CTOS search for RM40 is rubbish. You don't need that.

The rest you can compare with the other samples in this thread.

1) I doubt if writing in or appealing will change anything as the bank will create an unwanted precedent whereby all those who can't afford their repayments will start writing in and 'appealing' for more time.

2) Same as above. I doubt if the management office will budge on that.

I'd advise you to refinance, but looking at the 7k outstanding and more importantly, the 15k outstanding maintenance fees is a great hindrance. The bank will insist for that to be settled first before anything.

Same goes when you're selling the house as well - the purchaser will insist that you settle all maintenance fees first. If it is a small amount sometimes the purchaser can pay first and then contra from the balance purchase price, but in your case as the amount is too high.

I knew someone who was in almost the same situation as this. In the end he just moved out and let the bank auction off the property.

If you're vendor, and there's delay by purchaser, it is the purchaser who has to pay you the late penalty interest. Just make sure that everything on your side has been complied with, including settlement of any outgoings like quit rent, maintenance fees (if any) and assessment - give all receipts to the purchaser's solicitors. If you delay on that, the completion date is extended - and any delay on the part of the purchaser will contra with your delay.

With regard to TNB and water - it depends on you. Some people just terminate their accounts while others do a change of name and deposit. Check with the purchaser on how he wants to go about it. See which is the easier way for both parties. It's a matter of common understanding between the parties. Nothing legal about it.

Buying cash or taking loan?

Won't be up to one year. Less than that.

This is for Assessment Tax. Cukai Taksiran. Nothing to worry.

Surely by now your lawyer would've got a confirmation from the vendor to extend the date to finalise and execute the SPA. Just check first with your lawyer before jumping to any conclusions. No worries.

Scaled fees would be the same.

But sometimes when the bank allows your SPA lawyer to be appointed on ad hoc basis to also do the loan doc, some firms waive a portion of the disbursements, eg travelling.

Read the terms properly - does it state must execute SPA within 14 days or is it just send a draft copy of SPA within 14 days. Different letters of offer to purchase will word it differently.

And when you said that the buyer only sent the SPA over on 3/8/11, is it a draft of the SPA or is it a finalised one whereby both parties had already started with several drafts beforehand.

If the buyer slept on it for 14 days and did nothing, there would be a right to forfeit. However, if a draft has been sent out and parties were in negotiations to finalise it, then the period would be extended accordingly.

Must also take into consideration as to whether you, as the seller, had provided all the necessary documents for the purchaser to prepare the SPA in the first place.

So, it depends on the facts of the case. How's yours?

. Pay 10% and sign SPA, MOT and other docs
. Purchaser lodges caveat
. Purc sol sends MOT for adjudication followed by stamping.
. Purc signs loan docs
. Bank lodges caveat
. Loan doc sent for adjudication followed by stamping.
. Letter of undertaking by vendor to bank to refund monies.
. Letter of undertaking by Bank to vendor to release loan.
. Vendor releases docs to purchaser's sol
. Purchaser's sol releases all docs including withdrawal of cav, Form 14A(MOT). and registration fees to loan sol.
. Loan sol withdraws both caveats, presents Form 14A and registers charge
. Loan sol advises for drawdown of loan sum
. Payment of loan sum/balance purchase price to vendor and hand over of vacant possession.

As to how long, it would normally be faster than a normal transaction where the vendor still has an outstanding loan, but it depends on how fast the bank and the bank's sol move as well as the purc's sol. Don't delay the application for loan, as things will only move once the loan sol starts the ball rolling and writes to the purc's sol.

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Aug 9 2011, 05:46 PM

It would normally be faster as you eliminate one trail of correspondence and can reduce turnover. Some SPA lawyers can also reduce the disbursements if you appoint them to do the loan doc as well.

However, it depends on how efficient and knowledgeable your SPA lawyer is to do the loan doc. If they are efficient, then all the better. Otherwise, it will end up delaying the whole process.

A double-edged sword,really. If you're confident with your lawyer, then go ahead.

Pay at Majlis Daerah/Majlis Perbandaran/DBKL if you don't have a copy of the cukai taksiran bill. If you have the bill you can pay at post office or even online banking, if the Majlis Daerah/Majlis Perbandaran/DBKL is listed as one of the payees. Personally I prefer post office as you get the acknowledgement printed on the slip.


It's ok. This is a one-stop centre for all noobs to unite. Everyone is a noob, varying only in degrees of noob-ness. Even i'm a noob.

Well, since you have a lawyer on board who has advised you to call the deal off, I'm sure that he would have arrived at that decision having perused all the documents and correspondence between the parties. I do not have any documents to refer to in order to give you a proper advice.

