You're welcome. Get your lawyer to follow up with LHDN once in a while. Good luck

You're helping him by referring him to AKPK. Seriously. It'll work wonders.

Even if you're a user, and if you're found in posession, you can face up to 5 years max in the slammer under section 6. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Take a look at the initial agreement and see if there's a clause which says along the lines of "the agreement in binding upon the successors-in-title, heirs, etc of the landlord/tenant". If yes, you can use the agreement and both parties would still be bound by the terms and conditions therein. This would be applicable if the agreement has not lapsed.

When it lapses, this 'side letter' or 'side agreement' method is always used, most likely to save costs and reduce the hassle.

However, I would advise against doing this as you cannot extend, by way of a 'side letter' or 'side agreement' , a lapsed tenancy if 3 years has passed from the date of the tenancy.

A tenancy is only for a maximum period of 3 years. Any 'side letter' or 'side agreement' purporting to extend the tenancy while circumventing the requirement of a duly stamped tenancy agreement would be void and of no effect. It then becomes a monthly tenancy situation. You can't refer to the terms of the earlier agreement anymore as it has lapsed.

When the 3 year lapses, it would be advisable to draw up a new agreement. In your case, it'll be better as your name will be reflected as the landlord.

Furthermore, the tenant always pays for the tenancy agreement, so you don't lose out on anything. The cost is not high anyway.

Better be safe than sorry.

You're welcome.

A lot of people take tenancy agreements very lightly. If you look at some of the problems faced by tenants/landlords who start up threads in this forum for advice, one common link is that there's no tenancy agreement.

Good luck.

Yeah but another one jumped on the caveat bandwagon and now TS is having a grand idea of it as well. Am still waiting for him to post the query here,but let's discuss things in general.

The initial question must not be whether you CAN or CANNOT lodge a caveat. The question is WHY.

Why do you want to lodge a caveat? You must have a caveatable interest first, and there must be a probability of the registered proprietor disposing off the property, thus defeating your rights over the property. That is the effect of a caveat. It 'locks' the title, so to speak. The registered proprietor can't deal with it in any manner.

What can the other person do with the title that you want to prevent? He can't transfer the deceased's half-share to his name, as there is no Form 14A [MOT] to give him such right.

If there's a situation where the owner of the half-share, in his lifetime, had executed a few MOTs in escrow (not dated nor stamped) and same has been deposited with the owner of the other half-share, then yes, the fear is there. The possibility is there. Then yes, a caveat would be prudent.

Only then would you go to the question as to WHO can lodge a caveat. In this case, it can be Chong, Muthu or Ali. It has to be the Executor or the Administrator of the deceased's estate, as the case may be. That person would have the capacity to have a caveatable interest over the property. He acts on behalf of all the beneficiaries of the half-share. He can lodge a caveat.

Your lawyer must have more knowledge of the facts than what you've told me here. What is the duration of the tenancy in the current agreement? 1+1? 2+1? 3?

You see, if it is a 1+1 basis tenancy, if the first year is up, you can have a supplementary letter agreeing to extend it for the second year, subject to an increase in rental of RMx. A simple one to that effect.

But if it has lapsed, i.e 1+1 is over, then you have to draw up a new one, notwithstanding the fact that a tenancy can go up to 3 years at one stretch. You can't create a 1+1+1 with the 'side letter'. Like I explained, this would be illegal as you are trying to evade stamp duty for that extra one year period.

If your 'side letter' is to merely place on record that you are now the landlord, and that the tenant acknowledges it and agrees to deposit the monthly rental into xxx bank account, then by all means go ahead. A lot of people do that anyway. Nothing wrong with that.

But if it is the situation above, follow your lawyer's advice.

You asked a question and then proceeded to answer it yourself

70 pages is too long! Unless the font size is 70 as well?

Get a new one done. Simple. Cost won't be too much. If you really pity your tenant and want to be in running to win the Landlord Of The Year 2011 Competition, you can pay the legal fees and stamp duty on his behalf. Nothing wrong with that

I know your instincts very well, that's why I initially wanted to put 'what if there's fraud involved' in the post and address it, but I thought i'll let you reply and raise that issue yourself. Don't wanna steal your thunder!

