Should lodge caveat?

[gwlip]

I understand if property is bought without any bank loan, there is a choice of lodging caveat or not.
Is there any advantage of not lodging caveat or risk involved?

[mermaid]

I understand if property is bought without any bank loan, there is a choice of lodging caveat or not.
Is there any advantage of not lodging caveat or risk involved?

from wat I saw in ura, it is not compulsory to lodge. it states lodging oni to protect the purchaser interest (not sure how it protects).

yr ppty is bought w/o loan, but still nid to hire lawyer rite? den y not lodge? since it wun make yr lawyer fees cheaper.

[gwlip]

from wat I saw in ura, it is not compulsory to lodge. it states lodging oni to protect the purchaser interest (not sure how it protects).

yr ppty is bought w/o loan, but still nid to hire lawyer rite? den y not lodge? since it wun make yr lawyer fees cheaper.

Well I noticed that some property transactions caveats are not lodged and wondering why people choose to do that.

[mermaid]

Well I noticed that some property transactions caveats are not lodged and wondering why people choose to do that.

den it boils down to what advantage does it serve to the purchaser for lodging.

actually it is done by the lawyers. mayb it is the lawyers who didnt do so?

[creative_vitamin]

its better not to lodge it.

[evolutionx]

den it boils down to what advantage does it serve to the purchaser for lodging.

actually it is done by the lawyers. mayb it is the lawyers who didnt do so?

lawyers normally have to lodge caveat ... haven't met a lawyer who advises otherwise - unless they are taking their clients' instructions.

there's quite a few reasons for lodging caveats, such as inter selling between family members ...[take this as an example only] say they own multiple units in the same building, but selling to each other cheaper than market rate, they wouldn't want to push the price of the remaining units down.

however, it is always recommended to lodge a caveat, in case the seller is in financial trouble and you didnt do your homework. (however, you can always do an enhanced acra corporate search to find out about any pending litigation)

[hopeful]

.

there's quite a few reasons for lodging caveats, such as inter selling between family members ...[take this as an example only] say they own multiple units in the same building, but selling to each other cheaper than market rate, they wouldn't want to push the price of the remaining units down.

Isnt this a reason for NOT lodging caveat if they sell to each other below market rate.

[mermaid]

lawyers normally have to lodge caveat ... haven't met a lawyer who advises otherwise - unless they are taking their clients' instructions.

But how do we know if our lawyers actually lodge it?

[Lemonlaw]

But how do we know if our lawyers actually lodge it?

You can call SLA check.

[Cyberknight]

But how do we know if our lawyers actually lodge it?

Within a wk, SLA will send u a postman mail.

[DKSG]

But how do we know if our lawyers actually lodge it?

I believe you know la!
If you have owned some properties, you will get this nice letter from SLA.

Lodging caveat is like getting birth cert for your children.
You can certainly not get it if you intend to put your children up for adoption. hahahaa!

DKSG

[evolutionx]

Isnt this a reason for NOT lodging caveat if they sell to each other below market rate.

woops sorry, yes, wasn't paying attention. must be getting old. yes that was an example for not lodging a caveat .. ha ha.

[SG Life]

Is this one of the reason to lodge caveat?



The highlighted sentences are :

"She noted that the property had been converted to registered land by Shell in 1994 and that the defendants did not lodge a caveat on it.
This meant the rights of the adverse possessor, in this case the defendants, had lapsed under the provisions of the Land Titles Act, said Justice Ang."

[mermaid]

I believe you know la!
If you have owned some properties, you will get this nice letter from SLA.

Lodging caveat is like getting birth cert for your children.
You can certainly not get it if you intend to put your children up for adoption. hahahaa!

DKSG

mine juz bought so still dunno yet leh ...

[hopeful]

now no more such thing as adverse possesion.

but i am interested in the sentence.
"defendants' title to the strip was valid when Shell was the owner, but was no longer so when it was sold to Fragrance."

it may be lawful, but I still dont get the logic.

perhaps lousy analogy.
it is like tenant Z rent from owner A. when owner A sell to owner B. Owner B can tell tenant Z to move out since right of tenant Z is with owner A?

