Gillman Heights going to Court of Appeal

Gillman Heights High Court appeal against the decision of the STB will be heard on:

Thursday 13 March 2008 at 10.00am, Court 6C

Friday 14 March 2008 at 10.00am

Tuesday 18 March 2008 at 10.30am

before the Honourable Justice Choo Han Teck. The lawyer for the 22 minority are (MICHAEL HWANG SC(INSTRUCTED))(RICHARD TAN)(STRAITS LAW PRACTICE)

.

The 8 Gillman majority who are questioning their legal standing with regard to their not having signed the supplemental CSA will also be heard. Lawyer(s) for these appealing majority are (Lim & Bangras)(Lim Hong Kan)

.

"Some Gillman Heights owners fight on for their homes"

Straits Times article 14 March here

You gotta love these people!

.

New Twist to Saga

Today Online article 17 March .

NUS link in Gillman heights under query

ChanneNews Asia 17 March 2008

It all depends on age for Gillman Heights

Today online article 19 March here

No conflict of interest in property deal

Straits Times - 2 Apr 2008 here

.

March 18, GH hearing concluded.

Judgement is reserved.

Bees to honey

Banks courting cash-rich Farrer Court-ers

Banks woo cash-rich en bloc residents

Sunday Times -2 Mar 2008

Talks held at Farrer Court to promote financial services to residents after estate’s $1.34 billion collective sale

WHERE there is money, businesses will pursue it. So it is not surprising that at least two financial players, Citibank and IPP Financial Advisers, have held talks at Farrer Court to woo residents with their services.

CITIBANK STAFF posted in the void decks of Farrer Court blocks invited residents to finance-related talks after the estate was bought by developer CapitaLand. At the talk, the Citibank officers spoke about financial management services for affluent customers. IPP Financial Advisers also held a talk there. — ST PHOTO: WANG HUI FEN

Residents netted $2.15 million on average after the estate had a collective sale in June last year. The 618-unit estate in Farrer Road was bought by developer CapitaLand for a record $1.34 billion. The original owners paid a little over $100,000 for their units 31 years ago.

The wooing of the Farrer Court community began four months ago with the unusual sight of Citibank officers posted in the void decks. They invited residents to two finance-related talks, complete with a free buffet dinner, in the estate’s function room.

When The Sunday Times attended one talk last Wednesday evening, we saw bank staff handing out booklets to more than 150 residents. The staff spoke about financial management and Citigold services targeting more affluent customers.

Citibank said such talks were held on an ongoing basis in private residences, including The Berth by The Cove in Sentosa Cove in January.

Many residents liked what they saw. As Mr Aeden Tang, 49, a bank officer, said: ‘Other banks didn’t take the trouble to reach out to us, unlike Citibank.’

Another resident, a 56-year-old retiree who wanted to be known only as Madam Tan, agreed: ‘It’s a win-win situation because many residents are old and can’t shop around for a good bank.’

Independent financial adviser IPP also held a talk there yesterday which drew about 25 people.

Residents said Citibank’s more aggressive tactics worked better than IPP’s. The latter had put up a banner to advertise its talk.

Other banks such as Standard Chartered have also reached out to those living in private residences.

None of them or IPP wanted to reveal how much business the talks had generated. OCBC, however, stopped such roadshows two years ago as it felt that they encroached on residents’ privacy.

Source : Sunday Times – 2 Mar 2008

I doubt if the banks will be setting up shop in Tampines Court's void decks. If they do, it will be for the purpose of offering bank loans to cash-strapped residents!

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.
 

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.

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

.

http://luxuryasiahome.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/waterfront-waves-twice-as-costly-but-residents-still-want-to-return/

.

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.

.

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.

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

REGENT GARDEN

Regent Garden: 25 year old freehold property on West Coast Road, district 12.

.

The STB has surprised us yet again by rejecting an enbloc sale - this time Regent Garden

.

Valuation wrong, so STB rejects Regent Garden Sale

Straits Times - 31 January 2008

No Go for regent garden's en bloc sale

Straits Times - 3o Jan 2008

STB rejects collective sale of regent garden

ST - 31 Jan 2008

Regent off the hook for now

Today - 31 Jan 2008

From what I can gather from postings on the Forum page, this is what happened in the Regent Garden’s case:

Regent Gardens was sold for $34m and 6 minority owners objected to the sale saying the property was undervalued.

