Chapter 1

The First Hurdle - The Worst Episode In My Life

I had earlier studied the proposal submitted by the two minor co-owners at the meeting mentioned above and had considered a number of options. It was found that sub-dividing Lot 3684 as proposed by them would make the remaining portion of this lot into an irregular shape. The obvious solution was either for them to acquire the remaining portion of Lot 3684 or to sell their entitlement of this Lot to the other co-owners.

By then many in Muar knew about my impasse with the two minor co-landowners and one fine day the head of the Toh Association in Muar, one Mr. Toh Ban Lai called and volunteered to be an arbitrator. Though he knew all the other parties accept me, I accepted the offer without hesitation as I was anxious to pursue the matter further without the involvement of a lawyer. I provided him with all the necessary information and presented my proposals to him for his evaluation. At the same time, I also appointed, on my own, a Valuation Consultant to assess the value of Lot 3684.

When the valuation was completed, I discussed with the Arbitrator and proposed that the two minor co-owners be given the option to either purchase the remaining portion of Lot 3684 (about 10 acres) for RM300,000.00 or sell their entitlement of this Lot (about 7 acres) to the other co-owners for RM210,000.00.

The Arbitrator conveyed the above to them and shortly thereafter he informed me that they had agreed to purchase the remaining portion of Lot 3684 for RM300,000.00. On 30 April 1999, I wrote to the two minor co-owners enclosing a simple Agreement for their perusal and allowing them to respond within 7 days. The main items in this Agreement are:

1. “The Pagoh Estate”

1.1 “The First Party’s” total undivided share in “The Pagoh Estate” is approximately 22 acres. In exchange for his shares in “The Pagoh Estate” he agrees to have sole ownership of Lots 3686 (5.05+ ac.), 3685 (9.94+ ac.) and 3684 (17.68+ ac.) with a total acreage of about 32.67+ acres, about 10 acres in excess of his entitlement. By having an area in excess of about 10 acres from Lot 3684, “The First Party” agrees to pay to the other co-owners, i.e. “The Second Party” and “The Fourth Party” a total Lump sum of Ringgit Malaysia Three Hundred Thousand (RM300,000.00) Only.

1.2 Payment by “The First Party” shall be in the following manner:

(a) 10% or Ringgit Malaysia Thirty Thousand (RM30,000.00) Only upon signing of this Agreement and
(b) The balance 90% or Ringgit Malaysia Two Hundred and Seventy Thousand (RM270,000.00) Only within thirty (30) days from date of this Agreement.

1.3 In the event that “The First Party” fails to pay the balance in accordance with Clause 1.2 (b) above it is agreed that:

(a) The 10% paid under 1.2 (a) above shall be forfeited and
(b) “The Second Party” and “The Fourth Party” shall buy over “The First Party’s” entitlement to Lot 3684 (about 7 acres) for a consideration of Ringgit Malaysia Two Hundred And Ten Thousand (RM210,000.00). With this payment, “The First Party” shall have sole ownership of Lots 3686 and 3685 only.

1.4 Upon signing of this Agreement, “The First Party” hereby covenants with the remaining co-owners of “The Pagoh Estate” as follows:

(a) To permit the remaining co-owners to carry out all works in connection with the replanting of the remaining lots of “The Pagoh Estate”, i.e. Lots 3683, 1180, 1687 and 1688 and
(b) To permit the remaining co-owners and their agents and workers to use the existing access located within Lot 3684 for a period up to 31 Dec 1999.

1.5 All other remaining terms and conditions shall be in accordance with “The Proposal”.

It came as a shock to me when on the 8 May 1999 I received a letter from the lawyer stating that he had been instructed by his clients to amend my proposed Agreement. This was supposed to be a solution done within the family and I did not expect a lawyer to get involved.

After a couple of fiery exchanges between me and the lawyer, a fresh Agreement was to be prepared by the latter.

On 24 May 1999, a draft copy of this Agreement was faxed to me for my comments.

In my opinion, the draft was very poorly prepared and it took me a week to make my comments and put forward amendments to the draft. I made more than 20 comments/amendments in 6 pages and this was an indication of the standard of this draft.

Of course the lawyer was unhappy and disagreed with many of my comments/amendments. The final bombshell came when the lawyer got the nerve to tell me to get my lawyer to deal with him on this Agreement. After a couple of more fiery exchanges it became apparent that going along this way would be a waste of my time and effort and finally on 21/6/99 I terminated the protracted argument on this draft Agreement with the lawyer.

For eight months, from Nov. 98 to June 98, my records show that I had written more than ten letters in correspondence with the two minor co-owners’ lawyer!

Note: This was the first time in my life that a lawyer had told me that he would not deal with me direct but to engage my lawyer to deal with him on simple S&P Agreement. Subsequent to this, and on two other occasions when I wanted to sell two of my landed properties, I was also told to do the same by the purchaser’s lawyers. On both the occasions I pointedly told the lawyers that if they were not happy to deal with me, the deal would be off. Finally and with no other option they reluctantly had to swallow their pride!

Not willing to give up, I sought again the assistance of the Arbitrator to resolve the issue in a family manner without the involvement of a lawyer. A simple proposal was prepared by me and forwarded by the Arbitrator to the two minor co-owners. However, they were fickle-minded; they agreed to accept my proposal one day but changed their mind or making some amendments the next day.

As a final attempt to find an amicable solution, I prepared a final proposal incorporating many of their requirements. This final proposal was submitted to the two minor co-owners on 28 Aug. 1999 giving them until 13 Sept. to accept.

Again they conditionally accepted one of the options but with three conditions which were not fully acceptable to me and my second brother.

In the end, the Arbitrator’s effort was also in vain and I promptly paid him off.

In the mean time, I studied the National Land Code and became aware that under one of its provisos, the majority co-owners of land can seek redress through the court of laws if there is dispute with any of the minority co-owners.

That was my trump card but I was hesitant to use it if there was another option.

After I terminated the services of the arbitrator, I appointed a lawyer in Muar to proceed with the legal action as my last resort.

On 12th July 2000, I and my second brother attended a hearing in High Court Muar (first time in my life) as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the two defendants. The judge, after hearing submissions by both the councils, decided that the only solution was for one party to offer a price to purchase the undivided shares of the other party, and if the other party refused to sell, then he would have to purchase all the undivided shares of the party who made the offer. Thia was exactly the alternative proposal I put forward during the meeting with the two minoe co-ownwers and their lawyer in Feb 1999. A half an hour adjournment was given for each party to make an offer.

When the judge’s decision was announced, I knew I had made my day. I could have made an offer of RM20,000 per acre and I knew the defendants had to sell because they were in no position to purchase the 80% of the undivided shares at that price or even lower. But true to my character, I offered a price of RM30,000 per acre in accordance with my first offer made to them very much earlier. As no offer came forth from the defendants, my offer was made a court order and so the episode finally ended after more than two years of fruitless attempts to resolve this matter within the family. What a shame!

The whole episode could have been avoided if the two minor co-owners had been reasonable, sincere and properly informed or advised by their lawyers on land matters. But unfortunately, they lacked education and could have been taken for a ride by their legal advisors.

It is interesting to note that their lawyers, who handled the protracted negotiations with me since the beginning, did not act for them when the matter was referred to the court of laws. Chickened out?

back to page 2                                                  -  End of Chapter 1 -                                                      Page 3