嫁出去的女儿争家产

kenhm

allenlfs 发表于 15-2-2017 04:43 PM
好专业，请教一下

霸占政府地是犯法的，这个我了解。
每次驱赶，那些马华DAP都会帮忙争取一些赔偿的。

可是私人地呢？那些非法转手是用什么途径？


我大学读过三个Sem 的 building law罢了，懂的也是 ...

对，更明确的是州政府。东马沙巴州又好像有不一样的条文。英国的我不是很确定，好像占用久了可以claim interest of the land.

哈哈，我只是学生，非法转手书本上是没教。 应该都是伪造文件，签名等等啊还有你律师要敢咯，捉到的话就惨了。

allenlfs

kenhm 发表于 15-2-2017 04:56 PM
对，更明确的是州政府。东马沙巴州又好像有不一样的条文。
哈哈，我只是学生，非法转手书本上是没教。 应该都是伪造文件，签名等等啊还有你律师要敢咯，捉到的话就惨了。

就是咯，老师只是教怎样驱赶，没有教怎样做手脚抢地。

allenlfs

白天发梦的熊 发表于 14-2-2017 09:12 PM
有钱人就是烦恼， 不如直接捐给慈善机构， 这样可以帮助需要的人， 也可以帮自己集阴德， 多好。 好过让子女们你争我夺。

有钱人有做遗属的咯，应该是小康之家的烦恼，有些没有分到，心里不平衡

kitkatlow

问一个问题，你有儿女吗？

以后你去了，你会把所有遗产 （如果你有的话啦），只分给孩子，女儿一分钱也不给吗？

jinreung

allenlfs 发表于 15-2-2017 04:43 PM
好专业，请教一下

霸占政府地是犯法的，这个我了解。
每次驱赶，那些马华DAP都会帮忙争取一些赔偿的。

可是私人地呢？那些非法转手是用什么途径？


我大学读过三个Sem 的 building law罢了，懂的也是 ...

原本想繼續叫你大砲王的，但既然讀過一些法律，那就只能叫你不上道了。

Possession is not the same as ownership, despite the saying that “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” The NLC does not recognise the common law concept of “adverse possession,” something which is alien to the Torrens system.

As a result, if you occupy somebody’s land without his permission, you are a “squatter” and you remain so, no matter how long your illegal occupation might have been. According to established case law, a squatter “has no rights in law or in equity.” The principle applies equally whether you squat on state land or alienated land - the difference being that squatting on state land is a crime (for which you can be fined or sent to prison), while squatting on private land only gives rise to the tort of trespass (which will make you liable in damages).


來源：A primer on land ownership
https://www.hba.org.my/articles/salleh_buang/2002/primer.htm

NOT RECOGNISED BY THE NLC
- The NLC does NOT recognise adverse possession
- Aganist the State or against the private landowner.


來源：http://www.slideshare.net/xareejx/ll1-slides-adverse-possession 第三頁

341. Adverse possession not to extinguish titles or interests.
Adverse possession of land for any length of time whatsoever shall not constitute a bar to the bringing of any action for the recovery thereof by the proprietor or any person or body entitled to an interest therein, and accordingly, the Limitation Act 1953, shall in no circumstances operate to extinguish any title to, or interest in, land.

來源：National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965)
DIVISION V ALIENATED LANDS - SUPPLEMENTAL
PART TWENTY INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE AND INTEREST
http://www.kptg.gov.my/sites/def ... 956DIGITAL-VER1.pdf

                                
                        
               

alibaba49

lam69 发表于 14-2-2017 04:52 PM
所以老人就是很多这样的决定（做）而遗臭万年。

我反而觉得遗臭万年的是他的姐姐和姐夫

allenlfs

jinreung 发表于 15-2-2017 07:17 PM
原本想繼續叫你大砲王的，但既然讀過一些法律，那就只能叫你不上道了。

对不起，我错了。

还有辱老师haiz

allenlfs

jinreung 发表于 15-2-2017 07:17 PM
原本想繼續叫你大砲王的，但既然讀過一些法律，那就只能叫你不上道了。

不对，如果1965年就有这一条，哪里来那么多case law

那些传说中的rm0.99/sqft的地怎样来的。
因该还有别的条文

jinreung

allenlfs 发表于 15-2-2017 08:32 PM
不对，如果1965年就有这一条，哪里来那么多case law

那些传说中的rm0.99/sqft的地怎样来的。
因该还有别的条文

這你得問問念過LAW的專業人士了。再不然就拜一下Google大神吧！<--擺明是在學你的

allenlfs

jinreung 发表于 15-2-2017 09:17 PM
這你得問問念過LAW的專業人士了。再不然就拜一下Google大神吧！

到我做功课了

A转B，B转C的case law
证明我没有先你，我再找看其他adverse claim的例子

allenlfs

jinreung 发表于 15-2-2017 09:17 PM
這你得問問念過LAW的專業人士了。再不然就拜一下Google大神吧！

看不清楚，第二页

http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/directory/judgment/file/B-01_(W)-71-03-2015.pdf

jinreung

allenlfs 发表于 15-2-2017 09:32 PM
看不清楚，第二页

http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/directory/judgment/file/B-01_(W)-71-03-2015.pdf

拜託！你這個根本就不是「逆權侵佔」咯……這根本就是騙局，也就是「假A」賣給「B」；「B」再賣「C」。
請認真逐字看整份裁決書的內容！

整份裁決書的精髓：下次買賣土地的時候，請認真審查身分資料，尤其得認真追查所有新舊的護照號碼。

allenlfs

jinreung 发表于 15-2-2017 10:08 PM
拜託！你這個根本就不是「逆權侵佔」咯……這根本就是騙局，也就是「假A」賣給「B」；「B」再賣「C」。
請認真逐字看整份裁決書的內容！

整份裁決書的精髓：下次買賣土地的時候，請認真審查身分資料，尤其得認 ...

