According to Section 4(1)(b) of the BUILDING AND COMMON PROPERTY (MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT) ACT 2007:

A Joint Management Body shall be established consisting of the developer and the purchasers upon the convening of the the first meeting not later than twelve months from the date of delivery of vacant possession of the parcels to the purchasers.

Deed of Assignment is executed together with your loan documentation.

Yep it's called the Memorandum of Transfer (MOT). Also known as Form 14A or Borang 14A.

Just curious to know what happen if a leasehold property really come to end likes 99 years??will be be demolished? or penalty?

The word lease in leasehold can be loosely translated to mean 'rent/borrow'. Strictly speaking, the ownership of the property would revert to the State Authority upon expiration of the lease. In other words, you would have to surrender the property back to the Govt.

In REALITY, and in fact, in political reality, it would be ridiculous and controversial for the Govt to insist for the property to be surrendered back to them upon expiration of the lease.

What would be practical would be to EXTEND the lease for another 99 years. Or just convert it to freehold. Wouldn't that be a really good political move as well?

If I may add, one must remember that freehold is not actually more secure than leasehold as most people would think. Freehold land is still subject to compulsory land acquisition by the Govt. What it means would be that the Govt would gazette the land as being compulsorily acquired by the Govt and the owner would be given compensation.

You can't challenge the acquisition and you can only challenge the quantum of the compensation.

So at the end of the day, ownership of your land is at the pleasure of the Govt.

For the Loan Agreement, can the stamp duty be discounted 50% now even before 1.1.2011? Or stamp office must follow government after 1.1.2011.

Is that up to solicitor's decision to give how many discount on Loan agreement's Legal Fee? In some new project, the SPA legal fee is given free, can we request to free the Loan Agreement's legal fee as well?

If the developer solicitor and bank solicitor is the same person, will it offend the law or conflict of interest?

Thank you....

From the what the PM announced in the budget (which doesn't make it official), it did sound like only stamp duty on the Memorandum of Transfer or Deed of Assignment will be given a rebate of 50%. Am not sure if the ad valorem stamp duty on your Facilities Agreement will be entitled to a rebate or otherwise. It is best to wait for an official announcement and guideline. In any event, I don't think you would be entitled to any rebate now itself.

Your legal fees for the S&P may appear to be free, but trust me, it has been factored into the purchase price of the house already. Like I said earlier, there's no such thing as a free lunch. There's no reason why the Developer must absorb the fees for you.

Certain Developers would also promote 'free' legal fees for loan documentation as well. You would have to check with them with that. Normally if that is offered, you would have to take one of their panel law firms who, of course, act for one of their panel banks.

When you say Developer lawyer - do you mean the lawyer for the S&P who represents the Developer and where you are deemed unrepresented? And when you say Bank solicitor, it is the solicitor who is handling the loan documentation for you?

Or do you mean the Bank solicitor who is handling the end financing fo the Developer? As you must remember that the Developer normally has an end-financier as well who provides borrowings to the Developer to run the project.

yes..what i mean is lawyer who represent developer to prepare SPA. and lawyer who represent bank to provide loan agreement for buyers.
If these two lawyer are same person, will it conflict of interest?

Here are some situations that might occur:

1) Developer 'absorbs' legal fees but in the S&P, the solicitor is listed as acting on behalf of the purchaser. In such situations, that same solicitor can act for the bank in the subsequent financing of the property purchased from the developer. There is no conflict;

2) Developer 'absorbs' legal fees but in the S&P, the solicitor is listed as acting on behalf of the developer. The purchaser is deemed to be unrepresented. In such situations, that same solicitor cannot act for the bank in the the subsequent financing of the property purchased from the developer. There is a conflict, and I think this is the scenario you had in mind.

However, don't be overjoyed if you are in situation (1). Although legally speaking the solicitor is listed as acting on your behalf, realistically speaking, don't expect him to chase or harass the developer if there is a complaint, or delay whatsoever. This is because the paymaster is essentially the developer, and this firm is definitely on their panel. In reality, they would most probably just push the blame to the developer and insist that you deal direct with the developer in cases of complaints,etc.

Sad, but that's how it is in reality.

According to Land Laws, what is the timeline for a developer to conclude an MOT process ?

Is it within the three years while the highrise is being constructed, or two years for a landed property ?

The problem becomes complicated if the Land Proprietor (LP) is a separate party and the developer needs to get the LP to sign on the Form 14 too, if the LP delays.

