Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Investment 5 Strangers Purchase a 700k property, Is it feasible?

views
     
TSZapZapk
post May 1 2016, 06:38 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
39 posts

Joined: May 2016
QUOTE(icemanfx @ May 1 2016, 12:52 PM)
When you overheard any good investment in kopitium, it is about time to sell or keep away from that investment. If making money is easy, there should be more than 10% of people with over us$100k net worth.

Property game is not newly invented or discovered, if it is a great investment, every da ma and obasan would have invested years ago.
*
I think we have a bit out of topic. My post was not discussing what investment is a good investment or should I join an investment that was being discussed in kopitiam .

My topic is : is it doable if there is an agreement govern a group of 5 same mindset/goal stranger to buy a property and dispose a property? And, what kind of risk would we face? how could we solve it?

I agree with you that it is the best time to realize the investment when everyone is discussing it. nod.gif
nookie188
post May 1 2016, 08:05 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,515 posts

Joined: Jan 2012
QUOTE(ZapZapk @ May 1 2016, 06:37 PM)
I think we have a bit out of topic. My post was not discussing what investment is a good investment or should I join an investment that  was  being discussed in kopitiam .

My topic is : is it doable if there is an agreement govern a group of 5 same mindset/goal stranger to buy a property and dispose a property? And, what kind of risk would we face? how could we solve it?

I agree with you that it is the best time to realize the investment when everyone is discussing it. nod.gif
*
yes I hear you..smile.gif

of course you can have 5 or more people sharing but a really really tight partnership/JV agreement has to be in place to cover
ALL scenarios should one or more default on payments, should one passes away suddenly, should one decides to withdraw midway , and all issues with regards
to rental and or disposal, etc...I know of groups of investors who have done it..the key is to get a very very
tight agreement in place by getting a good and experienced lawyer to put the agreement in place.

for eg..if one partner misses 2 instalments, he /she will automatically be kicked out without compensation..
TSZapZapk
post May 1 2016, 10:48 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
39 posts

Joined: May 2016
QUOTE(cherroy @ May 1 2016, 12:56 PM)
The main problem is the legal owner side of property registration or in other word, the property is registered under whom.
If register with 5 person name, then you need to have 5 person so sign off the transfer of property when selling the property time.
Either one doesn't want to sign, it is a standoff, no transfer can be made hence no S&P can be proceeding, disregard what kind of other legal agreement signed.

Also, you can't draft another legal agreement (fail to pay etc) to "force out" any legal owners from the property.
It violates the existing land code/property ownership law, which may result in the agreement made can be considered null and void.

Loan also cannot be transferred simply by drafting "another agreement".

Never ever "joint name" to buy property, it potential asking for trouble in the future only. Even husband and wife, my personal view, also no.

If really want to "joint name", use a company or holding company to own the property.
*
Hi cherroy. Thanks you for your reply. Really informative and valuable. That is what I am looking for.

If it's not workable to draft another legal agreement to "force out" any legal owner, is it possible if the 5 people including all the conditions in S&P agreement? (ie: the one who failed to pay the installment have no right share the profit of share and have must sign off the transfer of property when selling the property time?)

How does a company or holding company work to own the property? and what is the different compared to individual?


ketnave
post May 2 2016, 02:13 AM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
868 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
From: douchistan, pekopon


QUOTE(danieln @ May 1 2016, 08:19 AM)
it cost you a few thousands to maintain a sdn bhd per year. unless one of the share holders is a qualified accountant & company secretary that agrees to do it free or super cheap.

but then if the house is under company then need to check what are the fees & tax rate, it might be much higher.
*
It would be worth the cost, rather than risking fallout between the 5 individuals.

Should there be any dis-agreement among the 5, it can be settled within the sdn. bhd. without affecting the property ownership, since the property is under the co.

That's just my 2 cents, unless we are looking at significant return and also picking up additional property down the line with the same co., the cost and hassle may not worth it at all.

ZapZapk wouldn't investing in REIT better and more hassle free ?
cherroy
post May 2 2016, 10:43 AM

20k VIP Club
Group Icon
Staff
25,802 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Penang


QUOTE(ZapZapk @ May 1 2016, 10:48 PM)
Hi cherroy. Thanks you for your reply. Really informative and valuable. That is what I am looking for.

If it's not workable to draft another legal agreement to "force out" any legal owner, is it possible if the 5 people including all the conditions in S&P agreement? (ie: the one who failed to pay the installment have no right share the profit of share and have must sign off the transfer of property when selling the property time?)

How does a company or holding company work to own the property? and what is the different compared to individual?
*
There is no such thing of S&P of 5 people that can force out 1 owner if he/she fail to pay the installment.

S&P is between the purchaser and seller to facilitate the sales of property, once executed and the property title being transferred to the buyer, that's the end of the S&P function.

While, ownership right of the property is on the property title registration.

If hold through the company, the subjected to company law, you just need to get more than 50% approval during the resolution of the company to sell off the property, then the property can be sold already, instead of need all 5 people to sign off the sale of property.
And the proceed of property selling is back to the company, instead of individual.
By then how to distribute the money, then it is under company regulation.


nookie188
post May 2 2016, 11:18 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,515 posts

Joined: Jan 2012
QUOTE(cherroy @ May 2 2016, 10:43 AM)
There is no such thing of S&P of 5 people that can force out 1 owner if he/she fail to pay the installment.

S&P is between the purchaser and seller to facilitate the sales of property, once executed and the property title being transferred to the buyer, that's the end of the S&P function.

While, ownership right of the property is on the property title registration.

