was heard in chambers on Jan 29.
The 60-year-old temple in Lorong How Sun was acquired in January 2003 for redevelopment in conjunction with the Circle Line MRT system.
The government gave the temple trustees five years - up to Jan 31 this year - to relocate from the site. Repeated appeals to the government to rethink the acquisition were rejected after due consideration.
The site, with adjoining state land that was formerly the Millenia Institute site, is slated for redevelopment to high-density residential use. The combined plot is scheduled for sale under the Government Land Sales programme in the second half of the year.
The acquisition has generated some controversy. A 100-year-old Bodhi tree, which is important to Buddhists, stands in the grounds and many have called for the tree to be preserved.
It is feared that redevelopment of the temple site, which sits on 1,840 sq metres of land, may damage the tree.
But the government has said measures will be taken to help preserve the Bodhi tree, which is more than 30 metres high.
The tender conditions for the redevelopment of the site will require the developer to retain the tree, the government has said.
Source : Business Times - 26 Feb 2008
Application of 3 temple devotees over land acquisition dismissed
The High Court on Monday dismissed an application by three devotees of the Jing Long Si Temple. The devotees had initiated proceedings to declare that the government's acquisition of the temple site had violated the Constitution.
The three devotees had initiated proceedings on January 16 this year, and the case was heard in chambers on January 29.
The Court said the devotees had no standing to make the application, and even if they did, there was no merit in their arguments that the government had acted unconstitutionally.
The temple, at Lorong How Sun in the Bartley area, had been acquired in January 2003 for redevelopment in conjunction with the Circle MRT Line construction.
The temple site and an adjoining state land are slated for high density residential use.
The sites were scheduled for sale under the Government Land Sales Programme in the second half of this year.
In a statement, the Law Ministry said the government will now resume discussion with the temple's trustees and key committee members to facilitate a move - first to a temporary site, and subsequently to a permanent site.
Both these sites are located in nearby Tai Seng Avenue.
The government will also ensure that a Bodhi tree at the current site is preserved. Tender conditions for the site will ensure the developer takes necessary measures to retain the tree. - CNA/ms
Source : Channel NewsAsia - 25 Feb 2008
The three devotees had initiated proceedings on January 16 this year, and the case was heard in chambers on January 29.
The Court said the devotees had no standing to make the application, and even if they did, there was no merit in their arguments that the government had acted unconstitutionally.
The temple, at Lorong How Sun in the Bartley area, had been acquired in January 2003 for redevelopment in conjunction with the Circle MRT Line construction.
The temple site and an adjoining state land are slated for high density residential use.
The sites were scheduled for sale under the Government Land Sales Programme in the second half of this year.
In a statement, the Law Ministry said the government will now resume discussion with the temple's trustees and key committee members to facilitate a move - first to a temporary site, and subsequently to a permanent site.
Both these sites are located in nearby Tai Seng Avenue.
The government will also ensure that a Bodhi tree at the current site is preserved. Tender conditions for the site will ensure the developer takes necessary measures to retain the tree. - CNA/ms
Source : Channel NewsAsia - 25 Feb 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
How to claim one’s rightful share of estate?
Q I AM among the beneficiaries of an estate that is made up of the proceeds from the sale of a property. However, I am facing the problem of getting my rightful share from the executor.
I have a certified true copy of the will but I do not know what my rights are and how to go about claiming my share of the estate.
I was told that the executor has already committed a breach of trust by not distributing my share to me.
Please advise if there is any waiting period before I can take legal action, since I know that the property has been sold and the executor has taken the proceeds.
If there is, how long do I have to wait? What type of legal action should I take and what are the chances of recovering my share?
A An executor has a duty under the law to ensure that the assets in the estate of the deceased are distributed in accordance with the wishes as stated in his will, whose authenticity has been proved in the courts.
In your case, it appears that the deceased’s will has already been proved and that a grant of probate naming the executor has already been obtained. This is typically required before realisation of any assets can take place, such as the sale of the deceased’s property.
Prior to the distribution of the estate to the beneficiaries under the will, the executor also has a duty under the law to pay all the deceased’s debts and the reasonable estate expenses. This may, in certain cases, result in a delay in distribution.
Other factors causing delay include legal complications in administering the assets or being unable to determine the full extent of the estate, which will create difficulties in accounting for the exact amount that each beneficiary ought to receive.
In your case, given that as far as you are aware, the estate of the deceased comprised only of the property’s sale proceeds and that you are one of the named beneficiaries in the estate, it would be prudent of you to ask the executor about the status of the administration of the estate.
