Zhiping Zhou: Court asked to reverse $1000 sale of home, seized by sheriff over $98K debt; Melbourne man Zhiping Zhou fighting to reverse sale of his home which was sold for $1,000 to Ronald Geoffrey Kousal
Tweet Topic Started: 9 Feb 2012, 06:00 PM (2,587 Views)
A Melbourne man is fighting to reverse the sale of his home which was sold for $1,000.
Zhiping Zhou's house in the Melbourne suburb of Braybrook was seized by the sheriff over a $98,000 debt.
The Victoria Supreme Court heard the property had an estimated value of $630,000 but was sold at auction without a reserve.
The highest bidder bought the home for $1,000.
Mr Zhou's lawyers told the court the sale was "absurd".
They have called on the judge to reverse the sale and to find the sheriff in breach of their duty.
The man who bought the home is also being accused of taking advantage of Mr Zhou, however his lawyer told the court the sale was legal and legally it could have been sold for one cent.
Something sounds a bit dodgy. Were there no other people at the auction willing to pay more than $1000? Was it even advertised?
why on earth did this guy not get his mate/wife/relative to put in a bid ?
edit: I am going to go out on a limb here and put the question out.... any chance the buyer is somehow related to someone involved in the repossession or the REA ?
Melbourne vendor goes to court over $1,000 no-reserve sheriff's auction of his $630,000 Braybrook home By Jonathan Chancellor Thursday, 09 February 2012
A Melbourne man is fighting to reverse the sheriff’s $1,000 sale of his six-bedroom Braybrook home.
Zhiping Zhou's house was repossessed by the sheriff. It still remains in Zhou’s registered name, according to a title search, although there are warrants of claim registered on title.
The ABC reported today the Victoria Supreme Court heard the imposing two-storey brick house had an estimated value of $630,000 but was sold at auction without a reserve.
The highest bidder bought the home for $1,000.
Zhou's lawyers told the court the sale was "absurd", ABC court reporter Sarah Farnsworth writes.
They have called on the judge to reverse the sale and to find the sheriff in breach of duty, the ABC reported.
The man who bought the home is also being accused of taking advantage of Zhou, however his lawyer told the court the sale was legal and legally it could have been sold for one cent.
The property had been listed in 2007 through Barry Plant Sunshine. It was then listed in June 2010 with $650,000-plus hopes for its July 2010 auction.
There was a subsequent $660,000 auction offer, but it fell short of the $750,000 asking price given through Burnham Real Estate. Details and timing of the second sheriff's auction are unknown.
The debt owing as at April 2010, was at $104,155.86, according to the seizure warrant.
Listing agents Khuong Vien and Tony Gerace marketed it in July 2010 as a modern double-storey family home with bedrooms for all the family to enjoy.
“Situated in a quiet residential location and nestled amongst all modern brick homes and an area to surely enjoy a bright future,” the marketing suggested.
The home comprises six bedrooms with built-in wardrobes, master with ensuite, plus study and three bathrooms and double garage.
“It was complemented with polished floor, spa, reverse cycle split systems, high ceilings and much more,” the marketing said.
Ignore posts by The Whole Truth · View Post · End Ignoring The forum fuckwit goes RRRAAARRRGGHHhhh - But not a fuck was given..................by anyone.
People are beginning to realize an asset is only worth as much as a buyer is willing to pay for it.
In this instance it was only $1,000. At a proposed price of well over $600,000, I take it the bulls will concede now that property can indeed fall much more than the predicted 40% - and horrors - even here in Australia! Maybe Steven Keen is not so mad after all.
Mark Dunn From: Herald Sun February 10, 2012 12:00AM
<snip>
''This is quite an extraordinary case,'' his lawyer, Paul Hayes, told the court.
He said Mr Zhou had had a mortgage on the property of about $460,000, and equity of about $170,000.
<snip>
Mr Kousal told the Herald Sun he bought Mr Zhou's stake in the property fairly at auction.
It had so far cost him an extra $119,000 in legal fees, stamp duty and costs.
The trial continues today.
So Mr Kousal bought Mr Zhou's stake in the property for $1k. He has also spent $120k on other expenses. My question is what about the $460k mortgage still on the property? Did this just get quashed? Or was there an arrangement that Mr Kousal has taken over the mortgage? If as I suspect is most likely and Mr Kousal has taken over the mortgage then the real cost to Mr Kousal for the property was $1k + $120k + $460k = $581k purchase. Considering the headline says property valued at $630k Mr Zhou probably has got a fairly reasonable deal.
Ultimately what would be ideal would be to have a balance sheet showing exactly what costs and so on were involved.
Further to this there is the question of the $98k debt that the house was seized over. Apparently this debt was some form of personal loan to another individual. Where is this debt liquidated? Has Mr Kousal taken over that debt? Ultimately I would be very interested in knowing what is really going on here. My gut feeling is that Mr Zhou is just being a sore head because he did not get his way.
Interesting article. But my suspicion is that this is potentially being totally misrepresented by the media.
So Mr Kousal bought Mr Zhou's stake in the property for $1k. He has also spent $120k on other expenses. My question is what about the $460k mortgage still on the property? Did this just get quashed? Or was there an arrangement that Mr Kousal has taken over the mortgage? If as I suspect is most likely and Mr Kousal has taken over the mortgage then the real cost to Mr Kousal for the property was $1k + $120k + $460k = $581k purchase. Considering the headline says property valued at $630k Mr Zhou probably has got a fairly reasonable deal.
Ultimately what would be ideal would be to have a balance sheet showing exactly what costs and so on were involved.
Further to this there is the question of the $98k debt that the house was seized over. Apparently this debt was some form of personal loan to another individual. Where is this debt liquidated? Has Mr Kousal taken over that debt? Ultimately I would be very interested in knowing what is really going on here. My gut feeling is that Mr Zhou is just being a sore head because he did not get his way.
Good questions - what i don't get is that in Auction happy Victoria, an advertised auction apparently only attracted 1 bidder to a NO RESERVE auction - hell if I had been there I would have bid more tha $1000 site unseen just for the heck of it.
Something smells badly in this story.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
by: Mark Dunn From: Herald Sun February 10, 2012 12:00AM
A MAN who took on the Chinese government in Tiananmen Square is taking on the Victorian Sheriff for selling his $630,000 home for just $1000. Zhiping Zhou says his Braybrook home - built with his own hands - was seized by the Sheriff and sold without a reserve price. The $1000 comes nowhere near paying a $96,000 debt he allegedly owes another Chinese expatriate.
Records show the house went to auction at the Sheriff's Carlton office in December 2010, and was knocked down to Ronald Geoffrey Kousal. Mr Zhou has begun Supreme Court action to quash the sale and prevent transfer of ownership to Mr Kousal.
''This is quite an extraordinary case,'' his lawyer, Paul Hayes, told the court.
He said Mr Zhou had had a mortgage on the property of about $460,000, and equity of about $170,000. Mr Hayes said the sale should be quashed because the Sheriff had breached his duty of care to obtain a realistic sale price.
''We say there has been no sale made at all,'' he said.
Under common law, the auction was ''not genuine'' and ''not real'', he said.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy