Get Instant Help From 5000+ Experts For
question

Writing: Get your essay and assignment written from scratch by PhD expert

Rewriting: Paraphrase or rewrite your friend's essay with similar meaning at reduced cost

Editing:Proofread your work by experts and improve grade at Lowest cost

And Improve Your Grades
myassignmenthelp.com
loader
Phone no. Missing!

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

Attach file

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Guaranteed Higher Grade!
Free Quote
wave
Answer
Facts:
  • George bought a flat nearby his daughter’s house that was married and lived with her husband there. Both Paul and Rose were joint tenants of the house.
  • George told Rose that in future he will transfer the flat in the name of the Rose and will make a mill for making such transfer.
  • George use to visit his daughter’s house very often for dinner and for meals and his daughter and son in law also helped in with the works around the flat.
  • At a point of time George’s Health began to fall and thus he shifted and started living with his daughter’s family and also sold his flat.
  • George gave to his son in law the money that he got from selling the flat, and Paul used half of that money to make an extension of the house, where George could work and half of the money he used to make repayment of the mortgage of the house.
  • But as soon as Rose died Paul turned out George out of the house and told him to live somewhere else.
Issues:
  • Whether George has the right to claim ownership over the house?
  • Whether Paul is infringing the legal rights of George by turning him out of the house?
  • Whether Paul is liable to make repayment of the money taken from George to him?
Law:
  • Section 115 (1) of the Land Titles Act. In Sec 115 (1) of the LTA talks about the lodgment of caution by any being who claims significance in property.
  • Section 114 of the Land Titles Act talks about co ownership and all the rights and liabilities attached to it.
  • 115 (3) (b) of the LTA act, which says that, that the injunctions once obtained will be  constitute the caveat able interest .
Application:
  • Under the section 115 (1) of the LTA act, which provides with a lodgment of a forewarning by any being who claims a share or interest in the land.(Allett, 1987) In the case which was proved with the help of this section was Lim Kaling v  Hangchi Valierie.  In this case the issue was about the rights of the matrimonial assets.
  • In this case the defendant, who was the wife of the plaintiff, had lodged a caveat against her husband’s property and had also applied for judicial separation. The plaintiff became aware of the caution issued against him when he tried making arrangements for selling the property.(Harwood & Garry, 2014) Even though the defendant had made no contribution in purchasing the property, she made an claim for the property. Here judge S Rajendra J said that in such cases a caveatable interest would arise only when a decree nisi would be pronounced. And that the wife or the defendant had a claim on her husband’s property as well and she cannot be deprived of her rights to the matrimonial assets.
  • Thus according to what has been stated in this case as well Rosy also has right over the house firstly because the house was jointly owned by Paul her husband and herself. Secondly she also has right over the house as it is a matrimonial asset as well. And as George being the father of Rosy, it was her responsibility to look after him in his old age and also in the situation where his health required care. Thus as Paul was legally married to Rosy, George was also the responsibility of Paul.('Issue Information', 2015)
  • And in the issue of co ownership also it Paul was liable of taking care of George. In the case named Sun Hui Min v Yang Chia Yin (2014).  In this case the defendant who is the husband did not make any effort to notify the registrar of the land titles about the death if his wife. This situation is prevalent in the case of joint tenant. In this case the husband did not notify the registrar of his wife death and he continued to hold the property as a joint tenant and enjoy the rights. Here after the death of the wife the defendant who is the husband did not administer the property in the way as was told or wished by the wife, thus on this failure also the plaintiff administered a case against him. (Jurcys, Goldammer, Smaliukas & Mizaras.)
  • Thus in this case as well Paul did not convey the registrar of the land titles about the death of his wife who was the joint tenant of the house and also did not comply with her wish of administering the property in such a way by which George could be taken care of. Thus basically he has not administered the property in the manner his wife wished for who was also a joint tenant.(Mughal.)
  • But in case of the right on the house that was jointly owned by the Rose and Paul, after the death of Rose the whole ownership of the house goes to Paul. According to the Land Title act, in the case of death of a co owner, his part of the property automatically passes of to the survivor tenant.
  • In joint tenancy the joint owners are individually entitled to the property up to 100%. But in the case where they have made unequal payment or contribution then the rate of ownership is also unequal.('Property rights', 2009) But in such case proper evidence has to be provided like the transaction records, or even the CPF payment receipts which will provide an evidence that one owner has contribute much more than the others. Thus in these cases where the evidence has been provided then the ownership rate whole differ.
  • In this case Rose had contributed much more than that of Paul, as George had given all the money he got by selling his flat to Paul, who invested half of the money in extending the house and also paid mortgage amount of the house with the other half of the money. Thus George being the father of the Rosy has contributed more than half of the price of the house, thus Rosy had more right of ownership then that of Paul.(Puthucheary, 1979)
  • And also another point is necessary in determining the liability of Paul towards George. George was an elderly man, and was the father of Rosy, thus he was the responsibility of Rose and also Paul also being her husband. Thus being in the position of a carer Paul was liable to take care of George and not ask him to leave the house and stay elsewhere.
  • Thus even though George is not the co owner of the house he has made half of the payment for matters related to the house, like for mortgage and also for doing an extension. (Ricquier, 1985).
  • According to the above mentioned laws and provisions Paul is liable to take care of George. As according to the laws stated by Singapore citizens have liability and responsibility to look after and take care properly to their elderly parents as well.
  • George have right to demand proper care and treatment from Paul. He can claim maintenance from Paul for living his livelihood.
 Conclusion:
  • George has right to claim the property in which his daughter was the co tenant, because the plaintiff or the deceased or the wife had made most of the contribution to the price of the house, thus Rose or the plaintiff had more right  towards the ownership of the  house. Thus Paul had to make and administer the property in the way that his wife wanted.  As his wife wanted her father to stay in the house and to be taken care of as well, thus George had the right to claim the property.(Shatalov.)
  • Yes Paul is infringing the legal rights of Paul by asking him to move out of the house and stay elsewhere.(Tan, 1994) He has right to stay in the house as being the father of Rosy and also he was under the care of Paul, and it was against the law of elderly in Singapore to turnout an elderly parent and not take care of him. George can ask for maintenance as well from Paul as taking care of George is the responsibility of Paul. As according to the new elderly laws made in Singapore, children has to take care if their parents. They have to maintain their parents or else the parents can institute proceedings against them and ask for maintenance. Geirge can also do the same. (Tan, Tang & Low, 2009)
  • Paul has the liability of making repayment of the share of Rosy to her father, George. Or else administer the property or the house which Rosy was the co owner in the way Rosy wanted to, as Rosy has contributed much more than Paul to the price of the house.(Teo & Khaw, 1987)
Remarks:
  • George has the right to claim Rosy’s share of property against Paul.
  • Paul has the liability and responsibility to look after George and administer the property as Rosy wished.
  • Paul has the liability to make repayment to George equal to Rosy’s portion of ownership or else administer the property as wanted by Rosy.
References
Allett, J. (1987). New Liberalism & the New Property Doctrine: Welfare Rights as Property Rights. Polity, 20(1), 57. doi:10.2307/3234937.
 