You can also, if you wish, ask for an account of the estate, which you are entitled to, as all executors are bound by duty to keep accounts of their management of the estate.
If the executor does not give you an explanation, or gives you one that you find unreasonable, you should seek legal representation in order to make a claim against him for an account of the estate, and subsequently for your share of the estate.
Such a claim will involve court proceedings and may be an expensive and lengthy task in the event that the executor contests your claim.
In such proceedings, you may also ask the court to grant orders to the effect that distribution of the estate (in the absence of any other impediments) be distributed to you within a specified time.
The length of time that has elapsed from the sale of the property will also be a relevant factor.
Navin Lobo
Lawyer, Harry Elias Partnership
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 24 Feb 2007
I have a certified true copy of the will but I do not know what my rights are and how to go about claiming my share of the estate.
I was told that the executor has already committed a breach of trust by not distributing my share to me.
Please advise if there is any waiting period before I can take legal action, since I know that the property has been sold and the executor has taken the proceeds.
If there is, how long do I have to wait? What type of legal action should I take and what are the chances of recovering my share?
A An executor has a duty under the law to ensure that the assets in the estate of the deceased are distributed in accordance with the wishes as stated in his will, whose authenticity has been proved in the courts.
In your case, it appears that the deceased’s will has already been proved and that a grant of probate naming the executor has already been obtained. This is typically required before realisation of any assets can take place, such as the sale of the deceased’s property.
Prior to the distribution of the estate to the beneficiaries under the will, the executor also has a duty under the law to pay all the deceased’s debts and the reasonable estate expenses. This may, in certain cases, result in a delay in distribution.
Other factors causing delay include legal complications in administering the assets or being unable to determine the full extent of the estate, which will create difficulties in accounting for the exact amount that each beneficiary ought to receive.
In your case, given that as far as you are aware, the estate of the deceased comprised only of the property’s sale proceeds and that you are one of the named beneficiaries in the estate, it would be prudent of you to ask the executor about the status of the administration of the estate.
You can also, if you wish, ask for an account of the estate, which you are entitled to, as all executors are bound by duty to keep accounts of their management of the estate.
If the executor does not give you an explanation, or gives you one that you find unreasonable, you should seek legal representation in order to make a claim against him for an account of the estate, and subsequently for your share of the estate.
Such a claim will involve court proceedings and may be an expensive and lengthy task in the event that the executor contests your claim.
In such proceedings, you may also ask the court to grant orders to the effect that distribution of the estate (in the absence of any other impediments) be distributed to you within a specified time.
The length of time that has elapsed from the sale of the property will also be a relevant factor.
Navin Lobo
Lawyer, Harry Elias Partnership
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 24 Feb 2007
Sunday, February 17, 2008
How will matrimonial assets be affected when I remarry?
Q I AM a widower. If I remarry now, will my current assets form part of the matrimonial assets that my new wife will receive in case of a divorce?
What about new assets acquired after my marriage to a new wife? Will these be the only assets considered for distribution upon a divorce?
A THE answer is that it will depend on a variety of factors.
If your assets, excluding the matrimonial home, are acquired as gifts or inheritance, and when these have not been substantially improved during the marriage by either your new spouse or by both of you, then this category of assets will not be open for division by the court in the event of a divorce.
On the other hand, if your asset is a property you purchased before the marriage and which you now share and use as a matrimonial home with your new spouse, then it is defined as a matrimonial asset that can be divided upon a divorce.
If you have other assets that you bring to the new marriage and where your new spouse or your children in the new marriage enjoy, or which have been substantially improved during the marriage by your new spouse or by both of you, then these assets are considered matrimonial assets and may be divided by the court upon a divorce.
Assets acquired during the new marriage are considered matrimonial assets and may also be divided by the court upon a divorce.
Koh Tien Hua PartnerHarry Elias Partnership
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 17 Feb 2008
What about new assets acquired after my marriage to a new wife? Will these be the only assets considered for distribution upon a divorce?
A THE answer is that it will depend on a variety of factors.
If your assets, excluding the matrimonial home, are acquired as gifts or inheritance, and when these have not been substantially improved during the marriage by either your new spouse or by both of you, then this category of assets will not be open for division by the court in the event of a divorce.
On the other hand, if your asset is a property you purchased before the marriage and which you now share and use as a matrimonial home with your new spouse, then it is defined as a matrimonial asset that can be divided upon a divorce.