If hold through the company, the subjected to company law, you just need to get more than 50% approval during the resolution of the company to sell off the property, then the property can be sold already, instead of need all 5 people to sign off the sale of property.
And the proceed of property selling is back to the company, instead of individual.
By then how to distribute the money, then it is under company regulation.
*
terms of an agreement has to be accepted by all before it can be executed so meaning everyone is going in with their eyes opened..the same term of being "forced out" applies to all...so don't see why cant this be legal..only way to know for sure is to get the advice of a real lawyer..

But I do agree that buying it under a company is the best route to go in the end but all possible scenarios still need to be covered ..

This post has been edited by nookie188: May 2 2016, 11:19 AM
cherroy
post May 2 2016, 11:33 AM

20k VIP Club
Group Icon
Staff
25,802 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Penang


QUOTE(nookie188 @ May 2 2016, 11:18 AM)
terms of an agreement has to be accepted by all before it can be executed so meaning everyone is going in with their eyes opened..the same term of being "forced out" applies to all...so don't see why cant this be legal..only way to know for sure is to get the advice of a real lawyer..

But I do agree that buying it under a company is the best route to go in the end but all possible scenarios still need to be covered ..
*
S&P is a legal document to facilitate the MOT of the property, aka between purchaser and seller issue, (not among purchasers themselves)

Why seller want to care to sign such an S&P in the first place, as it may complicating the MOT afterwards.

Somemore, the being "forced out" owner may able to challenge the legality of the agreement in the first place.

When a property already registered under his/her name or 2 names, then the property cannot be sold without all the signature required, except through bankruptcy liquidation, which is another story.

A lot of dispute arised on the joint name property, is because the property transfer need all joint owner to sign off before the property can be sold/rent, not simply any 3rd party agreement that can already make the property being transferred/sold without the need of real owner to sign off the MOT/S&P.
nookie188
post May 2 2016, 11:56 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,515 posts

Joined: Jan 2012
QUOTE(cherroy @ May 2 2016, 11:33 AM)
S&P is a legal document to facilitate the MOT of the property, aka between purchaser and seller issue, (not among purchasers themselves)

Why seller want to care to sign such an S&P in the first place, as it may complicating the MOT afterwards.

Somemore, the being "forced out" owner may able to challenge the legality of the agreement in the first place.

When a property already registered under his/her name or 2 names, then the property cannot be sold without all the signature required, except through bankruptcy liquidation, which is another story.

A lot of dispute arised on the joint name property, is because the property transfer need all joint owner to sign off before the property can be sold/rent, not simply any 3rd party agreement that can already make the property being transferred/sold without the need of real owner to sign off the MOT/S&P.
*
ok ok lah..I was not referring to the SPA ..
got such thing as presigned POA..

already said ma - best way is to use company via shares ..
cherroy
post May 2 2016, 12:15 PM

20k VIP Club
Group Icon
Staff
25,802 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Penang


QUOTE(nookie188 @ May 2 2016, 11:56 AM)
ok ok lah..I was not referring to the SPA ..
got such thing as presigned POA..

already said ma - best way is to use company via shares ..
*
It is always good to have counter argument in such issue, which only raise awareness and benefited to all. smile.gif

POA also not workable in this situation.
You have A,B,C,D,E 5 people.

You have 5 people to sign the POA (which required to be endorsed by high court), mean 5 donor.
Who is the donee then?

If A is the donee under the POA, mean A has full in charge on the property.
By then, A can do whatever on the property, as BCDE already gave POA to A to act on behalf.
A become like "boss to others".

Why BCDE want to sign such an POA in the first place?

Also POA is intended to act on behalf only, aka it may settle the sign off the signature related to the property issue,
but it doesn't settle the "force out" clause the intended for this case.
The proceed the selling the property still need to go back to the original owner.

Still a very messy situation.

This post has been edited by cherroy: May 2 2016, 12:15 PM
nookie188
post May 2 2016, 01:33 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,515 posts

Joined: Jan 2012
QUOTE(cherroy @ May 2 2016, 12:15 PM)
It is always good to have counter argument in such issue, which only raise awareness and benefited to all.  smile.gif

POA also not workable in this situation.
You have A,B,C,D,E 5 people.

You have 5 people to sign the POA (which required to be endorsed by high court), mean 5 donor.
Who is the donee then?

If A is the donee under the POA, mean A has full in charge on the property.
By then, A can do whatever on the property, as BCDE already gave POA to A to act on behalf.
A become like "boss to others". 

Why BCDE want to sign such an POA in the first place?

Also POA is intended to act on behalf only, aka it may settle the sign off the signature related to the property issue,
but it doesn't settle the "force out" clause the intended for this case.
The proceed the selling the property still need to go back to the original owner.

Still a very messy situation.
*
donee can be the appointed lawyer..?

I know this so called "false out" clause has been used before but by a Spore investment group - ok I don't have the full details but the "guru" said this is the route they will take if any partner defaults..i did not pursue as I was not interested at that time.
juicyliana
post May 9 2016, 05:13 PM

when u think juicy, think liana
*****
Senior Member
746 posts

Joined: Aug 2011
From: Lowyat.net
last time i wanted to buy a house from a lady. the house have 2 names, the seller and her friend.

her friend demanded that the seller give her the share of her money upfront and she will only sign the S&P. the seller don't have that amount of money upfront and asked me to give her the money in advance before signing the S&P.

i disagree that money shouldn't be transacted unless the S&P is signed.

The deal was called off.

even buying a house with 2 names can cause problem. what more 5 names?

This post has been edited by juicyliana: May 9 2016, 05:13 PM

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0147sec    0.42    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 27th November 2025 - 10:56 PM