Ang Kah Ngoh v Ong Kim Kam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Michelle Woodworth Cordeiro
• Judgment Date: 06 July 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 248
• Hearing Date: 30 May 2012
• Citation: [2012] SGDC 248
• Year: 2012
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit 4527 of 2009/C
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Yoon Tat Luke [M/s Luke Lee & Co]
• Published date: 07 August 2012

District Judge Michelle Woodworth Cordeiro:

This is an appeal filed by the Defendant husband against ancillary matter orders made on 30 May 2012.

Background

The parties were married at the Singapore Marriage Registry on 25 March 1978. There are 3 children to the marriage, all of whom are adopted and have now reached the age of majority.

The wife is an Accountant earning $2,200.00 per month [paragraph 3d PAOM] and the husband, a Taxi Driver, earns $1,600.00 per month [paragraph 3c DAOM]. They are 61 and 63 years old respectively.

Dissolution of the marriage

The wife commenced divorce proceedings in the Family Court on 11 September 2009. On 26 November 2009, Interim Judgment was granted on the wife’s uncontested claim that the marriage had broken down irretrievably on the fact that the husband had behaved in such a way that she cannot reasonably be expected to live with him. Up to the time of the ancillary matters hearing, the parties had been married for some 34 odd years.

The Ancillary Matters

The ancillary issues that fell to be decided were: Division of the matrimonial property at Block 171 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4 #02-505 Singapore 560171 [“the matrimonial property”]; Division of the other matrimonial assets; and Maintenance for the wife.

The parties filed the following documents in support of their positions. There are a total of 15 Affidavits:

(a)	The Plaintiff Wife
PAOM	Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Assets and Means [“AOM”] filed on 5 March 2010
P2	Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit filed on 31 May 2010
P3	Plaintiff’s 3rd Affidavit filed on 23 August 2010
P4	Plaintiff’s 4th Affidavit filed on 16 February 2011
P5	Plaintiff’s 5th Affidavit filed on 4 April 2012
P35A	Fact and Position Sheet filed on 11 November 2011
PF22	Declaration of the Value of Matrimonial Assets filed on 11 October 2010
PCHK	Checklist filed on 23 April 2012
PS	Plaintiff’s submission filed on 4 July 2012
(b)	The Defendant Husband
DAOM	Defendant’s Affidavit of Assets and Means filed on 11 March 2010
D2	Defendant’s 2nd affidavit filed on 26 May 2010
D3	Defendant’s 3rd affidavit filed on 13 September 2010
D4	Defendant’s 4th affidavit filed on 1 February 2011
D5	Defendant’s 5th Affidavit filed on 9 March 2011
D6	Defendant’s 6th affidavit filed on 20 July 2011
D7	Defendant’s 7th Affidavit filed on 1 November 2011
D8	Defendant’s 8th Affidavit filed on 6 February 2012
DW1	Parties’ daughter, Ong Mei Yan’s Affidavit filed on 1 February 2011
DW2	Ong Mei Yan’s 2nd Affidavit filed on 20 July 2011
D35A	Fact and Position Sheet filed on 19 April 2012
DF22	Declaration of the Value of Matrimonial Assets filed on 19 April 2012
DCHK	Checklist filed on 19 April 2012
DS	Defendant’s submission filed on 29 May 2012

The Ancillary Orders

After hearing the parties, I made the following orders: 1 The Defendant shall transfer his rights, title and interest in the matrimonial property known as Block 171 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4 #02-505 Singapore 560171 to the Plaintiff within 3 months of the date of this order upon the Plaintiff paying to the Defendant 30% of the current market value to be determined by an HDB Valuation and to take into account the “Cash Over Valuation” [COV. The Plaintiff is to bear all the expenses of the transfer. 2 In the alternative the Plaintiff and the Defendant are to sell the matrimonial property in the open market within 6 months of the Final Judgment and the net proceeds of sale after paying for the costs and expenses of the sale are to be divided in the proportion of 70% to the Plaintiff and 30% to the Defendant. 3 The Registrar/Deputy Registrar of the Subordinate Courts under Section 45 of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321) is empowered to sign, execute and indorse all necessary documents pertaining to the transfer or sale of the matrimonial property, as the case may be, on behalf of either party should the defaulting party fail to do so within 14 days of written notice being given to him/her; 4 The Plaintiff and the Defendant are to retain all other assets held in their respective names; 5 These orders are in full and final settlement of the parties’ claims for division of assets and the Plaintiff’s claims for maintenance; and 6 Liberty to apply.

Notice of Appeal

The husband, in his appeal filed on 12 June 2012, prays for: (1) The Appellant/Defendant to transfer all his rights, title and interest in the matrimonial flat to the Respondent/Plaintiff within 3 months upon the Respondent/Plaintiff paying to the Appellant/Defendant 60% of the current market value to be determined by the HDB Valuer’s Report and to take into account all the ‘Cash over Valuation’ (COV) and the Respondent/Plaintiff is to bear all the expenses. (2a) The following assets belonging to the Appellant/Defendant but held by the Plaintiff to be returned to the Appellant/Defendant as these were purchased without any contribution by the Respondent/Plaintiff and some prior to their marriage:- i 3 pieces of Gold which was bought from UOB for the children (which the children knows); ii A box of China gold; iii One Rolex Lady Watch; and iv A set of Rose Wood Furniture and Certificates. (2b) The following matrimonial assets kept by the Respondent/Plaintiff to be divided:- i Fixed Deposit estimate of S$60,000.00 exclusive of interest; ii Keys for safe deposit box in the flat; iii Approximately S$240,000.00 kept by the Respondent/Plaintiff for the three children’s future education for the periods 1979 to 1999; and iv Respondent/Plaintiff’s savings shall be shared equally with the Appellant/Defendant.

Reasons for Decision The matrimonial property & maintenance

The matrimonial property is a 5-room HDB flat purchased on 1 June 1989. It is fully-paid and owned by the husband and the wife as joint tenants.

In the Proposed Matrimonial Property Plan filed on 11 September 2009, the wife selected the option to have the said flat transferred to her with no cash consideration to be given to the husband. At the hearing, the wife submitted that she wished to have the husband’s share transferred to her upon her repaying the husband the amount equivalent to his CPF monies utilised for the purchase, together with accrued interest. I relied on the wife’s latter submission at the hearing as her final position.

In submissions on 30 May 2012, the wife contended that the value of the property is $541,000.00 while the husband in submission said it should be in the region of $590,000.00 to $600,000.00. I took the more conservative value of $541,000.00 as the basis of my calculations and note that the husband uses the same figure of $541,000.00 in DF22.

The wife submitted that if she returned the husband’s CPF monies utilised for the purchase, that would represent 26% of $541,000.00. In other words, she wished to be granted a 74% share of the flat.

The wife submitted...