If you have other assets that you bring to the new marriage and where your new spouse or your children in the new marriage enjoy, or which have been substantially improved during the marriage by your new spouse or by both of you, then these assets are considered matrimonial assets and may be divided by the court upon a divorce.
Assets acquired during the new marriage are considered matrimonial assets and may also be divided by the court upon a divorce.
Koh Tien Hua PartnerHarry Elias Partnership
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 17 Feb 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Brothers’ 20-year feud over $15m of properties ends
FOR almost 20 years, brothers Leow Mei Loy and Chia Then have been involved in a spat over $15 million worth of real estate their businessman father left behind after his death.
On Monday, their feud came to an end when a High Court judge ordered two properties - which include a Mountbatten Road bungalow valued at $13 million - to be sold and the money split among the brothers and their four sisters.
The deal came on what would have been the opening day of a trial to decide on a bid by Chia Then, represented by lawyers from Drew & Napier, to enforce the sale, and a separate suit against him by elder brother Mei Loy, represented by lawyer Wong Yoong Phin.
The two-decade-long drama ended after a meeting between lawyers from both sides in the chambers of Justice Belinda Ang. She issued a consent order for the two properties to be sold within six months.
The deal ends a saga that began when the brothers’ father, Mr Leow Nee Chong, died in 1988 and left no will. Both brothers, who are in their 50s, handled the estate on behalf of their mother and four sisters. Their mother died in August 1993.
The suit is the third involving siblings and their inheritances to be settled in the High Court within a month.
Source : Straits Times - 17 Jan 2008
On Monday, their feud came to an end when a High Court judge ordered two properties - which include a Mountbatten Road bungalow valued at $13 million - to be sold and the money split among the brothers and their four sisters.
The deal came on what would have been the opening day of a trial to decide on a bid by Chia Then, represented by lawyers from Drew & Napier, to enforce the sale, and a separate suit against him by elder brother Mei Loy, represented by lawyer Wong Yoong Phin.
The two-decade-long drama ended after a meeting between lawyers from both sides in the chambers of Justice Belinda Ang. She issued a consent order for the two properties to be sold within six months.
The deal ends a saga that began when the brothers’ father, Mr Leow Nee Chong, died in 1988 and left no will. Both brothers, who are in their 50s, handled the estate on behalf of their mother and four sisters. Their mother died in August 1993.
The suit is the third involving siblings and their inheritances to be settled in the High Court within a month.
Source : Straits Times - 17 Jan 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
What can co-owners do to protect interests in home?
Q I AM 49 and single. I live with my parents, who are in their 70s, and my youngest sister in a three-storey terrace house bought in 1997.
The four of us bought the house for $904,000 under a tenants-in-common agreement. We each chipped in about $250,000.
The initial 20 per cent down payment of about $180,000 was paid by my parents.
At the time of purchase, my sister was unable to finance her full share of $250,000, so my parents paid $100,000 for her. Her total contribution was only about $150,000.
My sister and I each took up a 25-year loan of $60,000, using Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies. Combined, our outstanding loan commitments come to $95,000.
Now, my sister, who is 40, is getting married.
After her marriage, can she and her spouse move in with us against our wishes? If so, can the law protect the interests of both my parents and myself?
We have expressed our desire to buy out my sister’s share, but she has said no.
What legal options do my parents and I have? Are there any rights we can exercise to make her sell her share to us?
Selling the property is not an option.
A UNDER such a co-ownership arrangement, all four owners are entitled to the use and possession of the house, and none of you can claim a right to any separate part of it.
Thus, your sister can continue to live in the house after her marriage, but her husband, not being an owner, has no right of possession to any part of the house.
Your unequal contributions towards the purchase do not affect the equal rights of the four co-owners to use or possess the property .
One option is for the four owners to partition the property , allocating specific parts to each.
Agreement must be reached on the method to be used and other issues such as the title to the property and the adjustments of rights between the parties.
The agreement would also be subject to official approval under the Planning Act 1998.
Obviously, such a partition would be difficult to implement, especially if it is intended to allow at least two family units to live together in a terrace house.
If the parties cannot agree to a partition, any one of you can apply to the court to order a partition or to direct a sale of the property in lieu of partition.
The court might direct the property to be sold outright if this is more expedient. It could also order a sale where all the co-owners are free to bid for the shares of other co-owners.
You or your parents could propose buying over your sister’s share to the court.