我刚才读到，2010年之前的法律存在漏洞，所以
B有办法从A手上拿走一块地。
如果B把土地卖给C，C就是合法拥有者

你就算买到非法地，不用担心，因为你是C

我还在找B怎样去拿A的土地，可惜质料很少，还没有找到。



Indeed, there was error in the interpretation of our law previously, but now, after 2010, the law stands clear. No one can take advantage of the law to allow successful transfer from fraudlent or forged dealings.



A, who is the original owner with name registered on the title of the land, enjoys indefeasible title of the land.
B, who bought the land from A is now the second owner with his name registered on the title. But, if he purchased it by way of forgery, fraud, or misrepresentation, he cannot enjoy indefeasible title. Meaning to say, A can take action to get back his land. This is what section 340(2) provides. However, B enjoys a good title if no one took action against him.
C is the subsequent purchaser if in this case, B, who is the holder of the defeasible title, subsequently sold it to C. If only at this point of time, A or any other person came to realise that his land had been cheated, he can still take action to get back the land from C. This is what section 340(3) provides for. C is the subsequent purchaser in this case. So, the exception to section 340(3) applies if C purchased the land in good faith for valuable consideration. In other words, if C is innocent and has no idea of the forgery or fraud which took place before that, A can no longer take back his land from C. The land is now C’s.

http://agc-blog.agc.gov.my/agc-blog/?p=1383

jinreung

allenlfs 发表于 15-2-2017 10:39 PM
我刚才读到，2010年之前的法律存在漏洞，所以
B有办法从A手上拿走一块地。
如果B把土地卖给C，C就是合法拥有者

你就算买到非法地，不用担心，因为你是C

我还在找B怎样去拿A的土地，可惜质料很少，还没有 ...

不上道，你那不是漏洞（loopholes），而是錯誤詮釋法律（error in interpretation）。。
事實上，這條文還存在：

DIVISION V
ALIENATED LANDS - SUPPLEMENTAL
PART TWENTY
INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE AND INTEREST
340. Registration to confer indefeasible title or interest, except in certain circumstances.
(1) The title or interest of any person or body for the time being registered as proprietor of any land, or in whose name any lease, charge or easement is for the time being registered,shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be indefeasible.

(2) The title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible-

(a)  in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person or body, or any agentof the person or body, was a party or privy; or
(b)  where registration was obtained by forgery, or by means of an insufficient or voidinstrument; or
(c)  where the title or interest was unlawfully acquired by the person or body in thepurported exercise of any power or authority conferred by any written law.

(3) Where the title or interest of any person or body is defeasible by reason of any of thecircumstances specified in sub-section (2)-

(a)  it shall be liable to be set aside in the hands of any person or body to whom it maysubsequently be transferred; and
(b)  any interest subsequently granted thereout shall be liable to be set aside in thehands of any person or body in whom it is for the time being vested:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any title or interest acquired by anypurchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration, or by any person or body claimingthrough or under such a purchaser.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or prevent-

(a)  the exercise in respect of any land or interest of any power of forfeiture or saleconferred by this Act or any other written law for the time being in force, or anypower of avoidance conferred by any such law; or
(b)  the determination of any title or interest by operation of law.

dogdogman

哈，看到樓主這種乞人憎的嘴臉，我希望他/她爭輸，連一毛錢都拿不到！

ymiim

allenlfs 发表于 13-2-2017 02:46 PM
有遗属就没有什么好吵了咯

如果没有遗属，
父母向来都是和儿子一起住，由儿子照顾，女儿已经嫁了几十年。就在父母死后发难要分一份，你觉得好吗？

没有遗属，法律上每个子女都有权利争取遗产。
如果以以上的例子，那个女儿就过分了！法律上，她可以争， 但在伦理上，她没有资格争！

revolt_cobra

是不是楼主的女儿以后也不要分家产

revolt_cobra

如果楼主没有儿子的话，那就不用分

johnlow

allenlfs 发表于 15-2-2017 10:39 PM
我刚才读到，2010年之前的法律存在漏洞，所以
B有办法从A手上拿走一块地。
如果B把土地卖给C，C就是合法拥有者

你就算买到非法地，不用担心，因为你是C

我还在找B怎样去拿A的土地，可惜质料很少，还没有 ...

B勾结土地局官员在A不知情下把土地转名给B。转名成功后再卖给不知情的C.以前土地局的资料库都是用hard copy的，要做手脚不是难事。A是在C清理土地时，上土地局搜查地契才发觉的。

碟立飞

可怜你。六亲不认。