And I was right. You did

Yes he can do a search and most likely, the deceased's name will be on the grant. Better still if there's an existing charge. You can't transfer it unless with the consent of the chargee.
Even if there's no charge, you can't transfer half-share, if it is an undivided half-share (which is most likely the case).

I noticed that you've gone full blast to advice TS to lodge a caveat. Still opine the same way? Or are you like this now ->

Hansel buddy,

Too late. TS is determined to go ahead with caveat, after like 5-6 posts advising him to do so with no reference to any legal principle whatsoever. He doesn't even want to post his question here. Maybe he's scared that I'll steal his side of the family's half-share (allegedly) worth RM1.5M.

Already a winner of the Hansel & Gretel Award 2011 from Singapore

Good luck to you

Can,but you pay stamp duty for 3 years, but it is basically a yearly tenancy. If I were the tenant, I'd be wary as 1+1+1 allows the landlord to revise the rent every year. Most likely it'll go up right? I mean, which landlord would accept the fact that the prevailing market rental is lower than it was previously? If you don't agree with the revision, you'll be booted out of the door.
You're living (or should I say 'renting') on the edge. When the end of the year comes you'll be like this ->

I find 2+1 or 3+0 very common and more sensible

Cannot and better not. Better to have a new tenancy agreement drawn up once it lapses.

However, if you're talking about modification of the tenancy agreement by way of mutual consent to insert/amend clauses, then yes, that is possible by way of this 'side letter' or supplementary agreement.

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Feb 10 2011, 10:39 AM

Morning. Yes, you are entitled to a 50% exemption on the stamp duty on your memorandum of transfer/deed of assignment (as the case may be).

Haha. I thought you bestowed upon me the award




Caveat will be allowed as it is a private caveat. Land office won't question it as long as the form 19A is filled up properly.

Notice will be sent by the land office to the joint-owner that a caveat has been lodged. He's going to jump. He'll go see a lawyer. Then let the games begin. Perhaps TS will open another thread asking for advice again. Then all those who had advised him to enter a caveat will go like this -



PS: Wouldn't it be funny if the joint owner opened a thread here as well asking for advice after the caveat has been lodged?

No,as the revision in rental has been envisaged and provided for in the original tenancy agreement. Any 'side letter' or 'side agreement' or 'supplementary agreement' would attract a nominal stamp duty of RM10.00


Yes, you're right. Any modifications/amendments to the tenancy agreement must be made in writing, duly executed by both parties and stamped with a nominal RM10.00 stamp duty. It would then be termed as a 'supplementary agreement'.

That is the proper procedure.

It's dariofoo, not Dario Foo.



No they won't. Do you think they've time for all that???

They will issue a notice to the registered proprietor of the property that a caveat has been lodged and it is up the him to act on it, if he wishes.

This should only be RM50, and placed under disbursements, as it will be paid to the developer. They can't bill you separately for this. Other fees are standard.

Unless the firm is located far from the land office, RM200 for transport is quite high.

Company search is RM15, while bankruptcy search is RM12/pax.

The completion date of the transaction would be automatically extended due to the delay by the vendor. Do find out specifically what the pending documents are. Perhaps it's the quit rent or assessment receipts which you can pay for it yourself in advance and later contra it from the balance purchase price.

You can calculate the legal fees and stamp duty here:
http://www.elawyer.com.my/legal_calculator_info.php

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Feb 14 2011, 10:26 AM

Greetings,

Interesting question.

First and foremost, there is NO specific 'given right to purchasers' or compulsion for the developer to include such facilities/amenities in their developments. Everthing which the developer is obliged to provide would be stated in the S&P executed with the purchasers. There will be an annexure/schedule detailing the common property which is to be included in the development. Whatever is provided for in the scheduled must be done by the developer. If not, it is just their discretion whether to provide same or otherwise.

What is the meaning of 'common property'?

Let's look at Section 2, Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007. This is the Act which governs JMBs.