If none of the co-owners is financially able or willing to take over the shares of other co-owners, then the court is likely to order that the property be sold in the open market and the proceeds divided among the co-owners in accordance with their entitlements.
Lie Chin ChinManaging DirectorCharacterist LLC (incorporating Lie Kee Pong Partnership)
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 13 Jan 2008
The four of us bought the house for $904,000 under a tenants-in-common agreement. We each chipped in about $250,000.
The initial 20 per cent down payment of about $180,000 was paid by my parents.
At the time of purchase, my sister was unable to finance her full share of $250,000, so my parents paid $100,000 for her. Her total contribution was only about $150,000.
My sister and I each took up a 25-year loan of $60,000, using Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies. Combined, our outstanding loan commitments come to $95,000.
Now, my sister, who is 40, is getting married.
After her marriage, can she and her spouse move in with us against our wishes? If so, can the law protect the interests of both my parents and myself?
We have expressed our desire to buy out my sister’s share, but she has said no.
What legal options do my parents and I have? Are there any rights we can exercise to make her sell her share to us?
Selling the property is not an option.
A UNDER such a co-ownership arrangement, all four owners are entitled to the use and possession of the house, and none of you can claim a right to any separate part of it.
Thus, your sister can continue to live in the house after her marriage, but her husband, not being an owner, has no right of possession to any part of the house.
Your unequal contributions towards the purchase do not affect the equal rights of the four co-owners to use or possess the property .
One option is for the four owners to partition the property , allocating specific parts to each.
Agreement must be reached on the method to be used and other issues such as the title to the property and the adjustments of rights between the parties.
The agreement would also be subject to official approval under the Planning Act 1998.
Obviously, such a partition would be difficult to implement, especially if it is intended to allow at least two family units to live together in a terrace house.
If the parties cannot agree to a partition, any one of you can apply to the court to order a partition or to direct a sale of the property in lieu of partition.
The court might direct the property to be sold outright if this is more expedient. It could also order a sale where all the co-owners are free to bid for the shares of other co-owners.
You or your parents could propose buying over your sister’s share to the court.
If none of the co-owners is financially able or willing to take over the shares of other co-owners, then the court is likely to order that the property be sold in the open market and the proceeds divided among the co-owners in accordance with their entitlements.
Lie Chin ChinManaging DirectorCharacterist LLC (incorporating Lie Kee Pong Partnership)
Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
Source : Sunday Times - 13 Jan 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Draycott Park Condominium - sorry, you must sell
Higher offer, so owner tries to back out of deal.
THEY had signed the option form for a $3.86 million condo.
But the seller, Indonesian businessman Sukanda Sutisna, had an offer that was $90,000 higher.
Then the excuses started.
The Draycott Park condominium had termites and it was leaking, Mr Sukanda claimed.
Draycott Park condominium, near Stevens Road. -- Picture: GAVIN FOO
But despite this, the buyers, Mr Ahuja Vivek Gopaldas and another unnamed person, wanted the property.
Then came Mr Sukanda's final tactic - he claimed the buyers did not sign the option form in time.
The case went to the High Court and the judge ruled in favour of the buyers last July.
UPHELD VERDICT
In December, he upheld his verdict after Mr Sukanda appealed.
Justice Lee Seiu Kin found that the plantiffs had properly exercised the option to buy the unit.
Justice Lee pointed out inconsistencies in Mr Sukanda's version of events.
Mr Sukanda argued that the buyers had a day to decide whether to exercise their option to buy and that this had expired by the time the buyers signed theoption.
However, this was found to be baseless, as the accepted industry practice is that interested buyers have a 14-day period to exercise their option.
Mr Sukanda also accepted the buyers' cheque of $38,600 after the 'one-day' expiry.
He had also signed the option for the buyers to buy the unit in front of the housing agent.
Justice Lee said in his judgment: 'He would have to explain why, if he had agreed to sell that property at $3.86 (million) shortly after 6.15pm on 2 Apr 2007, he would sign an option that had expired even before he signed it.
'There are, of course, other less benign reasons.
'For instance, if he had signed the option with the knowledge that it was a worthless piece of paper at the outset, his motives in accepting the cheque could be called into question.'
Justice Lee found the buyers' version of events to be more acceptable.
They said they responded to a property advertisement placed last March in The Straits Times for the Draycott Park unit.
They dealt with a housing agent called Carmen Ng Li Hua, who worked for Electronic Realty Associates.
They visited the apartment many times and decided to make an offer of $3.86million on 1 Apr last year.
