Feb 29, 2008

PHOENIX COURT

Today, the Phoenix Court minority appeal against the High Court decision was dismissed with costs. You can find the full decision on the Supreme Court website - free to view for 3 months.
Ng Swee Lang and Another v Sassoon Samuel Bernard and Others[2008] SGCA 7.
This appeal concerns the collective sale of the freehold condominium development at 70 St Thomas Walk known as Phoenix Court which comprises three penthouses on the highest floor and 44 apartment units on the lower floors.
.
High Court Media Summary here



29 February 2008
Media Summary
Ng Swee Lang and another v Sassoon Samuel Bernard and Others
CA 145 of 2007/W
Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Chan Sek Keong CJ)
Background
1 The appellants are the joint subsidiary proprietors of a unit in Phoenix Court at 70 St Thomas Walk. It is a 13-storey freehold condominium development comprising 3 penthouses and 44 apartment units. On 16 April 2006, 46 out of 47 owners of units signed a collective sale agreement among themselves with a view to selling their units on the terms agreed therein. Sometime in mid-2006, the Sale Committee put out a public tender for the collective sale of Phoenix Court but failed to attract any bids. However, on 27 October 2006, the 46 owners (representing 97.92% of the total share value of the development and holding well in excess of 80% of the total area of all the lots in Phoenix Court) signed a sale and purchase agreement (S&PA) with Bukit Panjang Plaza Pte Ltd as the purchaser. The terms of the S&PA included a termination clause that if approval for the collective sale was not obtained from the Strata Titles Board within 6 months of the date of the S&PA (i.e., 25 April 2007), it would lapse.
2 On 17 January 2007, the respondents as representatives of the 46 owners applied to the Board for a collective sale order. When it became evident that the collective sale order could not be obtained by 25 April 2007, the Sale Committee entered into a Supplemental Agreement with the purchaser on 25 April 2007 to extend the time to 27 June 2007 in order to obtain a collective sale order from the Board.
3 On 21 and 22 June 2007, the Board heard the application. The appellants were represented by counsel and objected to the application on various legal grounds. The Board rejected all of them and approved the application for the collective sale of Phoenix Court. 
4 The appellants appealed to the High Court to set aside the Board's decision. They argued that -
(a)  the collective sale agreement had terminated by effluxion of time and therefore there was no valid agreement among the owners holding not less than 80% of the total share values of Phoenix Court;
(b) there was no valid sale and purchase agreement between the 46 owners and the purchaser as the S&PA was not validly extended and also did not specify the proposed method of distribution of the proceeds of sale to the unit owners;
(c) the respondents were not the authorised representatives of the majority owners;
(d) the transaction was not in good faith;
(e)  notice of the application had not been accompanied by a valid valuation report; and
(f) the S&PA did not comply with s 84A(1) of the Land Titles (Strata) Act in failing to specify the proposed method of distribution of the sale proceeds among all the owners: such failure went towards establishing the jurisdiction and resulted in the respondents having no locus standi to apply to the Board for a collective sale order.
5 In a fully reasoned judgment, the High Court Judge dismissed the appeal and held:
(a) the collective sale agreement did not terminate on its proper construction in the events that happened;
(b) the failure to specify the distribution method in the S&PA did not invalidate the S&PA as the distribution method was set out in the collective sale agreement, a copy of which was in their possession; they were fully aware of the value of their units and the amount of the purchase consideration they would receive; the legislation on collective sales does not require minority dissenting members to sign the sale and purchase agreement; also the S&PA was validly extended;
(c) the respondents were the authorised representatives of the 46 owners, and in any case, the law required only one representative to act on their behalf; further, the appellants have never challenged the authority of the respondents;
(d) the transaction was not entered into in bad faith, nor had the appellants proved that the sale price was not the best price reasonably obtainable;
(e)  the valuation report was not defective; and
(f) the failure to specify the distribution method in the S&PA did not affect the standing of the respondents to apply to the Board; s 84A(1) must be interpreted to give effect to the intention of Parliament. It could not be that a minor breach would invalidate the whole transaction.
The Appeal
6 The appellants’ appeal to the Court of Appeal is based on the same grounds canvassed before the Judge. The Court of Appeal agrees with the decision of the Judge and also his reasoning on all his legal findings.  The Court agrees with the Judge that the modern approach to statutory interpretation required the court to consider the legislative intention of the collective sale scheme and to give effect to it in interpreting the relevant provisions of the legislation.
7 In the present case, with respect to Phoenix Court (which is more than 10 years old), the appellants’ argument is based substantially on the meaning and effect of s 84A(1) which provides (as paraphrased):
In the case of a strata title development that is more than 10 years old, an application to a Board for an order for a collective sale of a strata title development by the unit owners with not less than 80% of the share values and not less than 80% of the total area of all the lots who have  agreed in writing to sell all the lots and common property in the development to a purchaser under a sale and purchase agreement which specifies the proposed method of distributing the sale proceeds to all the subsidiary proprietors. 
The argument of the appellants is as follows: S 84A(1) sets out two requirements of a collective sale: (a) the age of the development; and (b) the percentage value of the units and of the total area of the lots in the development. These two requirements are fundamental. If they are not complied with, the Board has no jurisdiction to hear the application. Correspondingly, the majority owners are not eligible to make a collective sale application to the Board. These two requirements go towards establishing the jurisdiction. Therefore s 84A(1) is a jurisdictional provision.
8 The next stage of the argument is this: s 84A(1) also refers to a sale and purchase agreement which specifies the proposed method of distributing the sale proceeds to all the subsidiary proprietors. It therefore follows that the appellants contend that the specification itself is a fundamental requirement of a collective sale, just like the other two requirements. Accordingly, since the S&PA in the present case did not specify the distribution method, no application for a collective sale could be made to the Board.
9 The Court of Appeal agrees with the reasoning of the Judge in dismissing this argument as nothing more than a technical argument, and that the omission was an irregularity which the Court could waive in the circumstances of this case.  The Court of Appeal also takes the view that the appellants have also by their own conduct waived the irregularity. They failed to raise this objection within the time limit as required by the Act and before the Board.
10 The appeal is dismissed with costs.
 

Feb 21, 2008

Gillman Height Majority sued by Developer

8 Gillman Heights majority being sued by developer Straits Times article:-
CapitaLand, HPL sue 8 owners of Gillman Heights
Straits Times- 21 Feb 2008

CapitaLand sues 4 Gillman heights Condo owners for breach of contract
ChannelNesAsia - 20 feb 2008.The Gillman Heights majority are treading on dangerous ground . It is similar to what 12 Phoenix Court majority tried to do last year (06 Nov 2007). The judge came down very hard on them. This was what he said: .

In attempting to set aside the CSA and the Supplemental Agreement, the plaintiffs had also breached the covenants and undertakings in cl 7 of the CSA. The relevant sub-clause states:Every Owner agrees as follows:(p) not to do anything whether by an act or omission that may prevent or otherwise be detrimental to the Collective Sale or the fulfillment of any of the purpose under this [CSA] or the [SPA].


It was because of the frivolity of the plaintiffs’ claim that I ordered indemnity costs against them in favour of all nine defendants.
.
So, this will be an interesting case to follow. Of course it all depends on the specifics and sub clauses of their CSA. Their position seems ambiguous on the outside and they are brave to seek clarification from the Court. Brave or very foolish - depending on the quality of legal advice they have received.
.
Even though they may be privately fuming, Tampines Court majority owners have not made a public attempt at scuttling or speaking out against the sale - they are abiding by the terms and conditions of the S&P agreement. No flyer against the sale has been circulated by them, and no one can accuse them of trying to back out of the sale. They have been told in no uncertain terms that they will be sued if they attempted do so.
.
It is just the minority owners who have a LEGAL leeway to publically oppose through the STB and higher, and I wish people would stop telling us to honour a sale we did not commit to! We don't have to, we are not suable on that account.

Feb 15, 2008

To buy or not to buy

In the post today - a survey form asking owners whether or not they are interested in buying back a replacement unit from the developer at a 'discounted' price. This is not the first time this offer has been floated, a similar letter was sent out last year. Since no price or general ballpark figure was given, I cannot say if this will be generous offer or not- but since they will be selling the new units at at least double the price they are paying us, I would therefore expect nothing less than a 50% discount! I would also demand certain conditions such as comparable unit size, orientation, level, fixtures and fittings, rental for 3 years whilst waiting, guaranteed delivery time etc; everything down in B & W, leaving no wiggle room for them to cut corners - . In other words, 1-4-1, a fair replacement for our homes and in return they get to make huge profits from all the other units they sell in this soon-to-be overcrowded estate(s). I don't think that's too much to ask, do you?
.
Let's see how our sister estate, Waterfront View fared in this matter
(Source : New Paper - 3 Feb 2008)
.
TWICE THE PRICE, HALF THE SIZE
.
.
According to a spokesman for Frasers Centrepoint Homes, one of the developers for Waterfront Waves, there are at least five former owners who have bought a total of six units there.
The spokesman said: ‘Former residents return as they feel a sense of belonging in the neighbourhood after living there for years.’
She said owners from the old estate, Waterfront View, were given a day for an exclusive preview and to select units ahead of invited guests. But she added that there would be no discounts for former owners.
These residents will have to pay around twice the sum they got from their en-bloc sale, if they choose to buy a similar-size apartment.
Another resident, a 54-year-old retiree who declined to be named, also found himself paying more, just to live in the same estate.
He made a down payment for a 1,600 sq ft, four-bedroom unit, which costs $1.27 million, more than twice the $630,000 he received for his old unit. But unlike other former residents, he is not complaining.
He said: ‘I am glad that they released the East Wing first, which is where my former block, 736, used to be.
‘What’s even better, this time, my view of the reservoir is not blocked. I’m looking forward to watching all the water activities.
‘Where else can you get a unit so near the water, except at Sentosa or Marina Bay, where it is so expensive?’
.
Well for starters, 5 owners out of a pool of 583 is a very poor return rate. Afterall, this is is a mass market, leasehold property plonk in the middle of the heartlands and if those very people who were enblocked cannot return to their former estate due to the extravagant price of new comparable unts then the developer has lost 578 potential buyers. Note, the article said no discount was given to former owners - perhaps the same developer doesn't want such a dismal outcome from TC.
.
There is a moral obligation on the part of the SC, enbloc lawyer, and PA to do the best they can for all owners. If there are owners out there who want to return, then they should make that possible by using whatever leverage they have left.
.
The man in the article paid TWICE the sum to live in the SAME BLOCK he used to live in. And if that man was an original owner who paid less than $200k for his unit in the 1980's - and is now happy to pay $1.27million....... well, the mind boggles! They say there's one born every minute.
.
BTW: I shall not be filling out this form. I don't intend to move.
.

Feb 13, 2008

1st Charge or 2nd Charge?

All properties* bought before 2002 have CPF as first charge .
All properties bought after 2002, and those bought before 2002 but were refinanced after 2002 have the Bank as first charge.
*All properties except HUDC phases III & IV which were mortgaged to the POSB.
.*******************************************************************************
Saturday 16 Feb
Well, it's bad news. It seems HUDCs were an exception to the general CPF rules that applied to all properties as far back as 1996 (and maybe even earlier). So, at least 6 years before other private banks were given first priority, the HDB were quietly cutting the strings to HUDC properties and approving deeds with the following order of priority for distribution of sale proceeds:
.
1) First charge: all monies owing to the HDB
2) Second charge: Credit POSB, Government or Statutory Boards
3) Third charge: CPF
.

The CPF Board approved the purchase of my unit 'subject to your complying with the CPF fund act (Cap.36) and any amendments or reenactment thereof and the rules and regulations made under the Act from time to time relating to withdrawels of CPF savings under the Public Housing Scheme."

Under the Public Housing Scheme, the loans obtained for the purchase of a resale HUDC Phases III/IV flat must be from any of the following approved mortgagees (in 1996):
.
a) Credit POSB (remember it was Government owned at the time)
b) Government or Statutory Boards.
.
So how did around 120 units in TC manage to get a private bank as second charge? Well, in 1996 (my own particular point of reference) the only Bank approved for HUDC mortgages was Credit POSB, there was no other choice - so exactly when were these other private Banks allowed to take on HUDC mortgages? I'm guessing after POSB was subsumed by DBS but before 2002. POSB holders who refinanced with another bank during this window period could, perhaps, have benefitted also from the CPF first rule too ....a serendipitous move to have made on hindsight, if true. Or else, owners just negotiated for CPF first charge - less likely but still possible. Truth is, I don't know.
.
Anyway, the upshot is, our HUDC heads were the first on the chopping block .....and long before everyone else.

Feb 4, 2008

Waterfront Waves: Twice as costly, but residents still want to return

Waterfront Waves: Twice as costly, but residents still want to return

 February 4, 2008
Bedok Reservoir en-bloc residents book units in new developmentFIRST you sell your apartment in an en-bloc sale.
Then you wait for a new condo to come up on the same spot and buy a unit in it.

That is what some have been doing at an estate on Bedok Reservoir Road.
The good thing for them: Their new home will be in a location they know and love.
The not-so-good thing: Prices have soared.
According to a spokesman for Frasers Centrepoint Homes, one of the developers for Waterfront Waves, there are at least five former owners who have bought a total of six units there.

Since the launch, 80 of the 148 units have been sold.
The spokesman said: ‘Former residents return as they feel a sense of belonging in the neighbourhood after living there for years.’
She said owners from the old estate, Waterfront View, were given a day for an exclusive preview and to select units ahead of invited guests. But she added that there would be no discounts for former owners.
These residents will have to pay around twice the sum they got from their en-bloc sale, if they choose to buy a similar-size apartment.
Depending on size and location, the new apartments cost $690 to $870 psf.
Said 71-year-old businessman OhBin Cheng, a former resident who visited the Waterfront Waves showroom two weeks ago: ‘The timing was terrible. We went en bloc before the property boom when property prices were still low.
‘Then, when we got the money for the collective sale and wanted to buy, housing prices started soaring.’

TWICE THE PRICE, HALF THE SIZE
Not content to live in a smaller apartment, Mr Oh, who got $660,000 for his 1,600 sqft Waterfront View apartment, decided to buy an HDB flat in Tampines for the time being.
Because Mr Oh is fond of his old estate, he hopes to buy a two-bedroom unit about half the size of his old apartment, which, he said, costs almost $700,000.
He said: ‘I hope prices will drop so that I can come back here to live.’
Another resident, a 54-year-old retiree who declined to be named, also found himself paying more, just to live in the same estate.
He made a down payment for a 1,600 sq ft, four-bedroom unit, which costs $1.27 million, more than twice the $630,000 he received for his old unit.

Worth it: Former Waterfront View resident Oh Bin Cheng will be returning to the site of his old home. – File Picture: The Straits Times
But unlike other former residents, he is not complaining.
He said: ‘I am glad that they released the East Wing first, which is where my former block, 736, used to be.
‘What’s even better, this time, my view of the reservoir is not blocked. I’m looking forward to watching all the water activities.
‘Where else can you get a unit so near the water, except at Sentosa or Marina Bay, where it is so expensive?’

EAGER TO RETURN
Indeed, so eager was he to return that he was among the first few to visit the showroom.
For now, his family is living in another condominium just two streets away. He had bought a unit there earlier.
But he will have to sell that apartment to pay for his new home when it is ready in three years’ time.
‘Still, I’m happy with my purchase, I can get back many of the memories from living there,’ he said.
Some property agents The New Paper on Sunday spoke to, however, felt that most residents would welcome a change, and prefer not to return to new developments on the sites of their en-bloc sale estates.
Property agent Andrew Lin, 28, said: ‘It’s not really common for former residents to return. Most of them settle down well in their new homes.
‘The only reason for them to return would be if there was any additional discount given to them by the developer.’
Source : New Paper – 3 Feb 2008