BDF v BDG

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Brenda Tan
• Judgment Date: 17 July 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 370
• Hearing Date: 17 January 2012,14 February 2012,09 May 2012,09 July 2012,02 July 2012,16 April 2012,21 September 2012
• Citation: [2012] SGDC 370
• Published date: 29 October 2012
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No. 3074 of 2010
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Sharon Parwani (M/s Vision Law LLC)
• Year: 2012

District Judge Brenda Tan: The Appeal

The Defendant Husband has appealed against 2 of the ancillary orders that I made on 17 July 2012. These were my orders: There shall be joint custody of the 2 children of the marriage with care and control to the Wife. The Husband shall have access to the children as follows: Every Wednesday from 6.30pm to 9.30pm. Weekend access on every Saturday from 4.30pm to 10.30pm; Alternate access from 4pm on the eve of Chinese New Year to 4pm on the first day of Chinese New Year with the Husband to commence from 2013; Alternate access from 4pm on Christmas eve to 4 pm on Christmas day with the Husband to commence in 2012; Alternate access from 4pm on the eve of the New Year to 4pm the next day with the Husband to commence from 2013; Alternate between the first half and the second half of the June and December school holidays with the Husband to commence with the first half from 2012; The matrimonial flat at xxx Singapore xxx shall be sold in the open market within 6 months of the date of the Final Judgment and the net proceeds of the sale, after deducting the expenses of the sale, be divided between the parties in the ratio of 70:30 in favour of the Wife. Parties are to thereafter refund into their respective CPF accounts all CPF monies utilised for the purchase of the matrimonial flat together with the accrued interest. Parties are to have joint conduct of the sale; There shall be no further claims between the parties in respect of the balance insurance monies, rental proceeds and car sale proceeds; The Husband shall pay monthly maintenance of $1/- to the Wife; The Husband shall pay monthly maintenance of $1/- for each child; Payments are to take effect from 31 July 2012 and thereafter on the last day of each month into the Wife’s designated account; The parties shall retain all other assets in their own names; Each party to bear its own costs; Liberty to apply.

In his notice of appeal, the husband seeks to set aside or vary my orders relating to the division of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial flat (see para 3(3) above) and the Wife’s maintenance (see para 3(5) above) as follows: That the matrimonial flat shall be sold in the open market within 6 months of the date of the Final Appeal and the nett proceeds of the sale after deducting the expenses of the sale be divided equally between the parties. Parties are to thereafter refund into their respective CPF accounts all CPF monies utilised for the purchase of the matrimonial flat together with the accrued interest. Parties are to have joint conduct of the sale. No maintenance for the Wife.

Issues

Thus the issues are: What is a just and equitable division of the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial flat? Whether the Wife should preserve her right to maintenance in the future?

The Pertinent Facts & Preliminary Issues Background

The Husband is 50 years old and the Wife is 45 years old. They were married on 12 Dec 1991. They have 2 daughters aged 13 and 18. On 28 Jan 2011, Interim Judgment was granted on the ground of 4 years’ separation. The marriage lasted about 20 years. At the hearing before me, it was agreed that the Wife would have care and control of the children. The issues in dispute related to weekday access, division of the matrimonial assets and maintenance for both the Wife and children. At the time of the hearing, the parties were still living together with their children in the matrimonial flat pending the resolution of the ancillary matters.

The Husband was working as property agent during the marriage until he suffered a severe hypertensive stroke on 1 June 2008 which involved a haemorrhage in the right basal ganglia and right temporal lobe. Dr K, Senior Consultant of the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine at Tan Tock Seng Hospital certified on 8 April 2011 that: he had no useful left hand function; he would require the use of a quad stick to ambulate independently within the home; he would require a wheelchair for longer distances; he had evidence of a right-sided homonymous hemianopia related to his previous stroke and would require supervision for most activities of daily living; gainful employment is not likely in view of his significant post stroke deficits and the fact that the prognosis for return of function in his left hand is extremely poor and that further gains at rehabilitation if any, are likely to be slow at this chronic stage after his stroke;

The Husband was unable to work until 2010. As he could only walk by taking small steps with a quad stick, he said that potential clients had no confidence in him and since 2010 he only managed to secure 2 property transactions and earned a total of $7300. At the time of the hearing he was not working.