Mr Sukanda had wanted to sell it for at least $3.85m.
On the same day, the buyers handed Ms Ng a cheque of $38,600 as 1 per cent of the offer price.
Mr Sukanda was to accept the cheque only if he agreed to the offer.
He was also to sign the option-to-purchase form.
Ms Ng was told by the buyers that they wanted a 14-day period from 1Apr to exercise their option to buy, should Mr Sukanda accept it.
OPTION DELIVERED
The next day at 6.40pm, Ms Ng went to the buyers' house at Claymore Hill to deliver the signed option.
Mr Sukanda had signed it half an hour earlier at his home in Balmoral Park.
At 9.40pm that day, Mr Sukanda's daughter, Imelda, received a call from another housing agent.
The agent said a buyer from HongKong was prepared to pay $3.95m for the Draycott Park unit.
Ms Ng was aware of this offer much earlier, at 7.20pm.
But as the deal with the buyers was already settled, Ms Ng did not inform Mr Sukanda of the new offer.
On the morning of 3 Apr, Ms Ng was called to meet Mr Sukanda, his daughter and their lawyer Nicholas Loh of Legal21.
At the meeting, Ms Ng was told she had mishandled the sale and was negligent as she did not respond to the other housing agent's offer.
As a result, Mr Sukanda missed out on selling the condo unit at a higher price.
Ms Ng was then instructed to find out if the buyers wanted to exercise their option to buy the unit.
The plaintiffs said they would exercise their option to buy.
The next day, a cheque of $154,400 was sent to Mr Sukanda's lawyers by the buyers. This was payment for the deposit balance.
The cheque was later returned to the buyers by Mr Sukanda's lawyers.
They were informed that Mr Sukanda said the option expired on 2Apr, a day after the plaintiffs made the first offer.
It was then that the plaintiffs took the case to court.
Source : New Paper - 11 Jan 2008
THEY had signed the option form for a $3.86 million condo.
But the seller, Indonesian businessman Sukanda Sutisna, had an offer that was $90,000 higher.
Then the excuses started.
The Draycott Park condominium had termites and it was leaking, Mr Sukanda claimed.
Draycott Park condominium, near Stevens Road. -- Picture: GAVIN FOOBut despite this, the buyers, Mr Ahuja Vivek Gopaldas and another unnamed person, wanted the property.
Then came Mr Sukanda's final tactic - he claimed the buyers did not sign the option form in time.
The case went to the High Court and the judge ruled in favour of the buyers last July.
UPHELD VERDICT
In December, he upheld his verdict after Mr Sukanda appealed.
Justice Lee Seiu Kin found that the plantiffs had properly exercised the option to buy the unit.
Justice Lee pointed out inconsistencies in Mr Sukanda's version of events.
Mr Sukanda argued that the buyers had a day to decide whether to exercise their option to buy and that this had expired by the time the buyers signed theoption.
However, this was found to be baseless, as the accepted industry practice is that interested buyers have a 14-day period to exercise their option.
Mr Sukanda also accepted the buyers' cheque of $38,600 after the 'one-day' expiry.
He had also signed the option for the buyers to buy the unit in front of the housing agent.
Justice Lee said in his judgment: 'He would have to explain why, if he had agreed to sell that property at $3.86 (million) shortly after 6.15pm on 2 Apr 2007, he would sign an option that had expired even before he signed it.
'There are, of course, other less benign reasons.
'For instance, if he had signed the option with the knowledge that it was a worthless piece of paper at the outset, his motives in accepting the cheque could be called into question.'
Justice Lee found the buyers' version of events to be more acceptable.
They said they responded to a property advertisement placed last March in The Straits Times for the Draycott Park unit.
They dealt with a housing agent called Carmen Ng Li Hua, who worked for Electronic Realty Associates.
They visited the apartment many times and decided to make an offer of $3.86million on 1 Apr last year.
Mr Sukanda had wanted to sell it for at least $3.85m.
On the same day, the buyers handed Ms Ng a cheque of $38,600 as 1 per cent of the offer price.
Mr Sukanda was to accept the cheque only if he agreed to the offer.
He was also to sign the option-to-purchase form.
Ms Ng was told by the buyers that they wanted a 14-day period from 1Apr to exercise their option to buy, should Mr Sukanda accept it.
OPTION DELIVERED
The next day at 6.40pm, Ms Ng went to the buyers' house at Claymore Hill to deliver the signed option.
Mr Sukanda had signed it half an hour earlier at his home in Balmoral Park.