.
The STB ordered a re-valuation by the same valuer on account of the minority objection. The valuation came out to be $39.7m. [I'd like to add that the STB in the past has always brushed aside minority complaints about under value - saying instead that 'valuation is not an exact science'. Just why did they suddenly pay heed to this particular complaint, and is this the first time they have ever ordered a re-valuation?]

As DTZ had made an error, a second opinion from an independent valuer was sought which gave a valuation of $41m.

One of the panel members specifically asked the two valuers their opinion of the $34.0m, and the reply was that the acceptable variation should not exceed 10%.

STB asked the buyer if it would top up the difference, and after an adjournment, the buyer's lawyer agreed to top up to $39.7m, but would consider a request for an additional amount above $39.7m, but not exceeding $41m. The Buyer's lawyer then asked time to prepare a supplemental agreement at $39.7m.

A few days later, the buyer's lawyer suddenly wrote to majority's lawyers and claimed that they, the majority owners, had 100% as all the 6 dissenters had withdrawn their objection, and they therefore required the majority to withdraw their STB application.

STB Vice President, Mr. Alfonso Ang, pointed out that it was the minority who had informed the STB about the under value, it was the minority who vigorously objected to the $34m sale privce, and yet it was also the minority who now wanted to force the majority to sell at the objected price of $34.0m. Something was wrong somewhere, to which the minority's lawyer suggested that the court should not dig further as there was now no objection to the sale.

Court President commented "the tribunal cannot be ostriches".

.

Update: 17 April 2008

The High Court reversed the decision of the STB and ordered the owners to complete the enbloc sale with Allgreen Properties.

'Allgreen had asked the High Court for an order to get the majority owners to complete the sale. it argued that the STB had no need to even examine the sale as all owners had agreed to it.

The court agreed, ruling that the allegations of mistake and breach of contract were without merit and that the STBs decision to halt the sale was irrelevant.'

Source: Straits Times 17 April 2008

Urban renewal or suburban rip-off?

Oh my, oh my - on a fact finding mission, and out of sheer curiosity I visited the showflat of the latest condominium launched in our area - to check out how the idea of (sub)urban renewal translates into reality. The developer bought the land at $240 psf and paid off 583 owners $660k each for their 1700 sq ft units (average) They will build 1600 units in their stead at the following starting prices:

.

2 bedroom - 980 sq ft - starting from $690K

3 bedroom - 1313 sq ft - starting from $860 K to $1 million

4 bedroom - 1593 sq ft - starting from $1.1 million

Penthouse - 2992 sq ft - starting from $2.5 million

.

By those prices, Tampines Court, 3 + 1, 1700 sqft, park view, should fetch $1.3 million at least. We may not have a swimming pool, but neither are we cheek to jowl with 1599 other units in the estate. We are surrounded by trees, have out own internal park and another one just next door and are truly blessed with that rarest commodity of all - S-P-A-C-E. I predict, a luxury condominium in the near future will not boast a swimming pool, sauna, gymnasium etc as their main selling point - after all they are so commonplace now - but instead will be emphasising spaciousness and exclusivity; in other words, Tampines Court as it is now.

.
I took a peek at the 4 bedroom type show flat; at $1.1 million it is way above the average heartland budget. It feels so much smaller than 1500 sqft. They cheated by knocking down one of the bedrooms, making it into a study with no walls - hence enlarging the feeling of the living room and dining area. The kitchen is tiny, there's actually no room for the refrigerator, microwave or conventional oven. You wonder where even the toaster might go! The bathtub (only in the 4 bedroom up) is for stick insects and there's a strange pull down bed in a windowless cubbyhole with a steel door off the kitchen which I was told was for the maid, should there be one. Being skinny would be an advantage for negotiating your way around the bed in the master bedroom. I looked around and tried to imagine where one would put the ironing board (in the toilet perhaps?), the laundry basket (hanging from the ceiling?), the piano (out on the balcony?), the sideboard (ditto), the glass cases,  the mountains of books and the rest of the detritus of 25 years of family life.... and well, there was nowhere; there was hardly enough room to swing a cat. (and I have 2!) And what is with all the bay windows? - pointless, useless, unusable space wasters. A modern 1,500sqft is so, so much smaller that what you imagine.

One positive point: a big balcony.
.

I came to the conclusion that only the very skinny with money to burn, preferably having no children and who own nothing in this world save an artistic vase or two, could comfortably live in the homes of the suburban renewed. That, or investors hoping for a quick flip.

.

If suburban renewal is for the good of Singapore, which part of Singapore society is actually benefiting? Not us suburbanites, the heartlanders, the very people who willingly (majority) or unwillingly (minority) place their homes on the altar of UR.

