There is nothing to worry about. You can sell the property. No need to wait for CF/ strata title. Once the notice of assignment has been given to the developer, the records will be updated with the purchaser reflected as the owner of the premises. As such, the issue of "get roped into any disputes he has with the developer months after we sell the unit to him" no longer arises. You cease to be the legal and beneficial owner of the property upon the completion of the SPA.

Normally a car park is an accessory parcel which comes allocated to a particular unit. It would be described in the SPA. You need to check with the developer as to their rules and regulations with regard to this. They would be able to advise you further.

Bumi lot, bumi quota, bumi unit, bumi status.. all semantics but points to the same meaning - you can't transfer it to a non-bumi. Unless with the consent of the state authority, which is quite difficult to obtain.

You should check with the developer whether your unit is designated as bumi lot/bumi unit. They will have it in their records. Most probably it is, as you obtained the discount.



This post has been edited by dariofoo: Feb 9 2012, 09:33 AM

Not sure,mate. It has to be reflected in the loan agreement. Are you sure that nothing is stated there?

If you want to claim back, and if you think you have a good case, then you have to appoint a lawyer and sue the bank! Or you can act in person also and sue the bank. As a matter of principle, of course.


Yes you would but only after they provide you proof of full payment of utilities together when they hand over the keys to the unit back to you.

No idea,boss. Probably required to do so by the Government. Stamp duty is a form of taxation imposed by the Government. I doubt if TNB profits from it.

The Stamp Act does provide that in order for a document whereupon it is mandatory for it to be stamped, it must be duly stamped before it can be marked as an exhibit (evidence) in Court.

The other party can object if a document (especially contracts) are not duly stamped.

However, it can still be marked subject to the Court allowing the party who is adducing to stamp it the next day (bear the penalty for it as well) and re-produce it as an exhibit.

I suppose you're referring to this portion of the article in the Bar's website:

Sometimes, unscrupulous tenants would suddenly leave the demised premises without informing the landlord. When the landlord breaks the lock to take possession of the demised premises, the landlord is then slapped with a civil suit claiming for an astronomical amount for the landlord’s purported “self-help”.

The current practice now is for the landlord to lodge a police report and break the lock in the presence of a police officer in order to avoid further complications. A prudent landlord would even take photos of the interior of the demised premises to ensure that the tenant would not later claim loss of properties.


Referring to the parts in bold - that method can be done but it is not foolproof. What stops the tenant from later claiming that the goods were removed BEFORE the photographs were taken? Furthermore, once the locks have been broken, how is the premises secured? Another lock? Once again, the landlord has deprived the tenant of lawful use and enjoyment of the premises (assuming that the tenant returns a week or so later). Putting on another lock is also self-help. As such, that method is not legal. If you read it properly, it doesn't say that it is a legal method. It only states that "the current practice now is that..."

So do be wary of that point.

Second time you're asking me this question,bro. I think I've answered you. So I'm going to respectfully ask you a question in reply to your question :

If the law provides a legal remedy by way of going to the Court for an order, why would there be any other legal remedy which would interfere/usurp the powers of the Court? If so, would it not make the Court meaningless/redundant?

Food for thought

Cheers.

1. Transactions? Yes the NLC does cover issues regarding master title, but don't forget the Housing Development Control and Licensing Act 1966 as well.
2 Lienholder's caveat is lodged pursuant to a lien. The lien is like the right you hold. With that right, you lodge a LH caveat to protect your interest. No idea as to the difference between personalty and realty lien. Perhaps personalty lien refers to moveable property as opposed to realty lien which applies to immovable property? Sorry mate not much of help there.

3. Stamp duty - let's say principal stamp duty is RM1,000 [based on 1% of SPA price of RM100,000.00]. Now the ORIGINAL copy of the Deed of Assignment will be stamped with RM1000.00, while another 3 DUPLICATE copies would be stamped with nominal stamp duty of RM10 each.

4. Legal - registered in accordance with the law. Equitable would mean that it was not registered in accordance with the law but the conduct and intent of the parties give rise to an assignment which can be enforceable in equity (fairness). A legal assignment/transfer always would defeat an equitable right. In Malaysia under the Torrens System, registration is everything. It defeats every other claim. Unless of course, the registered right was procured by way of fraud or forgery. In such scenarios, it can be set aside. That is why Banks would only deal with registrable charges and assignments which can be perfected.

5. No idea,mate.

6. Because a RC depends on the discretion of the Registrar, while a PC can be immediately registered once there is a caveatable interest. The Bank would not want to wait for ages for an RC to be lodged. Plus, it would be another hassle to remove it later. The Registrar has to remove it upon application. A PC can be removed by filing in a form and by paying the requisite fees on the spot. As such, for practicality purposes, a PC is always better.

Am not 100% sure but I think RC does not give right to sell.

This is quite a common scenario. ZZ has a few options:

1) Deed of Trust - where AA agrees that he is holding 50% share as trustee on behalf of ZZ. This is followed up by blank transfer of shares forms duly executed by AA and kept by the Comp Sec.

2) A friendly loan agreement. No interest charged.

3) Blank transfer forms like in para (1), without Deed of Trust.

Only the more prudent ones opt for Deed of Trust. Most opt for pre-signed forms.

Sorry perhaps I shouldn't have used the term 'blank'. It's not really blank in all areas. Everything is filled up except the date. It will be dated later when AA gives up his right to the shares, or when there's a problem and ZZ wants to get rid of AA.

Probably because consent from state authority is not required, as with (most, but not all) leasehold properties.

There must be a reason why. Surely the lawyer must tell you why he is withholding the cheque.

"Rolling" with client's monies is a serious offence not only with the Bar Council but is also a criminal offence. Criminal Breach of Trust.

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Feb 12 2012, 08:00 PM

Seller pays. However, there is no fixed rate for his commission and it is subject to agreement by both parties.

Common problem. Seems like you have no other choice to pay her if you can't reach a settlement. Power is in her hands as she is the registered proprietor of the property.

Up to the developer, actually. Unless the JMB can round up and put some pressure on the developer. What is the JMB's stand on this? The law does not put in a timeframe for the developer to do so.

No. It is always sold on an as-is-where-is basis.

When filing the divorce petition, it would include how the jointly-owned properties of the parties are to be distributed. Check the Court order first and see what it says.

It doesn't matter whether you were the sole breadwinner, paid for everything and the fact that everything is under your name without any expense paid by your wife. Even if your wife was a mere housewife, it is her right to a portion (up to half) of any assets of the husband gained during the subsistence of the marriage. That is the law. Even if she is a housewife, she has her duties and contribution to the marriage as well. As such, she has a right to have a share in the assets.

Can apply for your wife's half share to be entitled for 50% rebate.

Ask this to a banker or mortgage consultant and they can advise you.

A similar question has been asked before earlier in this thread. Browse the first few pages and you shall find the answer. Cheers.