At 9.40pm that day, Mr Sukanda's daughter, Imelda, received a call from another housing agent.
The agent said a buyer from HongKong was prepared to pay $3.95m for the Draycott Park unit.
Ms Ng was aware of this offer much earlier, at 7.20pm.
But as the deal with the buyers was already settled, Ms Ng did not inform Mr Sukanda of the new offer.
On the morning of 3 Apr, Ms Ng was called to meet Mr Sukanda, his daughter and their lawyer Nicholas Loh of Legal21.
At the meeting, Ms Ng was told she had mishandled the sale and was negligent as she did not respond to the other housing agent's offer.
As a result, Mr Sukanda missed out on selling the condo unit at a higher price.
Ms Ng was then instructed to find out if the buyers wanted to exercise their option to buy the unit.
The plaintiffs said they would exercise their option to buy.
The next day, a cheque of $154,400 was sent to Mr Sukanda's lawyers by the buyers. This was payment for the deposit balance.
The cheque was later returned to the buyers by Mr Sukanda's lawyers.
They were informed that Mr Sukanda said the option expired on 2Apr, a day after the plaintiffs made the first offer.
It was then that the plaintiffs took the case to court.
Source : New Paper - 11 Jan 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
9 tenants, developer in legal dispute over Square2 Mall
Retailers sue over empty pledges; Novena Point counter-sues for unpaid rent
SLUGGISH business in the shopping mall sitting above the Novena MRT station has led to a legal tussle between a group of disgruntled tenants and the developer.
WHERE ARE THE SHOPPERS?: The nine tenants claim Novena Point promised to spend $6 million on advertising and promotion, but this was not done. -- ST FILE PHOTO
The nine tenants of Square2 have sued the developer for misrepresentation, claiming that they were made several promises, such as the scale of advertising and promotion campaigns, which have remained unfulfilled.
Novena Point, which is under the Far East Organization umbrella, has denied making misrepresentations and is counter-suing the tenants for rent and other charges.
The mall, conceptualised as a Korean-themed one, has 150,000 sq ft of retail space on five levels. It has more than 200 retail tenants.
The nine tenants, including a gift shop, a hair salon, a fashion retailer and an eatery, opened for business in the first two months of last year.
Depending on shop size, they pay rents ranging from about $1,900 to over $12,000 a month.
Last month, the nine, represented by lawyer Leonard Loo, filed a lawsuit in the Subordinate Courts against Novena Point.
The claim did not specify the quantum of damages, as the plaintiffs are asking the court to assess the amount they deserve if they win the case.
Alternatively, the plaintiffs are asking that their tenancy agreements be rescinded and for the rents they have paid to be refunded. In their statement of claim, they say they took up their shop spaces based on oral representations made to them by the developer's representatives and its brochures.
The promises, the tenants claim, include:
# That there would be specific shopping zones such as a 'digital world' selling electronic gadgets in the basement and Korean-themed shops on Level 3, where shop staff would wear traditional Korean costumes;
# That Korean artistes like K-pop star Rain would be brought in monthly to promote the mall;
# That $6 million would be spent on advertising and promotion.
But the defendant failed to deliver on these, the tenants said.
The shops have not been zoned, but are scattered, and no 'digital world' has been created. They added that Korean artistes did not grace the mall every month, and that the defendant had not spent $6 million on promotions.
Some tenants claimed they have been locked out of their shops and that their rent cheques have been rejected without reason.
The defendant, represented by Allen & Gledhill, is denying these claims. In its defence filed last week, it said that while it had approached electronics retailers to take up shop units, it never set out to pitch Square2 as an IT mall like Sim Lim Square or Funan.
It added that while Level 3 has a Korean theme, it never said operators would wear Korean costumes. Korean artistes have come to the mall, but it was never promised that such appearances would happen every month.
As for Rain, it said that all that was said was that it would try to bring him in.
The developer also claimed to have put in considerable effort into promoting the mall, but never committed to spending $6 million on this. It has so far spent $2.9 million.
It asserted that six of the tenants were in rental arrears despite reminders, so their leases were terminated. Their cheques were returned because partial payments were not accepted.
It is contending that the tenants each owe between $1,800 and $51,000 in rent.
Source : Straits Times - 10 Jan 2008
SLUGGISH business in the shopping mall sitting above the Novena MRT station has led to a legal tussle between a group of disgruntled tenants and the developer.
