Advertisement
Singapore markets close in 6 hours 7 minutes
  • Straits Times Index

    3,295.21
    +22.49 (+0.69%)
     
  • Nikkei

    38,329.39
    +777.23 (+2.07%)
     
  • Hang Seng

    17,098.17
    +269.24 (+1.60%)
     
  • FTSE 100

    8,044.81
    +20.94 (+0.26%)
     
  • Bitcoin USD

    66,598.89
    -211.37 (-0.32%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    1,432.56
    +17.80 (+1.26%)
     
  • S&P 500

    5,070.55
    +59.95 (+1.20%)
     
  • Dow

    38,503.69
    +263.71 (+0.69%)
     
  • Nasdaq

    15,696.64
    +245.33 (+1.59%)
     
  • Gold

    2,331.60
    -10.50 (-0.45%)
     
  • Crude Oil

    83.29
    -0.07 (-0.08%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    4.5980
    -0.0250 (-0.54%)
     
  • FTSE Bursa Malaysia

    1,567.25
    +5.61 (+0.36%)
     
  • Jakarta Composite Index

    7,168.98
    +58.17 (+0.82%)
     
  • PSE Index

    6,572.29
    +65.49 (+1.01%)
     

Man ordered to split condo sales proceeds with brother

The collective sale of Shunfu Ville has finally received the green light, after the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by objectors, media reports said...

The brothers bought the Hillview condominium 16 years ago for $880,440.

To assert his share in a property, a man filed a lawsuit against his younger brother, who had persuaded him to invest $200,000 in a Hillview condominium unit in exchange for equal share of the property.

Cheong Kok Leong, however, claimed the money was a loan that he had already paid back, reported TODAYonline.

The older Cheong saw his income drop in late 2004 when he retired as a contractor. With this, he began urging his brother to sell the $880,440 condominium they purchased in 2000 to realise his investment.

For years, the younger brother foisted him off by issuing him three cheques totalling $87,000 in dividends. The defendant also claimed there were 65 other occasions when he gave money to his brother, which amounted to $320,000.

ADVERTISEMENT

As such, he had effectively repaid the older brother and had even given him an additional $120,000, which constituted bad debts, said the defendant in his countersuit.

Judicial Commissioner Audrey Lim, however, was not convinced by the defendant’s account.

In ruling for the older Cheong, the judge questioned why someone would commit a large amount of money without setting fixed repayment dates or interest rates.

While the contribution of the older brother was just a fraction of the property’s acquisition price, both parties had agreed on an equal share in the unit, said JC Lim.

In fact, the younger Cheong, who had taken out the maximum mortgage, would not have been able to purchase the property without the plaintiff’s contribution.

“It was not as though the agreement represented a bad bargain for the defendant,” she said.

As a result, the judge ordered the younger man to sell the property, which he declared solely in his name, and split the proceeds with his brother. He also has to return the latter’s share of rental income over the years, which includes the period where he stayed in the condominium instead of renting it out.

 

Romesh Navaratnarajah, Senior Editor at PropertyGuru, edited this story. To contact him about this or other stories, email romesh@propertyguru.com.sg