Hansel,

Can you please enlighten us as to where you got the information that the developer has to obtain separate titles within 2 years and strata titles within 3 years?

According to Reg 11(2), Schedule G to the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, upon issuance of the individual titles, the developer shall execute, or cause the proprietor to execute (as the case may be) the MOT within 21 days from the said issuance, and shall thereafter hand the said MOT over to the purchaser.

As such, it is the duty of the developer to get the LP to execute it within the time period. It has nothing to do with the purchaser. If the Dev fails to do so within the prescribed period, they are opening themselves up to be penalised.

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Oct 31 2010, 11:47 PM

Dario, apologies, I just saw this posting.

No, I'm afraid I don't think it is as simple as : it is the duty of the Dev to 'get it executed within the prescribed period (21 Days)'. I distinctly recalled seeing in the SPA and in the MOT too, I think, that the Dev asked for this and that which gave a lot of problems to the purchasers, hence forcing the purchasers into a corner.

Then the process of MOT gets dragged over 2 or 3 years, instead of, sorry to disagree politely, that 21 Days that you mentioned. It is not as simple as that.

There were very specific terms in the SPA and in the MOT that "caught the purchasers". If such terms are already in the SPA and in the MOT, how is it that the Dev is open to penalisation ? Appreciated your opinions.

Hansel,

Here's the provision of the law:

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL AND LICENSING) REGULATIONS 1989
Section 11. Contract of sale.

11. (1) Every contract of sale for the sale and purchase of a housing accommodation together with the subdivisional portion of land appurtenant thereto shall be in the form prescribed in Schedule G and where the contract of sale is for the sale and purchase of a housing accommodation in a subdivided building in the form of a parcel of a building or land intended for subdivision into parcels, as the case may be, it shall be in the form prescribed in Schedule H.

[emphasis own]

Here's the explanation:

The Developer must follow the template agreement in Schedule G or H, as the case may be, and cannot amend or modify the template agreement. That is why when they say that agreements are 'standard' documents, it doesn't ring much true when it comes to property purchased from developers.

The word 'shall' is mandatory. It is as simple as that

Coming back to your situation, are you sure that there is such a clause, as it would amount to a variation/modification of the template agreement, and that is clearly contrary to law. Not only will the developer be in hot soup, but the lawyer as well.

That is why I think the situation in your case is not probable. The risk is too high. Why would the developer want to risk themselves by modifying the clause, when at the end of the day, then can just delay applying for the individual title? So many projects are still without individual titles after even 20 years, with the developer still very much active in other projects. Any action taken against them? Your guess is as good as mine.

Are you sure of the facts of the case or are you second guessing. Try to get a copy of the agreement and post it here.

Would make for interesting reading.

Thanks for contributing to the thread.

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Nov 4 2010, 03:11 AM

Dear Dario,

Firstly, I too would like to thank you for your great perspective in this great thread started by none other but yourself.

I think what we are doing here will greatly benefit the public, whereby by reading our discussion, they will know more about how to look after themselves in future whne they come into contact with this type of issues.

I like your very factual way of conducting and immersing yourself into a discussion.

Hence, I agree that we should talk factually. I will borrow a copy of the said S&P (and the MOT, if possible) by today and post up those concerned clauses here for further discussions and rebuttals.

---

Added on November 4, 2010, 11:52 pmDario, I have provided below the clause which is talking about the title transfer :-

Clause 10 : Separate Document of Title / Transfer of Title

(1) Upon the execution of this Agreement, the Vendor shall, at its own cost and expense and as expeditiously as possible, obtain the separate document of title to the said lot.

(2) Upon the issue of the separate document of title to the said lot and subject to the payment of the purchase price by the Purchasers to the Vendor in accordance with (the payment clause) and the observance of all terms and conditions herein provided, the Vendor shall, within 21 Days execute a valid and registrable memorandum of transfer of the said property to the Purchasers.

As you can see from the above clause, the Dev here wanted the Purchaser to observe ALL the T's and C's in the S&P before the Dev will complete the transfer.

Otherwise, the Dev can always delay signing the MOT, right ?

Is the above clause in accordance with the main template agreement that you mentioned earlier ?

This post has been edited by Hansel: Nov 5 2010, 12:03 AM

Hansel,

Even with this thread, the response doesn't seem to be very encouraging. There has not been many enquiries. Or maybe some people want to start their own threads rather than posting it here.

