|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - home owners
An "enbloc" is a collective sale of a property such as condominium, apartments, flats. Using this news article below as example about an enbloc sale which has caused a messy court case because of the use of 'penalty clauses' to penalise Objecting Owners up to $26,000 plus extra contributions, we are very horrified that this is happening in Singapore. Please read the news article below, and then the petition:
New row over Gilstead collective sale (Source: The Straits Times –10 October 2013)
The fractious collective sale of Gilstead Court has hit more trouble with a breakaway group from the sales committee asking the High Court to remove financial penalties aimed at minority owners.
Four members of the seven-man committee, including treasurer Choo Liang Haw, filed documents with the court on Monday, escalating what has already been one of the most fractious collective sales in years.
The dispute centres on penalty clauses the collective sale agreement had imposed on the five dissenting owners at the estate in Newton.
These clauses could cost the five owners up to $26,000 each, a prospect that led them to file an objection with the Strata Titles Board (STB).
This triggered mandatory mediation but that failed last month after the sales committee could not agree to remove the clauses from the sales agreement.
That prompted the board to place a stop order on the deal.
The sales committee now has to apply to the High Court to have the collective sale approved. The Straits Times understands that it has until Monday next week to do so.
The division among the committee that arose during the mediation process appears to have led to Monday's court application.
The clauses state that the 43 owners who consented to the collective sale should contribute $2,000 out of their own pocket to a common fund for procedures related to the sale effort.
This sum would be refunded with 12 per cent interest once the sale has been completed.
But the minority owners would have $4,000 deducted from their share of the sale proceeds and shared equally among the 43 consenting sellers.
Other clauses state that the minority owners will have to stump up costs related to the STB approval proceedings.
Typically, costs related to legal proceedings of a collective sale are borne by all owners.
An application to the STB is not needed if all owners consent to the transaction.
The 163-page document filed by the four committee members said that the minority owners had offered to sign the agreement in June as long as the penalising clauses were removed. This would have eliminated the need for an application to the board.
But their proposal was turned down by the committee secretary, former Supreme Court judge Warren Khoo, according to the court document.
Mr Khoo, who had drafted the sales agreement, told the minority owners by e-mail that the clauses were aimed at promoting the principle of equality in the sharing of benefits.
The court documents also stated that minority owners would have to fork out about $26,000 each, which would be distributed to the 43 sellers.
The four committee members want the court to remove the "offensive clauses" in their words, if the objecting owners sign the sales agreement.
Tuan Sing Holdings, the developer that successfully tendered for the site in June, has offered to pay up to $135,000 for legal fees and other related costs. The committee has yet to accept the offer.
Majority owners have also said that they are prepared to forgo any payments that could be claimed from minority owners.
When The Straits Times contacted a committee member who was not part of the High Court application, he declined to comment as he had not received a copy of the court documents.
Source: The Straits Times –10 October 2013
The Government paid the banks money to help the people out on the loans and we have not seen any help.
I have ask Wells Fargo to work with me on my loan they told me they could not help me. I pay when I can and they just keep charging late fees to my loan and I keep paying.
We need to stand up and fight for our rights to have a home and stay in it. Help me with this.
Despite residential (or NON-residential now, as the case may be!!) local, and international awareness, nothing is being done about the crisis affecting integration, tourism, livelihood, financial security, accommodation, and properties - to name but a few - in Cyprus.
The collapse of the housing market and lending schemes has left many people- mainly British ex-pats homeless, or/and in financial turmoil.
All the initial promises of a better life in Cyprus have been quashed under the continuation of the decline or even stability in prosperity. The fact that this has been a slow and arduous event has resulted in a sever lack of interest and too much confusion from people.
These are people that invested in Cyprus, through buying property here, hence advocating the positive aspects of the country to tourists, businesses and residents. The already tarnished reputation of living in Cyprus, is getting worse.
What happened to the word 'union' in 'European Union'? When did financial instability result in good people losing their home, pride and life? Why is it that those who are of the norm financially are left to fight their own small yet significant battles?
The blame can be pointed to many things, the Swiss Franc, the exchange rate, the Euro or the lack of attention to detail made by the homeowner, or the false promises of the lenders? (we could go on) yet this lottery of options only ferments the fact that people are financially crippled.
How can you help save, protect and remedy a whole country's monetary mistakes - E.G Greece, when you're unable or unwilling to aid the average person, who through no fault of their own are being punished.
Countless people who have worked hard all their lives, and sold everything to reside in Cyprus had previously extended and expressed their passion for Cyprus, the policies and people encouraging others to visit and spend money. Little did they know that sooner or later their mortgage would double, the price of food would become extortionate, and their once thriving happy village would become a very sad place; full of derelict businesses, houses, and melancholy pessimistic frustrated people.
In short, this economic situation needs to be resolved. Are you going to help thousands from losing everything including their house and dignity before
its much too late?
