新足迹

 找回密码
 注册

精华好帖回顾

· 新人新贴:让大家每天都甜蜜^_^ (2007-2-2) KUN · 「参加活动」宅家也要认真吃 - Day 14+2 复活节的十字面包 (2020-3-26) 胡须康
· 家有胖墩初长成-------我家兔宝成长心得(持续更新) 占楼中。。。。 (2012-4-18) hstonglaohu · 日本樱花季前的关西(大阪,姬路,京都,神户,宇治)7天行 (图巨巨巨巨多)| 4月19日全文更新完毕 (2019-3-25) ylbeethoven
Advertisement
Advertisement
查看: 6735|回复: 39

[其他信息] 自住房和投资房都收到了收购要约,怎么反对? [复制链接]

发表于 2021-7-28 18:12 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 SOSHELPPLZ 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 SOSHELPPLZ 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
2019年购买的现住的自住房,至今涨了将近60%,上个月有人想收购,有几家买家中介上门来找我们谈,

这个月一个投资房又收到proposal, 投资房是公寓,有人想整幢收购,开价是整幢2100万,一共21户,

奇怪的是信里说的是需要50% owner 同意,可我记得不75%吗?我觉得这个收购价偏低,因为2015年时这个公寓的市场价已经超过100万了,虽然现在公寓价格低迷,比2015年的价格低了可能只有70多万的市场价,但是我那个投资房是楼里最PREMIUM的位置,拍卖时一直都是楼里价格最高的。直接按平米算很吃亏。

如果只需要50%同意就会被卖的话,我最后反对这个收购价是否会被强迫按其它人达成的价格卖出?
这种情况是不是应该找律师?有人有经验这种情况下的谈判吗?
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2021-7-28 18:56 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 kanata 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 kanata 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
19年买涨60% 你这个牛啊

发表于 2021-7-28 19:06 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 SOSHELPPLZ 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 SOSHELPPLZ 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
kanata 发表于 2021-7-28 17:56
19年买涨60% 你这个牛啊


19年是低点, 按17年价格的话涨得就不多,但现在这价格市场上也买不到一样条件的自住房,而且装修园艺家具都花了很多心血搭配,不想搬。

发表于 2021-7-28 19:07 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 bikegrabaus 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 bikegrabaus 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
kanata 发表于 2021-7-28 17:56
19年买涨60% 你这个牛啊

很正常吧,除了个别华人多的区,大多数地大破房现在都有这个涨幅

发表于 2021-7-28 19:08 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 eric_gao 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 eric_gao 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
位置这东西很难界定,公寓的话有strata吧,按照unit entitlement 来定吧

发表于 2021-7-28 19:13 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 SOSHELPPLZ 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 SOSHELPPLZ 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
bikegrabaus 发表于 2021-7-28 18:07
很正常吧,除了个别华人多的区,大多数地大破房现在都有这个涨幅

不是什么大地破房,都是装修考究的好房,
过去一年周边相似成交价在 5m- 8m的区间
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2021-7-28 19:13 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yatimmy 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yatimmy 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
自住房不想搬也得搬,由不得你。公寓看你描述,的确亏不少

发表于 2021-7-28 19:21 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 SOSHELPPLZ 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 SOSHELPPLZ 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
eric_gao 发表于 2021-7-28 18:08
位置这东西很难界定,公寓的话有strata吧,按照unit entitlement 来定吧


按unit entitlement来算太吃亏了,

我当时买的那个拍卖时付了溢价,比楼里面积更大但无景色和朝向不好的买价贵了20%

所有房间和厕所都有窗户对景色,都是北向和东向,而且客厅风景漂亮,有正景

大家有没有律师推荐?专门打这种收购官司的?

发表于 2021-7-28 19:25 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 stella_hq 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 stella_hq 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
都是按照entitlment 分的 。卖出一手房的时候,还是有户型楼层差价。收购价反而不分了,这是不公平。

2014年度奖章获得者

发表于 2021-7-28 19:29 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rainy118 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rainy118 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
当钉子户就行,不需要找律师,最后出庭阐述你的观点,拿出证明说明你买的时候就付了溢价,法官通常会同意你要的价格。

唯一问题就是你可能阻碍了邻居的发财,所以可能被人弄,这个要小心。

发表于 2021-7-28 19:45 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 CXP 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 CXP 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
是不是chatswood附近那个大型开发项目?有盖公寓和townhouse,villa混合在一起的开发。
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2021-7-28 19:47 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 CXP 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 CXP 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
认识一个住在那里的,开发商给他的地5000一平,他不卖,要7000每平,据他说不少邻居,尤其岁数大的,都签了合同

发表于 2021-7-28 20:11 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 SOSHELPPLZ 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 SOSHELPPLZ 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
CXP 发表于 2021-7-28 18:45
是不是chatswood附近那个大型开发项目?有盖公寓和townhouse,villa混合在一起的开发。 ...