Different folks different strokes, i guess.

It's good to have you around though. Cheers.

---

Added on November 5, 2010, 2:07 amComing back to the discussion, here's the Schedule G which I stated earlier:

http://hba.org.my/laws/housing_reg/2002/Schedule_G.pdf

As you can see in Clause 11, it does seem similar to the one in the agreement in your case.

Now, when you say subject to the purchaser being in "observance of all terms and conditions herein provided" , it is limited to the T&Cs contained in the agreement itself, and not any other T&Cs imposed by the developer upon the buyer which is outside the scope of the agreement.

With regard to observance by the buyer, it would mostly be referring to the buyer (through his financial institution who granted him the borrowing facility) making the progressive payments to the developer as and when same is duly requested by the developer. I don't think the buyer has anything much to do apart from that.

Well, maybe avoid being declared bankrupt in the interim perhaps?

What do you think? Can the developer still twist the buyer's arm with the above clause?

I, for one, doubt so.


This post has been edited by dariofoo: Nov 5 2010, 02:07 AM

haih... im currently working as a clerk in a firm... at the same time trying to pass my final part 2 for the 3rd time!!!!!

haih... stressed

Don't worry, bro, it is always to start from the bottom and work ourselves up. Only then when we reach the top, will we appreciate the perilous yet worthwhile journey to get there.

Don't worry about trying to pass it for the 3rd time. I recall a famous advocate (still in practice) who took more than 5 years to pass his law degree at NUS way back in the 60s. In the end he merely scraped through with 3rd class honours.

Many thought he would never last the course. He sure did. And he has not only lasted the course, he's a trailblazer in the legal fraternity. In fact, he's an institution by itself.

His name?

Karpal Singh

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Nov 5 2010, 02:43 AM

Glad that I found this thread. I have some doubts on lawyers fee that need the assistance of sifus' here.

1. My developer told me that they will absorb the s&p charges, but with the condition that my mortgage lawyers also need to be the same lawyer. Is this safe to do so?
2. Pertaining to the above, is it advisable for me opting for the developer lawyer so as to save on the s&p charges?
3. Can i choose not to appoint the developer lawyer for the S&P? I understand that the offset is that i got to pay for the S&P charges.
4. May I know what legal fees is impose in purchasing a property? S&p fee, stamp duty on s&p, loan agreement lawyer fee + stamp duty & disbursement charges? Mot? Other than the listed, is there any other charges that I miss out?
5. Can some clarify whether the rate for both S&P and loan agreement fee are the same that are 1% for the first 150k and 0.7% for the following and so forth?

Thanks.

This post has been edited by yiivei: Nov 5 2010, 06:27 PM

Dario, thank you.

Pertaining to your comment in the above as highlighted, I was informed that the Dev does and is indeed twisting the buyer's arm. How ?

Due to certain valid reasons, the buyer decided to redeem the loan from the bank in the middle of the construction, and gave an undertaking to the Dev to continue paying the progressive payments to the Dev as and when any stage of the construction has been completed and is certified by the Architect in-charge, as if the buyer is the bank now.

Guess what ? The Dev now stops processing the MOT though the buyer has been diligent enough to perform his part after receiving the MOT from the Dev, ie appointing a lawyer to process the MOT, and making the necessary payments as in legal fees and the Stamp Duties.

How did the Dev stop processing ? They just kept the MOT after receiving it from the buyer's lawyer and refused to sign it and refused to forward it to the LP too.

This is arm-twisting, wouldn't you think so ?

Welcome,bro.

With regard to Qs 1,2 and 3, can you check out my reply to a query on the first page of this thread. I think I addressed a similar question. If you still need further enquiries, feel free to ask again here.

With regard to Q4, it depends on a lot of factors - legal fees for buying from developer is different from subsale - with title more disbursements compared to without title.

There's also legal fees for entry and withdrawal of private caveat (if with title) and also for filing CKHT 2A (for purposes of notice to the Inland Revenue Department)

With regard to Q4, yes it is the same, but as stated above, when you purchase from developer - the scaled fees are different (much less).

Helpful?

Does that mean we will eligible for lower fee if we appoint the lawyer assign by the developer? Like 70% out of the total? Correct me if I'm wrong.

No,bro, the fees are lower (not necessarily 70% but depends on price of house) irregardless whether you appoint the developer's panel solicitor or your own solicitor.

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Nov 5 2010, 09:46 PM