ONE big family, split by numerous legal battles.
First it was father versus eldest son - the father lost.
And the latter two siblings have countersued their brother. Seven months after the first legal battle concluded, three more are looming within the Tan family.
The family owned three shophouse units in Hock Kee House on Paya Lebar Road.
The disputes centre over the compensation which the Land Transport Authority (LTA) paid to the owners of the 28 apartments and seven shophouses in the building.
LTA said last August that Hock Kee House had to be demolished because of safety concerns arising from the Circle MRT Line works.
 |
| Eldest son, Mr Tan Joo Guan, paid for the unit, is its owner and its solely entitled to the compensation, the Commissioner of Appeals, Senior Counsel Lim Teong Qwee, said last year. |
Late last year, the family patriarch, Mr Tan Poh Hiang, 97, appealed to the Appeals Board (Land Acquisition), claiming he should be getting the entire $270,212 compensation that his eldest son, Joon Guan, 71, had received. (See other report.)
The older Mr Tan, who has nine children, claimed he had paid $20,000 to buy unit 3D in 1972, and his son was holding it in trust for him.
But in December, the Appeals Board (Land Acquisition) ruled in favour of his son.
Now, the patriarch's second son, Mr Tan Jong Kui, 66, a retiree, has filed two lawsuits against his younger brother, Loon Khoh, 58, a T-shirt manufacturer.
One of the lawsuits also names their sister, Yan Toi, a housewife in her 60s, as a defendant.
 |
| Mr L K Tan in front of his shop, En En Trading Company, on the ground floor of Hock Kee House. |
He wants the two of them to return a total of $508,600.96, which was part of the compensation they got for shophouse unit 3E, according to court documents.
FIRST LAWSUIT
In Jong Kui's first lawsuit, which was filed on 19 May, he claimed he had authorised LTA to deposit $75,000 into the account of Loon Khoh's company, En En Trading Company.
Loon Khoh was supposed to hold the money in trust.
LTA had paid Jong Kui the $75,000 last September, as part of the compensation for unit 3E.
Represented by lawyer Kirpal Singh, Jong Kui is alleging that despite his repeated demands, his brother refused to return the money to him.
But Loon Khoh stated in his defence that the money was compensation for relocating En En from Hock Kee House.
Loon Khoh also claimed that Jong Kui had agreed with the family that the $75,000 would be used to help relocate En En.
Rebutting Loon Khoh's defence, Jong Kui said that the money was compensation for the acquisition of the property, and not for the relocation of En En, according to court documents.
Jong Kui said he never made any agreement that the $75,000 would go towards relocating En En.
Second lawsuit: Brother against brother and sister
IN the second lawsuit, filed on 23 May, Jong Kui is claiming $433,600.96 from Loon Khoh and their sister Yan Toi.
Jong Kui claimed that on 3 Oct last year, he and Yan Toi, who are co-owners of unit 3E, received $484,036 each from LTA as compensation for their property.
Three days after receiving the money - close to a million dollars - it was deposited in a new Maybank account.
The three siblings were joint signatories to the account, which required at least two of them to sign to make any withdrawals.
Jong Kui said in court papers that when he checked the account on 31 Mar, he found a balance of only $1,980.31.
He was aware of some withdrawals, but alleged that his siblings withdrew $433,600.96 without his knowledge.
In their defence, Loon Khoh and Yan Toi claimed that their father, Mr Tan Poh Hiang, had paid for unit 3E.
Documents filed by their lawyer stated that Yan Toi and Jong Kui merely held the property in trust for their father.
Thus, any compensation was to be held in trust for the older Mr Tan by Yan Toi and Jong Kui.
Yan Toi and Loon Khoh added that they did not need to inform or consult their brother on any withdrawals as the money was not for his use.
EXPLANATIONS
Jong Kui denied the claims of Yan Toi and Loon Khoh, stating that he does not understand English and relied on his siblings' explanations when they deposited the money with Maybank.
Jong Kui claimed he objected to depositing the money into a joint account, but his siblings kept persuading him to do so.
'I felt that I had no choice and didn't wish to create tension and trouble with my siblings, and agreed to the arrangement,' Jong Kui said in court documents.
Jong Kui insists that he had paid for unit 3E, and through his own efforts.
Siblings' countersuit
TAN Yan Toi and her brother Loon Khoh are also countersuing Jong Kui for $70,500 which the Singapore Land Authority had paid to him.
Yan Toi and Loon Khoh stated in court papers that their father, Mr Tan Poh Hiang, 97, paid fully for unit 3E by himself.
They also claimed that their father had registered Yan Toi and Jong Kui as joint owners of this unit. So both Yan Toi and Jong Kui were merely holding the property in trust for their father.
Yan Toi and Loon Khoh also claimed that Jong Kui never lived in unit 3E and never paid for its maintenance.
According to them, when the property was acquired by the SLA, the compensation that Jong Kui received was held in trust for their father.
In his defence, Jong Kui stated that he had paid fully for the unit, and he was therefore the rightful owner of the $70,500.
Jong Kui also stated that upon his late mother's request, he included Yan Toi as a joint owner of the property.
The date for the hearing has not been set yet.
When contacted, Jong Kui's daughter, Doris, a merchandiser in her 40s, said: 'My father is very sad after the recent turn of events. Even though the family still gathers for occasions like Chinese New Year, the atmosphere is quite tense.'
When contacted through their lawyer, Yan Toi and Loon Khoh declined to comment.
Father against son
LAST December, the Appeals Board (Land Acquisition) ruled that Mr Tan Poh Hiang, 97, did not pay for unit 3D in Hock Kee House.
Thus, eldest son Joon Guan, 71, is solely entitled to the $270,212 payout.
The patriarch claimed that he paid $20,000 to buy the unit in 1972, and his son was holding it in trust for him.
The older Mr Tan said in his affidavit: 'I wanted to ensure that the property would not be affected should I become personally liable for any business failure.'
However, his son claimed that it was he who had paid $20,000 for the property.
Neither man produced a receipt.
The Commissioner of Appeals, Senior Counsel Lim Teong Qwee, criticised the older Mr Tan for giving 'contradictory evidence' - from whether he came to Singapore from Batam with his eldest son to where he had lived initially when he arrived here.
He 'appeared confused at times and his evidence was generally unreliable', Mr Lim said.
The commissioner deemed the older Mr Tan had no means to buy the unit as he was unemployed and 'whenever he needed any money, he was just demanding it' from his eldest son and other children.
Mr Lim also found it 'inconceivable' that the older Mr Tan, who had nine children, would entrust the property to his eldest son.
