Friday, September 18, 2009

No Legal Remedy For SBMA Leaseholders

Comment from a reader on "Let The Buyer Beware"

Referencing an earlier post on your site, generally speaking, the "caveat emptor" definition, in relation to property transfers was initially crafted by lawmakers with intent to protect both vendors and purchasers after the closing/possession date.

While some can questionably argue that all property in SBMA is leased land, hence this principle doesn't apply, after my relatively short stint of living in SBMA, it appears no rule of law exists nor is enforced in this so-called democracy.

Unbeknownst to me until recently, I was stunned to learn of SBMA's new housing policy, evidently approved late last year, and by coincidence, a mere month after my contracting with SBMA on a leased property in Binictican. This new policy now prohibits long term leaseholders from selling within the first 3 years of acquisition. The same policy, without elucidation or rationale, also unilaterally increases lease extension fees from 150% to 700% higher than fees prescribed under the old policy.

These fees appear to be calculated using a surreptitious formula, primarily, but not exclusively contingent upon the number of years remaining on the lease. In my case, with fewer than 9 years remaining, the extension fee alone, as quoted by SBMA, is practically equivalent to the original purchase price of the lease. The plethora of houses for sale in SBMA is likely indicative of the fact that many other residents are in the same quandary as I, having no alternative options at their disposal and are forced into limbo, to either rent out their property or wait out the prescribed 3 years to sell.

It appears SBMA can modify their policies at any time, providing no legal remedy whatsoever for its leaseholders.

This experience goes well beyond the intent of "caveat emptor", when a regulator, such as the SBMA chooses, at will, to conjoin, significantly and retroactively, without limitation, the terms and conditions of a lease agreement, which one would ostensibly expect, to be an obligatory, legal and binding document.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Send us your comments and contributions!

Just send your coments to thesubicbulletin @ gmail.com