不是

没有在那个区

发表于 2021-7-28 20:18 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 SOSHELPPLZ 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 SOSHELPPLZ 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 SOSHELPPLZ 于 2021-7-28 19:20 编辑
rainy118 发表于 2021-7-28 18:29
当钉子户就行,不需要找律师,最后出庭阐述你的观点,拿出证明说明你买的时候就付了溢价,法官通常会同意你 ...


邻居也发不了什么财,因为2015年时就上百万了,现在过去六年,还是六年前的价格?

这个收购,所谓的溢价部分,其实就是这两年公寓跌的部分。就是看公寓跌了30万了,而且这两年很多租客去买房子,导致租金也在下降,
所以一部分用来投资的人可能会撑不住。

我觉得他们是想趁投资者撑不住的时候低价收购。

楼里面一部分朝向不好并且买得早当时买价低的可能能赚一点,但是也远低于正常的收购价。主要就是赌的一部分投资者现金流撑不住而只能卖出公寓。像我们这种有景色而且朝向好位置最好的房子,即使是在现在的市场上,他这个收购价,我也根本买不到同样的,等于是低于市场价了。

发表于 2021-7-28 20:27 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 SOSHELPPLZ 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 SOSHELPPLZ 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
stella_hq 发表于 2021-7-28 18:25
都是按照entitlment 分的 。卖出一手房的时候,还是有户型楼层差价。收购价反而不分了,这是不公平。 ...


而且对以后的生活有影响,我们家孩子报名了这个房子旁边的学校,

孩子刚出生就订了学校的位置和交了报名费,步行距离只有500米。想着以后方便小孩自己上下学呢


当时购买的时候也花了无数的时间,整整看了两年,每一个周六都在看房,无数休息日都搭进去了。
才等到这条街上有符合条件的有景色又是北向的公寓出来拍卖。
如果这么低价收了,整个计划都打乱了,在那个区没有房子用来给小孩住上学了。

发表于 2021-7-28 20:33 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 melmonash 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 melmonash 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
好眼光
Advertisement
Advertisement
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2021-7-28 20:37 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 sydboss 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 sydboss 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
幸运

2014年度奖章获得者

发表于 2021-7-28 20:40 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rainy118 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rainy118 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
SOSHELPPLZ 发表于 2021-7-28 19:27
而且对以后的生活有影响,我们家孩子报名了这个房子旁边的学校,

孩子刚出生就订了学校的位置和交了报名 ...

放心,你当钉子户就行,你不搬开发商拆不了。

如果你能私信我详细的地址楼盘情况我可以帮你看看合理的开发商收购价格。

发表于 2021-7-28 20:53 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 skysadness 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 skysadness 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
rainy118 发表于 2021-7-28 18:29
当钉子户就行,不需要找律师,最后出庭阐述你的观点,拿出证明说明你买的时候就付了溢价,法官通常会同意你 ...

就当钉子户啦,被人弄就被人弄,邻居弄什么破坏能弄出30万的差价?而且邻居老人多。
最重要的是好律师,法治社会里,律师相当于罩你的黑社会大哥。
你也可以自己去和开发商密谈,如果能给你额外补钱那你当然可以卖。

说好的永久产权呢?

发表于 2021-7-29 02:38 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 白雲山民 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 白雲山民 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
恭喜

发表于 2021-7-29 06:59 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 SOSHELPPLZ 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 SOSHELPPLZ 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
有什么好恭喜的,不愿被收购啊,

这个事情让我有些stressed out,  5点多就醒了。

当钉子户得到最后一步了,事情拖到那时候就是凭肉身去抵抗,我觉得事情越早介入越好,律师肯定得找,如果有专门的advisor也想请。 对方都已经找了买家中介和律师等一堆人帮他了,自己这边不找人太disadvantage
Advertisement
Advertisement
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2021-7-29 08:42 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 italiano 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 italiano 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
我记得是75%同意才行,按照entitlment分钱,其他不看,哪怕你有无敌景观。
头像被屏蔽

禁止发言

发表于 2021-7-29 08:54 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 italiano 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 italiano 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
From December 2016 there has been a change to the strata laws since the introduction of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (SSD Act).   This Act refers to the obligations and processes that apply in relation to strata renewal process, by way of collective sale or redevelopment of the strata.

Prior to the SSD Act if you were the owner of a lot within a Strata Scheme you could not be forced to sell that lot.

The new SSD Act has introduced a scheme for collective sale or4 re3development of the strata property.  A lot owner can be forced to sell in the event that in excess of 75% of the owners of the appropriate lots vote in favour of a proposal for sale.

Prior to the introduction of the new Act, Developers often approached the owners of the strata building and often purchased all the lots within the building often to redevelop the site.  The purpose of the new legislation was to allow sales when there were some persons within the strata who would not sell.