When ex-owners cannot afford to move back into the greatly expanded estate due to price inflation, then that is not suburban renewal. That, my friend, is exploitation.

.

Anonymous letter

This anonynmous letter to the HT forum is worth reproducing here:

.

"The fact that we have to spend a fortune on legal court cases for senior counselors to parade their intellectual skills at dissecting minutiae legal procedure and facts, show how ridiculous we have become as a nation. This case (HT) bares the very weakness of this particular legislation. Underpinning this legislation is total greed disguised as lip-servicing urban renewal.

.

Greed on the part of developers who work hand in hand with foreign private equity groups who would devour anything that gives them phenomenal returns tax exempt or at least tax efficient in the name of injecting health into global economies. [A certain property tycoon] could well teach our Singapore sons and daughters a wonderful lesson here....honour the mighty dollar.

.

Greed on the part of speculator-owners who buy up units which they think are ripe for raiding.

.

Greed on the part of agents, professional legal and consultant teams who would share the spoils of this grand scheme, whether the deal goes through or collapse , they still earn their fees.

.

Greed (perhaps more forgivable) on the part of short-sighted owners who think they are ready to downsize and liquidate to enjoy their nest-egg without realising that they are depreciating it unless they find alternative housing or schemes to grow their nest egg which they hope to get.

.

Greed on the part of a government which thinks that making handsome developer's fees and other sundry taxes, bringing in foreign capital is the way forward to boosting the country's economy when in fact we are selling our family silver to unknown elements whose only aim is to pawn our tiny island and our homes to richer immigrants who could afford to buy our exorbitant condo airspace. But then we are historically an immigrant society , so be it, new wave after wave of immigrants could easily replace all who are dispensable and fallible.

.

That leaves all the minority anti-enbloccers, romantic diehards who dream of holding onto our idyllic homes till death do we part..but looks like we will just have to get use to living a global nomadic life till we reach our final resting place wherever it maybe.

.

If greed underpins the whole economy and our skyline, the spin-off would indeed be very interesting to watch for all of us who thought we could come home again...just gold dust and lust for it fills the air."

.

Comments

In response to all the comments below on price:

Let's get back to basics here: there are more things wrong with this enbloc than just the price. Sure, the price is paltry especially under the present market conditions, but but there are a lot more contentious issues which may or may not hold water at the STB, and as a minority owner who refused to sign , I feel it is my right and my duty to bring to light these other grievances. Parliament has given me this narrow avenue of appeal and so I will take it.

.
At the end of the day, money is just money, and life goes on one way or the other. There are more important things in life that require our vigorous defence - country, family, religion, principles and home.

.

None of us knew at the beginning what en bloc entailed; we went into this wide-eyed and curious. The auditorium at the first meeting was packed to the rafters with people just there to listen, not to decide, but to gather in enough facts in order to make an informed decision. At least, that's what I was there for. Other meetings followed in quick succession, and as details unfolded and the players took the stage, doubts crept in. Slowly, slowly, it dawned on some people that all was not right, things were not proceding as expected . By the time the CSA dropped on my doorstep I had gone from being 'neutral but interested' to decidedly disinterested. The CSA itself, that hefty legal document riddled with dangerous clauses (the ramifications of which were not clear to me, just that they did not seem right at the time), sealed my resolve to remain in the minority. On 3 days in particular, people signed the CSA in droves - the others waited and watched. The disgraceful behaviour of some strong supporters at the AGM in 2006 clearly showed the direction and manner the enbloc sale was going - and it was downhill from there.

.

There can be no excuse for any enbloc conducted in the dark. A bare adherence to the minimal requirements of the law is not acceptable when homes and life savings are at stake.

When transparency, engagement and discussion is replaced by silence, secrecy and frequent citing of 'client privileges' you know there is something amiss.

.

It is now up to the STB to perform its role not as facilitator to enbloc sales but as fair adjudicator, detatching itself from partisan and vested interest. There is no need for them to continually abandon compliance of the law and turn its eye instead on its overall 'purpose' as defined by Parliament. Parliament has already defined it's purposes through those very laws and has ratified them one by one. Parliament's intent that enblocs be made easier has not resulted in the elimination of rules, but conversly in their tightening with the very intention that they be applied. The laws are the word of Parliament and the STB should feel comfortable applying them impartially.

.

If a sale is found to be improper or unsafe, Parliament surely would not want it approved. Singapore, afterall, prides itself on having high standards in all things, and the STB should find its justification in keepng that bar high.

