He had contributed S$200,000 to the purchase of the unit in exchange for equal share of the property

He got his older brother to contribute S$200,000 to invest in a condominium unit in exchange for an equal share of the property, but later said the deal was off, claiming the sum was merely a loan that he had repaid.

Now, Mr Cheong Kok Leong will not only have to sell the unit, which is solely in his name, and split the proceeds with his brother Woon Weng, he will also need to make good on the latter’s share of rental income over the years — including for a period he had moved in to the unit instead of letting it out — a High Court has ruled.

The older Mr Cheong had taken his brother to court to assert his stake in the property, after numerous failed attempts over the years to persuade him to sell the S$880,440 Hillview condominium they had bought in 2000.

But the younger man contended that he had given his brother various sums of money over the years that exceeded the repayment of the S$200,000 and even counter-sued, saying the excess money — amounting to S$120,000 — constituted bad debts.

In judgment grounds released yesterday, Judicial Commissioner Audrey Lim ruled in favour of the older man.

In late 2004, the older Mr Cheong retired as a contractor and saw his income shrink, prompting him to start urging his brother to sell the property in order to realise his investment, starting 2007.

The impasse dragged on for years, as the younger man fobbed him off by issuing him three cheques amounting to S$87,000 in “dividends”.

The defendant claimed that apart from these three instances, there were 65 other occasions where he relented to requests for money from his brother.

All in, the younger Mr Cheong claimed to have handed over S$320,000 by the time they ended up in this suit, meaning he had effectively repaid his brother and loaned an extra S$120,000.

His account cut no ice with the judge, who questioned why someone would commit such a large sum without setting interest rates or fixed repayment dates.

She said that although the older brother’s contribution was a fraction of the purchase price, an equal stake in the unit was what had been agreed upon.

She added that the younger Mr Cheong would not have been able to buy the property without the plaintiff’s money, and had even taken the maximum mortgage.

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

Source:
courtesy of TODAY

by TODAY ONLINE

If you have any stories or news that you would like to share with the global online community, please feel free to share it with us by contacting us directly at [email protected]