The Developer usually offered various owners a sum in excess of the value of the unit on condition that the Developer could purchase if it acquired all the lots within the Strata Scheme. Sometimes a Developer purchased a lot outright.  There is nothing preventing such an approach under the new Act.  Developers continue to approach owners on this basis.

Some persons have more reasons not to sell than others.  The property may be their home and there are not many alternative homes in the area that are suitable, or the property may be an investment which if sold, would be subject to capital gains tax.  Following payment of the capital gains tax the owner would have significantly less funds to purchase an appropriate replacement investment.

Under the Strata Schemes Development Act an owner who does not wish to sell may be forced to sell and is a dissenting owner.  The purchaser is required to pay under the terms of the Act at least the ‘compensation value of the property’.

The compensation value is defined by reference to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.  This Act provides that only the matters referred to in the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act are to be taken into consideration in determining the compensation value.  This include the “market value of the land” and other specified items.  The market value is the market value of “the lot” under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act rather than the market value of a building and its site as a whole.  That the Act does not seem to consider is the market value of 100% of the lots together with the common property which could be and is often greater than the value of the total of the lots.

It is not apparent that the value to be paid to each lot owner is a proportion of the total value of the site and its improvements.  This is a complication that will need to be resolved.  This is one amongst many other opportunities for you to negotiate.

Market value of a property what a willing vendor would sell the property for to a willing purchaser.  In the process the dissenting owner who does not wish to sell is not willing vendor.  Accordingly, the market value is not an appropriate price for that person to be paid on the sale of the property.

2014年度奖章获得者

发表于 2021-7-29 11:22 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rainy118 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rainy118 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
italiano 发表于 2021-7-29 07:54
From December 2016 there has been a change to the strata laws since the introduction of the Strata S ...

有成功案例么?我现在一个成功案例都没找到。

发表于 2021-7-29 11:28 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 wang1020jun 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 wang1020jun 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
75% 才行  别慌。 他们说50% 可能就是为了吓唬你

2014年度奖章获得者

发表于 2021-7-29 11:28 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rainy118 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rainy118 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 rainy118 于 2021-7-29 10:30 编辑
SOSHELPPLZ 发表于 2021-7-29 05:59
有什么好恭喜的,不愿被收购啊,

这个事情让我有些stressed out,  5点多就醒了。


别担心,开发商不可能100万就给你收了,当钉子户就行。
现在你应该担心的是你们那栋楼有别的钉子户,这样你开多少价格开发商都收不了。


Advertisement
Advertisement

2014年度奖章获得者

发表于 2021-7-29 11:37 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rainy118 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rainy118 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
Hyecorp uses "granny" strata renewal protections in Macquarie Park
Su-Lin Tan
Su-Lin Tan
Reporter
Oct 3, 2018 – 10.00pm

Save

Share
Loopholes have emerged in NSW's new strata renewal laws as developers thwart the sale of old properties, defeating the protections intended for vulnerable homeowners.

The owners of 42 units in one of the earliest amalgamated sites sold under the new laws in Macquarie Park, Sydney, have fought a two-year battle with the owner of three units, Sydney developer Hyecorp, which refused to sell.

Selling the combined 4246sq m site at 2-4 Lachlan Avenue and 1-3 Cottonwood Crescent would have earned the majority of the owners an average of nearly $1.3 million for units that, if sold individually, would rake in around $800,000 to $900,000.


The laws were intended to speed up the disposal or redevelopment of fatigued properties which were costing more to maintain, like 2-4 Lachlan Avenue and 1-3 Cottonwood Crescent in Macquarie Park.
But that sale is now locked in a stalemate as the case heads to court in early November as the first strata renewal to stand trial.

Hyecorp, founded by well-known Armenian-Australian family the Abolakians in the 1990s – Stephen Abolakian heads the group while Michael Abolakian is chairman – had acquired three units in the two older-style sister blocks in late 2014 and 2015 just before new laws were introduced by the NSW government in late 2016 allowing 75 per cent of a strata to force the collective sale of property.


Advertisement
The laws were intended to speed up the disposal or redevelopment of fatigued properties which were costing more to maintain.

Unintended consequences
After failing in a bid to buy the site – following a CBRE-led sales campaign approved by the majority of the owners in 2016 – court documents show Hyecorp dug its heels in to oppose the sale to the winning bidder, British student accommodation giant GSA, which had offered about $50 million for the majority of the units.

GSA plans to put up student accommodation to cater to students in nearby Macquarie University.

The two stratas have now spent close to $1 million in legal fees preparing the case for court as the new laws, under the Strata Schemes Development Act, safeguards disagreeing parties.


"Despite the best drafting intentions, new laws always have to be tested to find any unintended consequences," the Owners Corporation Network chief executive Karen Stiles says. Lee Besford

It is understood Hyecorp has also asked for three times the price offered to owners. The company has declined to comment.