The Government will attempt to pass a bill very soon that will alter the way valuations on homes and small businesses are determined, therefore affecting Rates. The Bill will redefine "unimproved" to include the hard work of property owners, including (among other things) the buildings they have erected, the leases they have in place, business goodwill and infrastructure charges.
This will have profound effect on home owners who have done any improvements on their property (excluding their house), property investment in Queensland and will result in an even more desperate rental situation that already exists. When you don't have investors you don't have rental properties. These charges will be retrospective to 2002. If you own a home YOUR RATES WILL GO UP, this does not just apply to investors or business.
DUE TO THE RECENT DRUGS AND CRIMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD (ROOSEVELT PL.) OUR PROPERTY VALUES HAVE GONE AWAY. HOMES MISTAKEN FOR METH LABS, (COOKING DRUGS AND SELLING IT). HOMES BEEN KICKED IN BY THE ST. LOUIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CAUSING GREAT DAMAGES AND MONEY SPENT ON NEW REPAIRS; WHILE LIVING ON A FIX INCOME.
DUE TO THE DAMAGE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO MONEY TO MAKE REPAIRS. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS LABORED AS HIGH RISK, CAUSING MANY HOME OWNERS INSURANCE TO DROP THEM. THE GOVERNMENT/CITY DID NOT PUT ANY MONEY IN THE COMMUNITY. HOME OWNERS ARE BEEN FORCE TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS, ARE WE LOSS ARE HOMES. SOME HOMEOWNERS LIVED HERE FOR 40 YEARS ARE MORE. ITS NOT BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT BETTER OR LOVE ARE HOME, SOME WHERE, SOMEONE GAVE UP HOPE FOR THE COMMUNITY. THIS COMMUNITY IS NOT DEAD !! WE NEED TO FIGHT BACK, RISE UP AND TAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BACK PUT LIFE BACK ON THE BLOCK. WE HAVE NEW BUSINESS ARISING, DAY CARE CENTERS, OUR ELDERLY PARENTS, WHO HAVE NO WHERE TO GO, CHILDREN WALK AND PLAYING IN THE YARDS. ETC..
RISE UP AND SUPPORT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION TO KEEP CRIME AND DRUGS OUT ---- FIGHTING BACK TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR YOUR CHILDREN FOR TOMORROW. A SAYING ----A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE!!!
Palm Tree removal.
In regard to the recent abortion of a H.O.A. meeting you held last week.
To the majority leaders of the H.O.A, I truly hope that there is a way to recall
everything that you have done.
Maybe the community should start looking at alternative ways to resolve the problems we have within the H.O.A with other means of leadership.
In the last meeting the majority agreed to let RV's park in the H.O.A. for a "brief period" up to 24 hours. Gentlemen the word "brief" is described in any
dictionary as a "short duration", not 24 hours. The majority then added to this
insult to confuse the issue even more and let emergency work be done to an
RV, which is a conflict in the CCR's as it is clearly stated "no work can be
performed on any vehicle".
The Carrington Home Owners Association by laws currenty state that outside storage such as mini barn are prohibited.
We believe that the homeowners would prefer to have said structures to house lawn and garden eqipment and etc. which in turn would create more room in garages for vehicles.
This is a petition of unit owners at the Bayside Condominium at Danversport Massachusetts to the elected Trustees of the Home Owners Association to allow small pets, cats and dogs.
A new housing develpment is going to be added next to an established city area. The city is going to try to assess the cost of these new improvments for properties and develpment to our existing residents!
The new developer estimates to cost of this to the City of Dilworth a total of $2,250,000.00 This is a new twist to the plan as this was never discussed in any of the public planning meetings and hearings for this new housing devlopment.
How can the City of Dilworth think they can Make the exisitng home owners pay for the costs of the new developer expanding the city's housing additions??
I am writing concerning the rate increase proposed by Dave Travers (i.e. Skyline Water Company). We as a community do not feel this increase is warrented. 16 years ago the water bill was $16.00 monthly, now with the addition of meters we all pay a minimum of $30.00 and some of us pay as much as $80.00 a month. For my bill this equates to almost a 400% increase over 16 years.
For years we have been told that the rate increases were going to be used for improvements to the existing well and or well house, to date none of us have seen any of these improvements. Mr. Travers has been called repeatedly by myself and my neighbors because of water that sometimes has dirt in it and has an oily film. Mr. Travers solution is always to flush the line outside the residence. This flushing of the lines only clears the water up for a brief period, eventually the dirt and oil return.
This petition is to start a movement in the Woodfield neighborhood to close the dam on the pond.
Petition the Home Owners Association president and board members to close the dam on the Woodfield pond.
Water line was paid for by original home owners from Hwy 1 to home owners' property. No other residence other than the original 15 should be allowed to tap into the main water line.