ST : Court orders home sale after family row

Nov 5, 2010

Court orders home sale after family row

Joint owners of $1.9m property must sell house, though mum and daughter cannot agree

By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent

UNDER the law, when a property is held jointly by two individuals it cannot be sold unless both agree.

But the High Court has recently made an exception based on powers granted under the law to order the sale of such a house where both mother and daughter could not agree.

After her father left the family in 1983, Madam Neo Hui Ling became protective of her mother, Madam Ang Ah Siew.

Madam Neo eventually made her mother the joint tenant of a $1.88 million three-storey house in MacPherson she bought in 2007. This meant the property would revert to the survivor when one of the two died. She did this so her mother would have a roof over her head if Madam Neo should unexpectedly die.

But the duo had hardly lived there for three years when their relationship soured, leading Madam Neo to take her mother to court to force the sale of the house.

In High Court judgment grounds published on Wednesday, Justice Lai Siu Chiu ordered the sale, noting the relationship between the pair had 'drastically deteriorated'.

Among other things, the judge noted an incident in the house in March which was the last straw.

Madam Ang had, with two other daughters and six strangers, barged into Madam Neo's room to perform 'religious rites to cleanse' Madam Neo's room of 'dirty things'. She also made her daughter drink talisman water.

Madam Ang and her two daughters said they were concerned that Madam Neo was under some spell or possessed, noted the judge.

Following the incident, Madam Neo moved out of the six-room house and began living out of a suitcase in rented premises.

The judge said it was not necessary for her to detail all the conflicts they had.

'Those accounts clearly showed the relationship had broken down such that it was impossible to expect the parties to act jointly in deciding what to do with the property,' said Justice Lai.

Madam Neo had bought the property with a $1.35 million loan and paid about $10,000 a month in mortgage payments.

Madam Ang did not contribute a single cent towards the purchase of the house.

Madam Neo's lawyer Lisa Sam argued she had to sell the house as the financial burden on her had increased. This was because she had to service the loan and bear the expenses of a separate household.

Justice Lai also noted Madam Ang would not suffer any hardship if the house was sold as another daughter had agreed to take her in. In any case, Madam Neo offered to provide rented accommodation if her mother wanted.

The judge ordered 50 per cent of the sale proceeds to be given to Madam Neo, with the remaining half held by Madam Neo's lawyers pending a decision on if and how the amount is to be shared among the occupants.

Madam Ang's lawyer Steven Lee has filed a notice of appeal in the case.

vijayan@sph.com.sg