Myth Buster

Scenario

J bought and lives in a semi-detached house with his family and his brother, K. Unfortunately, due to illness J is unable to finance the remaining 20 years of housing loan. Hence he requested K to continue paying the loan on the term that the house will belong to K once the loan has been fully settled. K has agreed on the term and paid the remaining loan sum. K opined that an oral agreement is sufficient to secure his interest on the house. Is it true?

Mythbusted.

Although oral contract is recognized in Malaysia, it would be hard for K to prove the existence of the oral agreement unless J is honourable in keeping his words. Hence, it is advisable for K to prepare an agreement which clearly states the terms agreed upon and request J to sign it in the presence of witness. A contract in black and white is always the better proof.

Furthermore, if J passes away, it will be hard for K to claim as the house will be an estate to be distributed to J’s beneficiaries unless K is named as such in J’s will.

In fact for as long as J is the registered owner, he is still the rightful master of the land which is not to the best interest of K. A good solution would be to effect the transfer straight away and for K to refinance the house in his name as the owner and borrower.

So, how much did you know about this Legal Myth?

Share with us your thoughts and feedback to us. Ask us a question on AskCA@Thursday or suggest a Myth Buster for us.

Thanks!