"Despite the best drafting intentions, new laws always have to be tested to find any unintended consequences," the Owners Corporation Network chief executive Karen Stiles said.

"In this case, the measures put in place to protect dissenters are being used by a developer who, the network understands, did not win the tender put out by the owners. So the developer is using any means at their disposal to delay, frustrate and defeat the renewal process by another developer.

"It's dirty pool and definitely an unintended consequence of the new law, and government needs to address this urgently if it wants to encourage urban consolidation via strata renewal."


Sale of the combined 4246sq m site at 2-4 Lachlan Avenue and 1-3 Cottonwood Crescent is now locked in a stalemate as the case heads to court in early November as the first strata renewal to stand trial.
Opportunistic parties
Ms Stiles says the NSW government should consider prohibiting developers from participating in owners corporation decisions and apply severe penalties if "developer owners" do not disclose their interests.

"Under the 2015 strata laws, developers are prohibited from voting on building defects, so they can't use their votes to avoid responsibility for repairs," she said.

Sources close to the case say the laws, intended to protect "grannies and pensioners", have failed.

"This has allowed opportunistic parties to manipulate the law to suit their commercial objectives," the source said.


Selling all of 2-4 Lachlan Avenue and 1-3 Cottonwood Crescent would have earned the majority of the owners an average of nearly $1.3 million for units that, if sold individually, would rake in around $800,000 to $900,000.
Another source said the legislation has "turned dissenting into an enterprise".

"Some watch the behaviour of [these] professional dissenters and see that dissenting can be more profitable than collective support."

Hyecorp disagreed with the sale because it was not conducted in a "just and fair manner" and that the owners have failed to obtain an independent valuation, court documents indicate.

In one document Hyecorp said: "The Australian Property Institute membership number of both David Blackwell and Mia Dragila (Urbis Valuations) are disclosed ... but discloses no further qualifications and does not attach a curriculum vitae".


Hyecorp has developed many apartments in Sydney's north shore. The group's current project is Macquarie Park apartment tower Monika on Peach Tree Road. Artist Impression

Mr Blackwell's profile on Urbis' website says he is a "highly regarded and experienced valuer ... draws on more than 35 years' experience in the real estate industry" while Ms Dragila has been named as one of the Property Council's "100 Women in Property initiative".

Further, Hyecorp says the owners have not complied with the "steps set out in the Act in order to obtain the required level of support for the plan" and there had been a conflict of interest between owners and GSA.

Provides transparency
The owners in turn say Hyecorp had not declared its identity or interests for around five months as their representative, an employee, sat in on owners' meetings.

Hyecorp has developed many apartments in Sydney's north shore including a 74-unit luxury project Sienna in Willoughby which offers 42 affordable units. The group's current project is another Macquarie Park apartment tower Monika on Peach Tree Road.

The NSW government said the new laws were intended to encourage the redevelopment of old buildings when they are no longer viable or if maintenance costs are too high and has seen them used to achieve unanimous decisions to sell.

"Before, a single owner could block other owners from fulfilling a considered and equitable proposal to sell a strata block. This could lead to significant financial ramifications for those unable to afford increasing maintenance costs," a Department of Finance, Services, and Innovation spokesman said.

"The legislation provides transparency and has built-in safeguards and protections for both approving and dissenting lot owners to ensure they are treated and compensated fairly.

"The Office of the Registrar will continue to monitor the laws to make sure they are providing a balance of protections for both approving and dissenting owners."


Michael and Stephen Abolakian of Hyecorp, which acquired three units in the two older-style sister blocks in late 2014 and 2015 just before new laws were introduced by the NSW government in late 2016 allowing 75 per cent of a strata to force the collective sale of property.
GSA and the owners of the properties have declined to comment.

发表于 2021-7-29 11:42 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 stella_hq 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 stella_hq 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
rainy118 发表于 2021-7-29 10:22
有成功案例么?我现在一个成功案例都没找到。

我见过的成功案例是开发商放弃收购。但是那样花钱力气打官司都没了,也不是最好结果。

发表于 2021-7-29 11:51 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 frank_1982 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 frank_1982 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
开发商还能强制收购?第一次听到
只知道政府能

2014年度奖章获得者

发表于 2021-7-29 11:52 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rainy118 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rainy118 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
stella_hq 发表于 2021-7-29 10:42
我见过的成功案例是开发商放弃收购。但是那样花钱力气打官司都没了,也不是最好结果。 ...

现在民间约定还是100%,楼主担心太早了,MQ PARK 6年前就开始收购了,现在还是一片烂楼。

所以我说楼主应该担心的是楼里面真钉子户,这样就算开发商给你500万你也拿不到。

发表回复

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

Advertisement
Advertisement
返回顶部