American tenant refuses to pay rent, sues elderly owners of Kembangan landed property who want house back

An American man living in Singapore refused to pay rent for a semi-detached property he rented in Kembangan, yet sued its elderly owners when they attempted to re-enter the house.

According to a judgement from Oct 5, the applications made by Anthony Thomas Price were dismissed by District Judge Chiah Kok Khun who said he had "devised a deliberate scheme" to rent the home without intending to pay rent.

The tenancy agreement was made by Price using a Singapore-incorporated private company with paid-up capital of only $200, with himself and his family as directors.

The company was also the applicant of the claim.

Chiah argued that Price had a pattern of "using shell companies to rent landed properties in Singapore for his family to stay and not paying rent" and embroiling defendants in litigation "in a bid to extend his period of unlawful occupation" of the homes he rented.

"In my view, the claimant’s applications are filed in plain abuse of process of the court," he added.

The counterclaim the elderly homeowners in their 80s made against Price was also allowed.

'Plain breach' of tenancy agreement

According to the judgement, a tenancy agreement was signed in April for two years, from May 1, 2026 to April 30, 2028, with rent of $7,500 to be paid on the first day of each month.

If rent remained unpaid for seven days, an interest rate of 10 per cent per annum applied, calculated from the due date to the date of actual payment.

Price had only paid rent for the first month.

Thus, the district judge concluded that Price was in "clear breach of the tenancy agreement ... in refusing to pay rent".

This also gave the defendants, the elderly homeowners, the "rights of re-entry" to take back their property.

On top of this, Price breached further tenancy agreements when he paid only half the security deposit of $15,000 when he moved in and refused to pay the remainder due on June 1.

Price and his family also refused to set up an account and pay for utilities, which they were obliged to in their tenancy agreement, and installed CCTV cameras without obtaining the landlords' written consent, going against the tenancy agreement.

Price had attempted to justify his refusal to pay rent based on alleged defects to the property, involving "approximately 35 repair, rectification or practical occupation issues".

He claimed that it was "not a straightforward rent-only matter" and disputed the homeowners' entitlement to "rely on [claimant’s failure to pay rent and other sums] to take possession by self-help, particularly in the context of the unresolved repair, safety, tenantability and quiet enjoyment issues”.

But Chiah dismissed these, calling them "worthless words and a roundabout way" to say Price refused to pay rent.

"If the claimant is serious about its assertions regarding the condition of the premises, it is for the claimant to pursue its assertions separately against the defendants," he added.

"It cannot use these assertions as an excuse not to pay rent."

Defendants 'fully entitled to their counterclaim'

The homeowners made an attempt "at peaceful re-entry" into the Kembangan home on June 29, but were resisted by Price and his family.

However, Chiah concluded that, in view of the claimant's refusal to pay rent, the tenancy agreements give the homeowners "a contractual right to re-enter the premises and terminate the lease".

He also allowed their counterclaim on basis of arrears of rent — $22,500 between June and August and an interest of $269.17— and the remaining $7,500 of the security deposit, as well as $813.74 for utilities.

In addition, Chiah said: "The claimant is to reimburse the defendants in respect of any unexpired part of the tenancy, a proportionate part of the commission of $8,175 that was paid by the defendants to the estate agent."

He also allowed the defendants to claim double rent, calculated from Aug 15 until Price and his family hands over the vacant home.

Chiah ordered a fixed cost of $15,000 plus disbursements of $2,031.98 to be paid by the claimant to the defendants as well.

Price had used shell companies twice before to attempt to live in landed properties without paying rent.

In 2019, he had used the same shell company that signed the tenancy agreement for the Kembangan property, to rent a landed property at Jalan Selamat.

He also used a wholly-owned subsidiary of his shell company to enter a one-year tenancy agreement with the owner of a landed property at Burnfoot Terrace in 2024.

In both cases, he only paid part of the security deposit and stopped paying rent after a few months, and the owners of both properties had taken him to court over it.

Price and his family had lived in the Jalan Selamat property for at least five months, and at the Burnfoot Terrace home for nearly a year.

While the case regarding the Jalan Selamat home was eventually settled, the proceedings for the Burnfoot Terrace property are still ongoing.