FINLAND GARDENS

Published January 21, 2008

Sing unit seeks to join appeal over en bloc ruling
By LYNETTE KHOO

'SING Holdings said its joint venture vehicle is filing an intervention application with the High Court to be added as a party to the appeal made by majority owners of Finland Gardens in Siglap against the ruling that dismissed their en bloc transaction.Finland Gardens Pte Ltd

.

(FGPL) is the 70-30 joint venture between Sing Holdings and Eastern Summer - the wholly-owned unit of US-based fund Forum Asian Realty Income II LP.The Strata Titles Board (STB) threw out the collective sale application of Finland Gardens in Siglap last November after it failed to meet statutory requirements.The STB ruled that there was no 80 per cent majority and that the sale price was not obtained in good faith. At the request of FGPL, the majority owners filed an appeal with the High Court in December against STB's decision.FGPL subsequently filed an intervention on Jan 17 with the High Court to be allowed as a party to the appeal.'

.

The High Court has adjourned the hearing of the appeal and the intervention application to Feb 15 when the intervention application will be heard and further directions given for the hearing of the appeal,' Sing Holdings said.

.

Finland Gardens, located in the Siglap area at East Coast Avenue and East Coast Terrace, has a land area of 98,309 sq ft. It comprises 48 units of walk-up apartments housed in two three-storey blocks.Sing Holdings proposed to buy the freehold site in November 2006 for $49.5 million. The owners of each unit would stand to reap about $1 million to $1.27 million, depending on the size of the unit.

.

But owners of eight units objected to the sale, saying that they are not getting the best possible price for the estate and that a higher offer that came after Sing Holdings' offer was not considered by the sale committee, which simply asked Sing Holdings to match the later offer instead of asking for a better price."

.

Finland Gardens' High Court appeal will be heard on the 21 April. Lawyer for the majority (applicants) will be Michael Huang SC. Dennis Tan for the minority (defendants).

.

Update: 21 April 2008

No appeal has been scheduled

REGENT GARDEN

Regent garden en bloc sale contested
Straits Times - 19 Jan 2008
Regent Garden owners trying to scrap sale
Straits Times - 19 Jan 2008
Owners sue Regent en bloc buyers
Straits Times - 19 Jan 2008
Regent garden owners deny trying to back out of deal
Straits Times - 24 Jan 2008

Gillman Heights going to High Court

22 Minority owners are taking their case to the Highest Court in the land.

Their lawyers have engaged senior counsel Michael Huang to argue the case.

They are fighting for the 90% consensus, and so, this uncertainty hangs in the air for Tampines Court, too.

.

Straits Times- 17 Jan 2008

Another bid to stop sale of Gillman Heights

And the majority are unhappy, too :-

Straits Times article
CapitaLand tell owners to honour sale

'It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings'

.

Update: Gillman Heights High Court Appreal will be on 13 March 2008 at 10am in Court 6C

FUTURA

High Court decision
Liu Chee Ming and Others v Loo-Lim Shirley[2008] SGHC 3
Decision date: 08 January 2008
.
This was an appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Strata Titles Board approving the collective sale of Futura condominium. Futura is a freehold 26-storey residential development located at Leonie Hill Road. The condominium comprises 72 units having a total share value of 75.
,
(What a fine looking condominium, what a monumental waste to tear it down.)

.

Summary
"62 As the appellants kept harping about the reduction of $3.7 million, it is appropriate to bear in mind that the eventual sale price was $287.3 million which was still about $7.9 million above the minimum price of $279,363,724. True, the eventual sale price did not necessarily preclude some impropriety which might show that the transaction was not in good faith but it was for the appellants to establish the absence of good faith. It was clear to me that they had taken a machine-gun approach to try and find as many faults as possible instead of focussing on the absence of good faith. They seemed not to understand that even if criticism could be levelled at the way the negotiations were conducted with CDL, that is a far cry from establishing absence of good faith. They failed to show that the Board had erred in law and I dismissed their appeal with costs"

.

UPDATE: 3 April 2008

.

Futura Minority owners withdraw appeal against en bloc sale

What is this? their appeal against the High Court decision? Must be.

Sudden Spate of En Bloc Articles

Horizon Towers: Minority owners want High Court to overturn STB decision
Business Times - 5 January 2008
Horizon Towers minority owners appeal against Strata board ruling
Straits Times - 5 Jan 2008
Flaws likely if en bloc choice left to owners
ST - 5 Jan 2008
LET JUDGES decide
Weekend Today - 5 Jan 2008
Minority retort
Weekend Today - 5 Jan 2008
Intrinsic value of area may resolve enbloc woes
Straits Times - 11 Jan 2007
Bayshore park: How many times more?
Today - 14 Jan 2007
Bayshore Park residents fail to form en bloc sales committee
Straits Times - 14 jan 2008

Enbloc Refugees

From TODAY article dated 27 Dec 2007

HELP, WE ARE ENBLOC REFUGEES

BY LUCY HUANG

"WE HAVE been “en-blocked” for a second time. On both occasions, we were reluctant sellers. People tell us we are lucky because we are getting a lot of money from the enbloc sale. But in reality, we have had to downgrade each time — from private and freehold, to HUDC and leasehold. And now, it looks like we will have to either go HDB or move to the edges of Singapore — away from our doctors, dentist, friends, church and clubs. To make matters worse, at almost every prospective home we have checked out, we have been told that there is a good chance of the place going en bloc. Our housing agent has told us that if we want to live in a condominium, we have to face the fact that sooner or later the owners will try to go en bloc. We were in our late 60s the first time we were forced out of our home. Now, we are in our late 70s. The next time, we will be in the same boat as two of our neighbours, who are in their 90s but still have to uproot. Is this the way we are going to pass our twilight years? Always faced with the prospect of having to sell our home? The experience is very stressful. Losing one’s home ranks alongside losing one’s spouse, child or parent. It can be traumatic and mentally debilitating. We have two other options. First, we can buy an HDB resale flat, which may not have the benefits a condominium offers in terms of security and facilities. Second, we can consider landed property, which would cost a lot more. And, as old people, we will have to hire someone to help maintain it because we will be unable to do so on our own. Of course, we could also choose to rent a home. However, this would put us at the mercy of landlords who may decide to raise the rent to an unreasonable level, or decide to take the property off the rental market, which would mean more packing, moving and house-hunting. Even with landed property, we wouldn’t have complete peace of mind. The Government may decide to redevelop the estate, or our neighbours may band together to sell. After working all our lives and raising our children, we had hoped to pass our twilight years in peace and relaxation. Instead, what can we look forward to? The constant fear of some bright (and greedy) spark rallying all the neighbours to put the entire estate up for sale to a developer? And if at first they don’t succeed, they will try and try again! As en-bloc refugees, we are appealing to the Government to come up with a solution, which will allow us to live the rest of our lives without the fear of losing our home — again."

.

Today Online article: Allow only one en bloc shot

Today Online article: A tripartite effort is vital

DDAY

OK folks, DDay has arrived.

The Statutory Notice of Sale has been published

in the newspapers over 3+ full pages.

.

460 majority

100 minority

.

The ball is rolling. The minority have 3 weeks from today to make an application to the STB to oppose the sale. A group of 39 owners will be opposing through their lawyer, other minority may also do the same. Those opposing the sale without legal representation can go to the STB website and download the form from there.

.

Good luck All!

Delay

It has been 9 months since the conditional sale of Tampines Court - and still no application for sale to the Strata Titles Board has been made.

Now that Gillman is largely over (pending the High Court appeal that is) the sale committee no longer has an excuse to hold back on the application.

.

In case you missed the article in the Straits Times about Singapore being the hottest residential market IN THE WORLD; - here  it is.

.

Those owners who have only their prospective sale proceeds to purchase their next roof ; here's disheartening news indeed. If you are forced to set your sights on a smaller HDB then be prepared to have a bundle of spare cash for the COV (cash over value) which cannot be covered by a bank loan. And if the proceeds of the sale (after paying back your bank loan, CPF charges, and costs and expenses of a sale you don't want) give you insufficient cash, or even no cash at all - and you don't have a handy bundle of moolah under your mattress - then what exactly are you supposed to do?

.

You can't upgrade

You can't sidegrade

and now

you can't even downgrade!

.

Today article: 
Help! we are enbloc refugees!

.

Gillman Heights Minority Lose at the STB

Sad to say, Gillman Heights minority lost today.

The STB threw out all their objections and granted the order of sale.

.
But, it's not over yet.

They have 28 days in which to make an appeal to the

High Court on a point of law. After that, a high court hearing

would be scheduled about 3 months down the line.

.

Gillman Heights: blamed for doing nothing

Today Weekend 22 Dec 2007 - 53 minority to appeal to High court. They are not going down without a fight!

.

STB nod for Gillman Heights en bloc sale

Business Times 22 Dec 2007