Section 2 states:

"common property ", in relation to a development area, means so much of the development area as is not comprised in any parcel, such as the structural elements of the building, stairs, stairways, fire escapes, entrances and exits, corridors, lobbies, fixtures, and fittings, lifts, refuse shutes, refuse bins, compound drains, water tanks, sewers, pipes, wires, cables and ducts that serve more than one parcel, the exterior of all common parts of the building, playing fields and recreational area, driveways, car parks, and parking areas, open spaces, landscape areas, walls and fences, and all other facilities and installations and any part of the land used or capable of being used or enjoyed in common by all the occupiers of the building;

If it is provided for in the agreement, then yes, the developer must act on it and provide it for the purchasers.

Thereafter, it would be the duty of the JMB (when it is formed) to maintain such common property.

Section 8 of the Act defines the duties and powers of the JMB:
(1) The duties of the Body include the following:

(a) to properly maintain the common property and keep it in a state of good and serviceable repair;

(b) to determine and impose charges that are necessary for the repair and proper maintenance of the common property;

© to insure and keep insured the building to the replacement value of the building against fire and such other risks as may be determined by the Body;

(d) to apply insurance moneys received by the Body in respect of damage to the building for the rebuilding and reinstatement of that building;

(e) to comply with any notices or orders given or made by the local authority or any competent public authority requiring the abatement of any nuisance on the common property, or ordering repairs or other work to be done in respect of the common property or other improvements to the property;

(f) to prepare and maintain a register of all purchasers of the building;

(g) to ensure that the Building Maintenance Fund is audited and to provide audited financial statements for the information to the purchasers;

(h) to enforce house rules for the proper maintenance and management of the building; and

(i) to do such other things as may be expedient or necessary for the proper maintenance and management of the building.

(2) The powers of the Body shall include the following:

(a) to collect from purchasers maintenance and management charges in proportion to the allocated share units of their respective parcels;

(b) to authorize expenditure for the carrying out of the maintenance and management of the common property;

© to recover from any purchaser any sum expended by the Body in respect of that parcel in complying with any such notices or orders as are referred to under paragraph (1)(e);

(d) to purchase, hire or otherwise acquire movable or immovable property for use by the purchasers in connection with their enjoyment of the common property;

(e) to arrange and secure the services of any person or agent to undertake the maintenance and management of the common property of the building;

(f) to make house rules for the proper maintenance and management of the building; and

(g) to do all things reasonably necessary for the performance of its duties under this Act.


Very general terms indeed. Nothing to compel the JMB to provide such facilities for the purchasers as well. At the end of the day, it's just discretion of the JMB. The JMB is a committee which is appointment by the purchasers via an AGM. What it does reflects the needs and wants of the majority, if not all, of the purchasers. If one is unhappy with the present composition of the JMB, one can contest for a post in the commitee and run changes.

The thing is, when the JMB commits to provide additional facitilies/amenities to be included as a common property like swimming pools, recreational parks, badminton/basketball/tennis courts, as you mentioned, the burden of maintaining it will be there. It is akin to giving themselves more work, so to speak. As you can see from the list of common property, it is quite extensive.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to the discretion of the developer/JMB - if they want to provide any additional common property, then there will be the extra burden of maintaining it to the expectations of the purchasers.

It's the same Act,bro


Yes you're right. What constitutes 'Full Condominium Facilities' would entirely be according to the interpretation and discretion of the developer. That is why a wise purchaser would be vary of such vaguely-defined promises stated in the POSM.

You must also note that contents in POSMs are not legally binding as it is merely an 'invitation to treat', and not an offer. The developer does not offer to sell the condo with such-and-such facilities to you. You make an offer to purchase the condo, and the developer accepts it. That is why advertisements are hyped-up. It is what we call 'mere puff'.

However, if the representation made in the POSM was so strong and convincing that it persuaded you to make the purchase in reliance of that representation, and you then suffered loss when the representation turns out to be false, then you have a right to sue.

That is what happened in this decided case where a Dato' purchaser dragged Kumpulan Sierramas to Court and successfully won damages against the developer and the security company for losses suffered when his home was broken into by robbers and he lost almost half a million ringgit worth of belongings.

In this case, the developer made promises about an advanced security system with electronic perimeter fencing and CCTV systems which subsequently failed to work. The Court held that the developer was liable based on those representations.

Read the case, it's very interesting:

 DATO_SOO_LAI_SING_v_KUMPULAN_SIERRAMAS__M__SDN_BHD___ANOR.pdf ( 29.03k ) Number of downloads: 35