THESE OLD FARTS SHOULD BE EUTHANISED!
When co-owners refuse to sell their HDB flats
The sale of a Housing Board flat that has almost doubled in value would normally be a happy affair for its owners, but not so for an elderly woman and her son, who got embroiled in a dispute over it.
They were equal owners of the $700,000 flat in Toa Payoh, but the 90-year-old woman had been living elsewhere with her eldest daughter for the past two decades.
So her son, a 69-year-old retired artist, lived in the flat and had rented out two bedrooms for a total of $1,500 a month, which he used for his living expenses.
All was well until 2023 when the daughter asked the High Court for an order to sell the flat because her mother, who has dementia, needed money for medical and nursing care as her condition was worsening.
The daughter, 71, and also a retiree, had insufficient savings and so told the court that the proceeds from the sale of the flat would come in handy for her mother’s long-term care.
But the son objected to the sale, as it would render him homeless. He argued that he was no longer working, had suffered a stroke, and had no means to move out as he would lose his rental income.
High Court Judge Choo Han Teck noted that the son’s main point was that he would not have sufficient resources for his upkeep if the property were to be sold.
“This, however, must be balanced against the best interests of his ailing and aged mother. She cannot be kept out of the property and have the (son) taking over the benefits of ownership entirely. Nothing can be more inequitable,” the judge said.
So Justice Choo approved the application to sell the flat, noting that it would be the equitable solution in the circumstances.
As the flat was estimated to be worth over $700,000, mother and son would receive lump sums of at least $350,000 each as they were equal owners.
While the son would need to look for a new home, the judge noted that his share of the sale proceeds would allow him to find a suitable new home.
When the mother and son bought the flat in 2001, they were listed as joint owners. But the joint ownership was severed in December 2022 and they became equal owners holding 50 per cent each.
This was likely done because the mother probably did not want the son to automatically own the whole flat upon her death, and she wanted to leave her half-share to her beneficiaries.
But such legal ownership tells only half the story in some family disputes, especially if one of the owners claims a bigger share for contributing more to the purchase of the flat.
Despite holding the unit as equal owners, the son claimed he was entitled to about 60 per cent of the sale proceeds because he had contributed more to the purchase, which was funded by the sale of another flat owned by the pair.
However, the loan records showed that in both instances, it was the mother who had repaid the bulk of the mortgage. Moreover, the son did not share the rental proceeds with his mother, an amount that exceeded $400,000 since 2003.
So, instead of nitpicking over who paid more over the last 20 years, a task that would be impossible without proper records, Justice Choo found that it would be appropriate to divide the sale proceeds equally in this case, based on their shares.