[evolutionx]

now no more such thing as adverse possesion.

but i am interested in the sentence.
"defendants' title to the strip was valid when Shell was the owner, but was no longer so when it was sold to Fragrance."

it may be lawful, but I dont get the logic.

well, the full details are available here:

https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&r...,d.bmk&cad=rja

[hopeful]

well, the full details are available here:

https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&r...,d.bmk&cad=rja

thanks, i glance through it and dont understand the legalese .
and i still dont get the logic behind it.

anybody can give better analogy?

[NorthernStar]

now no more such thing as adverse possesion.

but i am interested in the sentence.
"defendants' title to the strip was valid when Shell was the owner, but was no longer so when it was sold to Fragrance."

it may be lawful, but I still dont get the logic.

perhaps lousy analogy.
it is like tenant Z rent from owner A. when owner A sell to owner B. Owner B can tell tenant Z to move out since right of tenant Z is with owner A?

my understand is:

Onwer A own the land....tenant Z secretly use part of the land but onwer A didn't make a complaint... until 50 years later Onwer A complained to court.. however tenant Z has been using the land for > 12 years.. Tenant Z has the adverse possesion right.. So, owner A lost the case... However, in 1994, due to new rule, Onwer A convert the land but that time tenant Z didn't lodge caveat to protect their rights.. Onwer A now sell the land to Onwer B. the adverse possesion no longer valid as they need to occupied the land for 12 years under the new owner B.

so, moral of the story..
1. Don't anyhow let stranger stay in your land freely.. After 12 years, they can apply this rule to claim they own the land.
2. must lodge caveat to protect ur rights! With caveat lodged, You will be notify for any future claims of right. You can then response accordingly.

[hopeful]

my understand is:

Onwer A own the land....tenant Z secretly use part of the land but onwer A didn't make a complaint... until 50 years later Onwer A complained to court.. however tenant Z has been using the land for > 12 years.. Tenant Z has the adverse possesion right.. So, owner A lost the case... However, in 1994, due to new rule, Onwer A convert the land but that time tenant Z didn't lodge caveat to protect their rights.. Onwer A now sell the land to Onwer B. the adverse possesion no longer valid as they need to occupied the land for 12 years under the new owner B.

so, moral of the story..
1. Don't anyhow let stranger stay in your land freely.. After 12 years, they can apply this rule to claim they own the land.
2. must lodge caveat to protect ur rights! With caveat lodged, You will be notify for any future claims of right. You can then response accordingly.

thank you.
i think it is a loophole for the landlords. in ancient times, how many illegal occupiers know the finer details of the law. they only know they stay for certain number of years, eg 12 years, the land is theirs. what they dont know is they have to lodge caveat or if ownership of the land change hand, they have to stay for another 12 years. jeez, my impression is that law provides backdoor for the rich.

[NorthernStar]

thank you.
i think it is a loophole for the landlords. in ancient times, how many illegal occupiers know the finer details of the law. they only know they stay for certain number of years, eg 12 years, the land is theirs. what they dont know is they have to lodge caveat or if ownership of the land change hand, they have to stay for another 12 years. jeez, my impression is that law provides backdoor for the rich.

law provides the loophole who know the laws... in both cases, poor can become rich, rich can reclaim back their assets.. fair enough..

[evolutionx]

law provides the loophole who know the laws... in both cases, poor can become rich, rich can reclaim back their assets.. fair enough..

well they did get away with using a space that was not rightfully theirs in the first place for 50 years. they got a major benefit in that sense. instead of just moving on, they wanted to fight for it ... anyway, if they don't move out by the judge's stipulated date, fragrance can go ahead and demolish everything there anyway ...

[Kite]

So how long do we have to wait for caveat to be lodge upon exercise of option?

Usually how long?

[evolutionx]

So how long do we have to wait for caveat to be lodge upon exercise of option?

Usually how long?

depends on your lawyer's speed. normally within 2 weeks. if you took a loan, then bank will lodge pretty fast ... ha ha ...

[mermaid]

depends on your lawyer's speed. normally within 2 weeks. if you took a loan, then bank will lodge pretty fast ... ha ha ...

u mean the bank will be more gan cheong den us to lodge the caveat?

[evolutionx]

u mean the bank will be more gan cheong den us to lodge the caveat?

very much so