WHEN she saw the penthouse at Leedon Heights in late 2005, she saw the potential of a good investment.
So businesswoman Alison Elizabeth Urbina, 40, put down the 5 per cent deposit for the $1.53-million apartment.Then she realised five unauthorised modifications had been made to the apartment, and wanted out of the deal. However, the owners refused to refund the deposit.
So she took them to court. And won.
But her victory has been bittersweet. The prime Holland Road property was sold en bloc this year.
If Mrs Urbina had gone ahead with the purchase, she would have easily doubled her investment.
In April, Leedon Heights smashed the record for the largest collective sale in Singapore, fetching $835 million from developer GuocoLand.DTZ Debenham Tie Leung, which brokered the sale, said that most owners of its 314 units would get about $2.35 million each.
But penthouse owners in the 23-year-old estate were reported to reap almost double that, which is also more than twice the last open market price, The Straits Times reported.
Mrs Urbina, who was represented by lawyer Mark Goh, said: 'I am thrilled with this victory, but I would rather have bought the apartment.
'If the owners were given permission for the modifications, I would have owned the unit and would have benefited from the en-bloc sale.
'I could have made $2m from it.'
LIKED LARGE AREA
Mrs Urbina had viewed the 15th-storey unit, which was about 3,000 sq ft, in October 2005. It was one of several units she had inspected at the condo.
The British citizen, who is a Singapore permanent resident, said she liked the large area and was thinking of renting the place to other expats after she bought it.
The mother of a 2-year-old girl has lived in Singapore for about 14 years and said she has invested in property in other cities like London, Bali and Sydney.
She figured that investing in Singapore would not be a problem because of the country's reputation for transparency.
The unit belonged to Madam Lee Tee Mui and Mr Gee Keong Jung, a couple who were going through a divorce.
Mrs Urbina said that to make sure everything was above board, she included a clause in the terms of sale.
This clause was central to the case, and one that district judge Thian Yee Sze highlighted in her grounds of decision on 13 Jul.
NO UNAUTHORISED ADDITIONS
It stated that the sale depended on there being no unauthorised additions or renovations made to the property.
If there were, the sellers must get the necessary approval before the sale is completed. Otherwise, the sale would not be completed and the sellers must refund any money paid.
Mrs Urbina wanted this clause so she would not be responsible for any unauthorised modifications that she may have to fix after the purchase.
She said: '(Building) regulations are there for the benefit of Singaporeans. They are there for sound structural and economic reasons.
'If people don't respect them, then why have regulations?'
Court documents showed that problems arose in late December 2005.
Mrs Urbina complained about the construction of a new staircase, a structure on the roof terrace, the installation of awnings, closure of the balcony, and construction of an extension over a void area in the unit.
She took the matter to court to reclaim the 5 per cent deposit of $76,500.
The penthouse was eventually sold to another party.
District judge Thian noted that the couple never denied that the modifications were not authorised.
But she found it 'inexplicable' that they still insisted they did not breach the clause even though they had admitted that such approvals were necessary.
She found them to be in breach of the clause.
She added: 'In the circumstances, the purchaser was entitled to refuse to complete the sale.'
She ordered that they return the $76,500 to Mrs Urbina, with interest at 5.33 per cent a year with costs.
The couple are appealing against the judgment and they have up to 17 Aug to state their case. Their lawyers could not be reached for comment yesterday.
No comments:
Post a Comment