The Wife was working full time during the marriage until 2006. From 2006 to May/June 2008, she worked part-time as a receptionist and sales assistant. She quit her job after the Husband’s stroke and did not work from June 2008 to 2010 (see para 16(II)i of the Wife’s first Ancillary Matters (“AM”) affidavit filed on 1 March 2011; see also Notes of Evidence at page 30 paras B & C and page 34 paras C & D). At the time of the hearing she was working as a property agent.

Matrimonial Assets In Issue/Dispute

The parties jointly owned their matrimonial home, a condominium apartment, which they agreed was worth $700,000. There was an OAC mortgage protector policy taken out on the property. They were also collecting rental proceeds of $800 per month from renting out a room in their matrimonial flat. It was not disputed that the matrimonial flat and the rental proceeds were matrimonial assets.

There was also a motor car registered in the Husband’s name which he bought during the marriage. He sold it for $46,000 in 2011. The Husband claims that he alone was entitled to the car sale proceeds as they were not matrimonial asset.

Besides these assets, for his ‘Total and Permanent Disability”, the Husband also received payouts from 4 insurance policies. The Husband was the policy owner of these policies. Other than the OAC mortgage protector policy which named both parties as the “life assured”, the Husband was the sole beneficiary of the other policies. The Husband claimed that he alone was entitled to the insurance monies and that they were not matrimonial assets. The insurance payouts that he received were as follows: OAC Mortgage Protector Policy taken out on the matrimonial flat: $380,986; SAFRA Insurance Scheme from NTUC Income: $248,000 CPF Dependent Protection Scheme: $53,850; NTUC Income Life Insurance Policy from Great Eastern: $35,170; Total insurance payouts: $718,006.

All the insurance monies were deposited into the parties’ OCBC joint account between August to Dec 2008. This joint account was used for running the household. It was not disputed that the Wife had full control over the joint account while the Husband was recovering from his stroke and undergoing rehabilitation. At the time of the hearing, only $875.08 was left in the joint account.

It was agreed that the insurance monies were used in the following manner: $353,431.31 from the OAC mortgage protector policy payout was used to redeem the OCBC housing loan on the matrimonial flat (see para 7(d) 3&4 of the Husband’s first AM affidavit filed on 3 March 2011). The Husband used: $63,000 to redeem the car loan; $29,000 to repay the loan that he obtained from the Wife’s sister to settle his credit card bills including the family holiday expenses in Sydney in June 2008; and $42,000 to pay for his medical and other expenses; The Wife used: $8000 to pay for the housing loan instalments before the mortgage was redeemed; and $12,750 to pay for the car loan instalments before the Husband sold the car; Balance: $209,824.69.

The Husband conceded that some of the insurance monies also went towards paying for the household expenses and his personal expenses. He relied on a summary of the expenses drawn up by the Wife (see the Husband’s first AM affidavit on 3 March 2011 at para 22.3 on page 10 and tab Q) and submitted that the reasonable household expenses would be $3,170.37 a month while his personal expenses would be about $562.13 per month. Based on a period of 30 months from June 2008 when he suffered the stroke to Dec 2010, he submitted that the amount that the Wife could have legitimately spent on household expenses was $95,111.11. As it was the Wife’s position that they would share the expenses equally, the Husband argued that he was only liable for half the amount and that which would come up to $47,555.55. His personal expenses over 30 months would be around $16,863.90. Therefore he was only prepared to offset a sum of $64,419.45 (ie $47,555.55 plus $16863.90) from what was left of the insurance monies. Thus he contended that the Wife was required to account for the balance insurance monies of $145,405.24 (ie $209,824.69 minus $64,419.45).

The Wife collected rental proceeds of $24,800 over the period June 2008 to May 2011. The Husband also wanted her to account for his half share of the rental proceeds.

The Wife explained that she had used the rental proceeds and remaining insurance payouts to pay for the family expenses and debts. She also paid herself $40,000 as the Husband had on or about Dec 2009 agreed to reimburse her this amount for helping him to clear his credit card bills from 1992 to 2007, something which the Husband disputed. The Wife said that the insurance monies were nonetheless not sufficient to meet their needs and she had to make regular top ups to the joint account from whatever commissions she earned from her part-time employment. She drew up a tabulation to show that she had withdrawn some $310,518.33 from the joint account over the material period to prove that she did not convert the insurance monies to her personal usage (see paras 12 to 14...