一名居住在新加坡的美国男子拒绝支付他在景万岸租住的半独立式住宅的租金，却在房屋的老年房主试图重新进入房屋时起诉了他们。

根据 10 月 5 日的判决，地方法官谢国坤驳回了安东尼·托马斯·普莱斯的申请，称他“精心策划了一个阴谋”，打算租房却不打算支付租金。

普莱斯通过一家在新加坡注册成立的私人公司签订了租赁协议，该公司实缴资本仅为 200 美元，他本人及其家人担任董事。

该公司也是该索赔的申请人。

Chiah 认为 Price 惯于“利用空壳公司在新加坡租住房产供家人居住，却不支付租金”，并让被告卷入诉讼，“试图延长其非法占用所租房屋的时间”。

“在我看来，原告的申请明显滥用了法院程序，”他补充道。

80多岁的老年房主对普莱斯提出的反诉也被允许。

“明显违反”租赁协议

根据判决书，双方于 4 月份签订了一份为期两年的租赁协议，从 2026 年 5 月 1 日至 2028 年 4 月 30 日，租金为 7500 美元，每月第一天支付。

如果租金逾期七天未付，则按年利率 10% 计息，从到期日起至实际付款日止计算。

普莱斯只付了第一个月的房租。

因此，地区法官认定普莱斯“明显违反了租赁协议……拒绝支付租金”。

这也赋予了被告（即年迈的房主）“重新进入权”，使他们能够收回自己的财产。

此外，普莱斯还违反了租赁协议，他在入住时只支付了 15,000 美元保证金的一半，并拒绝在 6 月 1 日支付剩余部分。

Price 和他的家人还拒绝开设账户并支付水电费（这是他们在租赁协议中应尽的义务），并且未经房东书面同意就安装了闭路电视摄像头，违反了租赁协议。

Price 试图以房产存在所谓缺陷为由，为其拒绝支付租金的行为辩护，这些缺陷涉及“大约 35 项维修、纠正或实际入住问题”。

他声称这“并非简单的租金问题”，并质疑房主是否有权“依靠（原告未支付租金和其他款项）自助收回房屋，尤其是在维修、安全、适宜居住性和安静享用等问题尚未解决的情况下”。

但 Chiah 对此不以为然，称这些话是“毫无价值的言辞，是拐弯抹角地表明 Price 拒绝支付房租”。

“如果原告对其关于房屋状况的说法是认真的，那么原告应该单独对被告提出这些说法，”他补充道。

“它不能以此为借口拒付租金。”

被告“完全有权提出反诉”

6月29日，房主们试图“和平地重新进入”肯邦安的房屋，但遭到了普莱斯及其家人的抵抗。

然而，Chiah 认为，鉴于索赔人拒绝支付租金，租赁协议赋予房东“重新进入房屋并终止租赁的合同权利”。

他还允许了他们的反诉，理由是拖欠租金（6 月至 8 月期间拖欠 22,500 美元，利息 269.17 美元）、剩余的 7,500 美元保证金以及 813.74 美元的水电费。

此外，Chiah 表示：“原告应向被告偿还未到期租期内的款项，即被告支付给房地产经纪人的 8,175 美元佣金的相应比例。”

他还允许被告索要双倍租金，从 8 月 15 日起计算，直到 Price 和他的家人交出空置房屋为止。

Chiah 还命令原告向被告支付 15,000 美元的固定费用，外加 2,031.98 美元的支出。

Price 之前曾两次利用空壳公司试图不支付租金就居住在房产中。

2019 年，他曾使用与 Kembangan 房产签订租赁协议的同一家空壳公司，在 Jalan Selamat 租了一处有地房产。

他还利用其空壳公司的全资子公司，于 2024 年与 Burnfoot Terrace 的一处房产的所有者签订了一份为期一年的租赁协议。

在这两起案件中，他都只支付了部分押金，并在几个月后停止支付租金，两处房产的业主都因此将他告上了法庭。

Price 和他的家人在 Jalan Selamat 的房产中居住了至少五个月，在 Burnfoot Terrace 的家中居住了近一年。

虽然 Jalan Selamat 房屋的案件最终得以解决，但 Burnfoot Terrace 房产的诉讼仍在进行中。