WHERE ARE THE SHOPPERS?: The nine tenants claim Novena Point promised to spend $6 million on advertising and promotion, but this was not done. -- ST FILE PHOTOThe nine tenants of Square2 have sued the developer for misrepresentation, claiming that they were made several promises, such as the scale of advertising and promotion campaigns, which have remained unfulfilled.
Novena Point, which is under the Far East Organization umbrella, has denied making misrepresentations and is counter-suing the tenants for rent and other charges.
The mall, conceptualised as a Korean-themed one, has 150,000 sq ft of retail space on five levels. It has more than 200 retail tenants.
The nine tenants, including a gift shop, a hair salon, a fashion retailer and an eatery, opened for business in the first two months of last year.
Depending on shop size, they pay rents ranging from about $1,900 to over $12,000 a month.
Last month, the nine, represented by lawyer Leonard Loo, filed a lawsuit in the Subordinate Courts against Novena Point.
The claim did not specify the quantum of damages, as the plaintiffs are asking the court to assess the amount they deserve if they win the case.
Alternatively, the plaintiffs are asking that their tenancy agreements be rescinded and for the rents they have paid to be refunded. In their statement of claim, they say they took up their shop spaces based on oral representations made to them by the developer's representatives and its brochures.
The promises, the tenants claim, include:
# That there would be specific shopping zones such as a 'digital world' selling electronic gadgets in the basement and Korean-themed shops on Level 3, where shop staff would wear traditional Korean costumes;
# That Korean artistes like K-pop star Rain would be brought in monthly to promote the mall;
# That $6 million would be spent on advertising and promotion.
But the defendant failed to deliver on these, the tenants said.
The shops have not been zoned, but are scattered, and no 'digital world' has been created. They added that Korean artistes did not grace the mall every month, and that the defendant had not spent $6 million on promotions.
Some tenants claimed they have been locked out of their shops and that their rent cheques have been rejected without reason.
The defendant, represented by Allen & Gledhill, is denying these claims. In its defence filed last week, it said that while it had approached electronics retailers to take up shop units, it never set out to pitch Square2 as an IT mall like Sim Lim Square or Funan.
It added that while Level 3 has a Korean theme, it never said operators would wear Korean costumes. Korean artistes have come to the mall, but it was never promised that such appearances would happen every month.
As for Rain, it said that all that was said was that it would try to bring him in.
The developer also claimed to have put in considerable effort into promoting the mall, but never committed to spending $6 million on this. It has so far spent $2.9 million.
It asserted that six of the tenants were in rental arrears despite reminders, so their leases were terminated. Their cheques were returned because partial payments were not accepted.
It is contending that the tenants each owe between $1,800 and $51,000 in rent.
Source : Straits Times - 10 Jan 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
New website dedicated to legal news
There is now a free website that gathers up-to-date news and information on all legal matters.
It is called "Singapore Law Watch" (www.singaporelawwatch.sg) and has been developed by the Singapore Academy of Law.
The website is updated every weekday and provides content like headline news relating to the legal practice here. It uses sources like the TODAY newspaper.
It also has updates on new legislation passed. Foreign lawyers can also use the service to stay clued in on changes to Singapore's legal landscape.
Users can also retrieve the latest content via mobile phone. Singapore Academy of Law members can receive email alerts on breaking news or significant developments that affect the legal profession.
The new website was first announced by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong when he opened the legal year a few days ago.
Clifford Wong, Assistant Director, Singapore Academy of Law, said: "We feel that there's a big benefit to small- and medium-sized law firms because it allows them to match their time (faster) by having a look at all these updates in one single place." - CNA/ms
Source : Channel NewsAsia - 9 Jan 2008
It is called "Singapore Law Watch" (www.singaporelawwatch.sg) and has been developed by the Singapore Academy of Law.
The website is updated every weekday and provides content like headline news relating to the legal practice here. It uses sources like the TODAY newspaper.
It also has updates on new legislation passed. Foreign lawyers can also use the service to stay clued in on changes to Singapore's legal landscape.
Users can also retrieve the latest content via mobile phone. Singapore Academy of Law members can receive email alerts on breaking news or significant developments that affect the legal profession.
The new website was first announced by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong when he opened the legal year a few days ago.
Clifford Wong, Assistant Director, Singapore Academy of Law, said: "We feel that there's a big benefit to small- and medium-sized law firms because it allows them to match their time (faster) by having a look at all these updates in one single place." - CNA/ms
Source : Channel NewsAsia - 9 Jan 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Use independent body? Lawyers back idea but raise concerns
LAWYERS gave the thumbs up to the news that the Chief Justice is considering a scheme to bar lawyers from receiving money from their clients.