Harwood, T., & Garry, T. (2014). Co-creation and ambiguous ownership within virtual communities: the case of the Machinima community. J. Consumer Behav., 13(2), 148-156. doi:10.1002/cb.1437.
 
Issue Information. (2015). Singapore Journal Of Tropical Geography, 36(1), i-ii. doi:10.1111/sjtg.12083.
 
Jurcys, P., Goldammer, Y., Smaliukas, A., & Mizaras, V. Security Rights in Immovable Property in European Private Law: National Report of Lithuania. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1873707.
 
Mughal, M. Law in Disputes as to Immovable Property. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1976298.
 
Property rights. (2009). Nature, 458(7237), 385-385. doi:10.1038/458386a.
 
Puthucheary, J. (1979). Ownership and control in the Malayan economy. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Co-operative Bookshop.
 
Ricquier, W. (1985). Land law. Singapore: Butterworths.
 
Shatalov, S. (((((( ) (Leasing of Immovable Property and Registration Issues (New Approach)). SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2365694.
 
Tan, S. (1994). Principles of Singapore land law. Singapore: Butterworths Asia.
 
Tan, S., Tang, H., & Low, K. (2009). Tan Sook Yee's principles of Singapore land law. Hong Kong: LexisNexis.
 
Teo, K., & Khaw, L. (1987). Land law in Malaysia. Singapore: Butterworths.
Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

My Assignment Help. (2022). LAW317 Law Of Property. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/law317-law-of-property/legal-rights-of-george.html.

My Assignment Help (2022) LAW317 Law Of Property [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/law317-law-of-property/legal-rights-of-george.html
[Accessed 28 March 2024].

My Assignment Help. 'LAW317 Law Of Property' (My Assignment Help, 2022) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/law317-law-of-property/legal-rights-of-george.html> accessed 28 March 2024.

My Assignment Help. LAW317 Law Of Property [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2022 [cited 28 March 2024]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/law317-law-of-property/legal-rights-of-george.html.

Get instant help from 5000+ experts for
question

Writing: Get your essay and assignment written from scratch by PhD expert

Rewriting: Paraphrase or rewrite your friend's essay with similar meaning at reduced cost

Editing: Proofread your work by experts and improve grade at Lowest cost

loader
250 words
Phone no. Missing!

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

Attach file

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Plagiarism checker
Verify originality of an essay
essay
Generate unique essays in a jiffy
Plagiarism checker
Cite sources with ease
support
Whatsapp
callback
sales
sales chat
Whatsapp
callback
sales chat
close