Basically, if the buyer or buyer's lawyer failed to send over even a draft SPA within 14 days, then you have the right to call if off and forfeit the deposit. It's as simple as that. However, if in between there were some correspondence between the parties, like a request for further documents from your part, then the time granted to the buyer to prepare the SPA would be extended. So it depends on how parties were corresponding. In this regard, your lawyer ought to know better.

If you're on the right side, don't be afraid of all these shallow threats to sue. It's just to intimidate you to see if you'll get scared and refund to them the deposit.

Usual practice is that there are two separate legal fees - one for SPA and one for the loan documentation.

As for whether you are overcharged or not, use the calculator at the first page of this thread to calculate your legal fees. Then, go through the numerous samples of legal fees quotations in this thread and compare with yours.

If still got doubt do come back here and ask.

Yes you have to pay twice, i.e. stamp duty on the MOT/DOA for the transfer/assignment, and also ad valorem stamp duty on the facility agreement (loan agreement) for your loan documentation.

What I'm sure of is that you can't get that particular parking lot back as it was never owned by the vendor in your case in the first place. Nemo dat quod non habet - "he cannot give what he does not have".

If you were so particular about that parking lot you ought to have asked your lawyer to call the JMB or developer's office and make sure that the particular lot is the corresponding lot in the principal SPA with the vendor. Have you asked your lawyer with regard to the predicament you are in?

If you want to start suing your avenue is against the vendor, who will in turn sue the developer, etc etc etc. An utter waste of time and resource as you surely cannot get back that particular lot.

Best to just swallow the bitter pill and move on.

There must be a Power of Attorney duly executed, stamped and registered in the High Court before the holder of the PA can execute docs on behalf of the borrower. Can't just rely on a clause. Surely there's a PA.

Reference is always made to date of the SPA.

In your above case, no RPGT would be payable

The lender bank will be the holder of the PA. If no individual title then the Bank will always insist that a PA is executed in their favour. All banks practise this, if i'm not mistaken.

What is Chun v Ho? Never heard of that case before.

The major case involving proprietory estoppel (PE) is Cheng Hang Guan (am not sure of exact spelling) v Perumahan Farlim. If I'm not mistaken it was the late Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ who wrote the written judgment for that case.

I doubt if PE is a valid ground in the current case because:

1) PE always involves land
2) PE is an equitable remedy
3) PE, like any equitable remedy, cannot operate as a bar to statute, i.e. it cannot contravene statute.

In Malaysia, there is a Wills Act which governs wills. If the will was validly executed, witnessed and the mental capacity of the testator is not challenged, the will can be enforced. PE can't come in and operate as a bar to the will.

It doesn't matter if a mistress comes into the picture or any other party - bare reliance of PE will not assist the person.

Cheers.

Ok now the facts are clearer, although not 100%. So the Nemo dat quod non habet - "he cannot give what he does not have" - principle will be applicable in your favour as the developer cannot purport to sell it to another person (the neighbour) when it has sold it off to the vendor in the first place. So the purported sale to the neighbour would be null and void and of no effect. So my earlier advice would not be 100% applicable, in light of the factual matrix which you have just stated above.

It's breach of contract by the vendor against you. It is not fraud though. Don't merely use the word fraud as it is a bigger word than you think. It is not easy to prove fraud and in this case, from the basic facts stated, I doubt if the vendor is a party to fraud. I'm sure he is as ignorant about the purported subsequent sale as you are.


As explained earlier - you sue the vendor for breach of contract - the vendor will subsequently bring the developer in as a third party, and perhaps the neighbour as well. It's messy, and would cost you quite a bit of money in legal fees as well. Whether or not you can recoup the legal fees from the other parties in this case once it's over is another issue.

If you're going to reside in the unit after this, bear in mind that going on the warpath against the developer and your neighbour, albeit indirectly, may not be the wisest option.

However, if you are going strictly on the principle that you ought to get what you paid and contracted for, then by all means go all out to get that parking lot assigned in your favour.

From the facts presented herein, you do have a good case. The neighbour's remedy would be to sue the developer for damages only, as he can't get back the parking lot.

I'm going to pre-empt you at this stage before you ask me and inform you that legal fees for litigation (court) matters are subjective and differs from firm to firm. There's no market rate, usual rate, normal rate, etc etc etc. So if you want to find out, you need to see a litigation lawyer, set out your facts, and ask for a quotation for legal fees.

I wish you all the best.



This post has been edited by dariofoo: Aug 13 2011, 04:04 AM