But they also say that such a scheme, which would possibly entail the money being parked with an independent body, may lead to an increase in time and costs incurred for those buying and selling property.
This raises the question: Will clients be willing to pay administrative fees and experience bureaucratic delays in order to protect their money from the one or two bad apples in the barrel?
Sole proprietor Vijay Kumar said he was in favour of the money being held by an independent body. ‘There have been all these changes - tightening the rules, having more signatories - but the problem has never gone away.’
Mr Rajan Menon, senior partner at law firm KhattarWong, is also all for protecting clients’ money. ‘We must develop a system where the client is fully protected, so that no errant lawyer will have the chance to help himself to the money,’ he said.
Lawyers point out that a similar stakeholding scheme is already in place.
Buyers of buildings under construction have to park 5 per cent of the purchase price with the Singapore Academy of Law.
The money is released to the developer only after the 12-month defects liability period.
Mr Mark Chua, conveyancing partner at Tito Isaac &; Co, said it may make legal sense for the academy to hold the money. But from an economic standpoint, this may not be perfect.
He said that legal clients have to realise that efficiency may be compromised. There will be many procedures to undertake and more forms will have to be filled.
While lawyers can act to release the money almost immediately, an independent body may need some lead time.
Mr Chua pointed out that if the cheques came in late - something which would then result in late completion - there would be a question of who would have to bear the penalty.
It remains to be seen how such a system will work out.
He said: ‘In theory, it’s a good thing.’
Mr Menon believed that the money should be kept in banks and administered by the Law Society, a kind of conveyancing transaction settlement system.
He acknowledged that this may increase costs, which would be needed to fund the running of such a system. Nevertheless, he said it would also be possible that the interest earned could offset the costs.
‘Who’s going to pay? Because of the misdemeanours of one or two lawyers, are we going to change the system of more than 100 years?
‘There are no easy answers,’ he said.
Whatever the scheme, it will have to be studied very carefully, said Mr Vijay, in order to ensure that it does not create a new set of problems.
Mr Chua said: ‘At the end of the day, you can put in as many systems as you want. If a person is determined to take the money, he will find a way of doing it.’
Source : Sunday Times - 6 Jan 2008
But they also say that such a scheme, which would possibly entail the money being parked with an independent body, may lead to an increase in time and costs incurred for those buying and selling property.
This raises the question: Will clients be willing to pay administrative fees and experience bureaucratic delays in order to protect their money from the one or two bad apples in the barrel?
Sole proprietor Vijay Kumar said he was in favour of the money being held by an independent body. ‘There have been all these changes - tightening the rules, having more signatories - but the problem has never gone away.’
Mr Rajan Menon, senior partner at law firm KhattarWong, is also all for protecting clients’ money. ‘We must develop a system where the client is fully protected, so that no errant lawyer will have the chance to help himself to the money,’ he said.
Lawyers point out that a similar stakeholding scheme is already in place.
Buyers of buildings under construction have to park 5 per cent of the purchase price with the Singapore Academy of Law.
The money is released to the developer only after the 12-month defects liability period.
Mr Mark Chua, conveyancing partner at Tito Isaac &; Co, said it may make legal sense for the academy to hold the money. But from an economic standpoint, this may not be perfect.
He said that legal clients have to realise that efficiency may be compromised. There will be many procedures to undertake and more forms will have to be filled.
While lawyers can act to release the money almost immediately, an independent body may need some lead time.
Mr Chua pointed out that if the cheques came in late - something which would then result in late completion - there would be a question of who would have to bear the penalty.
It remains to be seen how such a system will work out.
He said: ‘In theory, it’s a good thing.’
Mr Menon believed that the money should be kept in banks and administered by the Law Society, a kind of conveyancing transaction settlement system.
He acknowledged that this may increase costs, which would be needed to fund the running of such a system. Nevertheless, he said it would also be possible that the interest earned could offset the costs.
‘Who’s going to pay? Because of the misdemeanours of one or two lawyers, are we going to change the system of more than 100 years?
‘There are no easy answers,’ he said.
Whatever the scheme, it will have to be studied very carefully, said Mr Vijay, in order to ensure that it does not create a new set of problems.
Mr Chua said: ‘At the end of the day, you can put in as many systems as you want. If a person is determined to take the money, he will find a way of doing it.’
Source : Sunday Times - 6 Jan 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
