http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapo...over-14m-house

SINGAPORE - A 72-year-old man's attempt to claim a $14 million Coronation Road bungalow as his own was thrown out after he failed to prove that the rest of his family members were holding their shares in trust for him.
Mr Quek Hung Heong was also told by the High Court that he should not have waited so long to push his claim.
The landed property, which is just over 1,000 sq m, was bought by Mr Quek, his two siblings and their parents for $66,000 some 47 years ago in equal shares. This purchase was funded by the family's company.
Mr Quek's father died in 1981, and his mother five years later. His older brother Kwek Hann Song died in 2006.
Out of the five original owners, only he and his 77-year-old sister are alive today. The parents' shares in the bungalow were willed to two of Mr Kwek's sons. Mr Kwek's own share was divided among his six children.
But in 2011, Mr Quek went to court to claim everyone else's shares back, insisting that he had been the one to ultimately pay for the house's purchase.
He said that in 1966, the year the house was bought, his father held a family meeting. During this gathering, the family members allegedly came to this arrangement: In return for Mr Quek re-paying most of the cost for the house to the family company, they will transfer their interest in the bungalow to him.
His lawyer Burton Chen argued that because of this family arrangement, Mr Quek owned the entire beneficial interest in the property. The elder sister decided not to contest the claim, and in 2012, to hand over her 20 per cent share to Mr Quek.
But Mr Kwek's widow, Madam Tan Bee Hoon, fought the suit. Defended by lawyer Hee Theng Fong, she denied that there had been any such family arrangement. She also disputed Mr Quek's claim that his loan repayments were linked to the purchase of the house.

Instead, she said Mr Quek's father was the "100 per cent owner" of the bungalow, which he bought to bring the family, which was living in separate locations then, under one roof.
Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy, in his judgment grounds released on Thursday, admitted that "it is not unusual for arrangements between family members not to be documented". That was why he did not mind the fact that Mr Quek had nothing more to back up his story about the family arrangements than his own words.
But the judge also found fundamental inconsistencies in Mr Quek's case, noting he had "tailored" his evidence "to conform with Madam Tan's documents, rather than with the truth".
Also, according to Mr Quek's claims, he would have finished paying the loan by 1972, said the judge. But he waited until 2011 to enforce his entitlements.
There was no reason for this, the judge pointed out, especially since he and Mr Kwek were already on bad terms in 1979, when the older brother made two police reports against Mr Quek alleging assault.
The family company, known as Chin Thye Chiang, also published press notices that Mr Quek no longer represented it.
The delay, he added, deprived the defendants of getting evidence from key witnesses, who had since died.