When a $2 Million House Has Too Many Owners

The dispute was ignited when two co-owners wanted to sell the house but the other two objected

- Tan Ooi Boon

Property disputes involving just two people are already hard and expensive to untangle, but when there are four in the mix battling over a $2.4 million house, the saying "too many cooks spoil the broth" comes close to describing the havoc.

The central stumbling point with property, as these folk know all too well, is that bricks and mortar can't be offloaded as easily as cash or shares.

If one joint owner of a property disagrees with the others, the situation can get ugly fast, especially when there are multiple owners.

In this case, all was well when the house was owned in equal shares by two siblings. The problem started to brew after they died and they each willed their half-share to more relatives.

The daughter of one of the original owners ended up with a 35 per cent share, while her brother had 25 per cent. Two of their aunts (sisters of the two original owners) ended up with the rest, one owning 10 per cent the other 30 per cent.

The dispute was ignited when the aunts said they wanted to sell the house and distribute the proceeds according to their shares. Their niece and nephew objected as they were still living in the property.

One of the aunts went to the High Court to apply for an order forcing the other owners to sell.

High Court Judge Chua Lee Ming granted the application and made two important observations that all owners should know so that they can avoid being caught in similar disputes.

COURT WILL INTERVENE IN DESERVING CASES ONLY

The buying and selling of property should be done amicably among the parties concerned; the courts will generally not intervene unless there are valid reasons.

This is to avoid a headlong rush to court by co-owners who disagree on how even straightforward things should be done.