Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

PROPERTY LAW – CO-PROPRIETORSHIP – TERMINATION

I have inherited 1/3 share of a property from my father. The other 2/3 shares were held by my father’s friends. My father and his friends have since passed away. I tried to talk to the next of kin to sell the property away. They refused. They have continued to use the property without paying any rental to me for my father’s shares. What can I do?

 As co-proprietors, you may apply to the court to either:

  1. Partition the property between all the co-proprietors; or
  2. terminate the co-proprietorship in the property on the ground that there is a deadlock.

What is Co-Proprietorship?

  • “Co-proprietorship” means that holding of alienated land by two or more persons or bodies in undivided shares.
  • The co-proprietors shall each be entitled to share the property as a whole.
  • Each co-proprietor has full possession and enjoyment to the property, not just the designated parts.
  • When one co-proprietor dies, their shares will be dealt with in accordance to their will or the provisions under the Distribution Act 1958.

What happens after termination of co-proprietorship?

Termination of co-proprietorship may involved:

  1. Valuation of the undivided shares in the property and transfer the undivided shares of the property to the other co-proprietors for a price; or
  2. The property be sold by court order and the sale be effected by public auction. The proceed will then be distributed between the co-proprietors.

Recent Post

WHEN CARGO GOES ASTRAY: THE RISKS OF DELIVERING WITHOUT A BILL OF LADING

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

TORT — NEGLIGENCE — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — A MISSED LIFELINE: COURT HOLDS MEDICAL TEAM LIABLE FOR BRAIN DAMAGE IN HIGH-RISK PREGNANCY CASE

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

NAVIGATING LIABILITY: THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE FJORD WIND AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The Court of Appeal ruled in The Fjord Wind case that the vessel was unseaworthy at the time of departure from Rosario on 30.06.1990, due to known issues with the crankpin bearings that had not been adequately addressed. This unseaworthiness led to a main engine failure shortly after departure, necessitating the transhipment of cargo and incurring additional costs.

The court found the shipowners liable for damages, emphasizing their failure to exercise due diligence in maintaining the vessel’s seaworthiness. The ruling underscores the critical importance of thorough inspections and repairs in maritime operations, highlighting the legal responsibilities of shipowners to prevent unseaworthiness and related liabilities.

Read More »

STRATA MANAGEMENT – COMMON PROPERTY CONUNDRUM: CENTRALIZED AC COSTS AND THE STRATA MANAGEMENT DEBATE

In a recent legal dispute, the classification of centralized air conditioning facilities (CACF) as common property has come under scrutiny. The Plaintiff, a parcel owner in Tower A of Menara UOA Bangsar, challenged the Management Body’s use of maintenance funds for the upkeep of CACF, which primarily benefits parcels in Tower B. The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim, reinforcing the principle that as long as CACF serves two or more occupiers, it is deemed common property, thus falling under the Management Body’s purview without requiring reimbursement from individual parcel owners.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us