Bmm v Bmn

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeFoo Tuat Yien JC
Judgment Date29 May 2017
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberOriginating Summonses Nos 240 and 574 of 2015
Date29 May 2017
BMM
and
BMN and another matter

[2017] SGHC 131

Foo Tuat Yien JC

Originating Summonses Nos 240 and 574 of 2015

High Court

Gifts — Avoidance — Mistake — Parties entered into marriage that was found to be invalid — Whether mistake over validity of marriage vitiated transfer

Trusts — Resulting trusts — Parties holding property as joint tenants — Whether one party made direct financial contribution by reducing interest rate payable on mortgage loan — Whether presumption of advancement applied to displace initial presumption — Whether sufficient evidence adduced to rebut presumption of advancement

In 2015, Mr [BMM] (“[Y]”) filed Originating Summons No 240 of 2015 (“OS240”) to seek a declaration that Ms [BMN] (“[X]”) held her share as joint tenant in a property (“the Property”) on trust for him. In turn, [X] filed Originating Summons No 574 of 2015 (“OS574”) to seek a declaration that she and [Y] each held an equal beneficial interest in the property, or alternatively a declaration that she held a beneficial interest in the Property in a proportion calculated based on her financial contribution.

[Y] purchased the Property in his sole name in August 1997. The parties met in early 1998, when [X] was married. [X] filed for divorce in 1999 and was granted the decree nisi in respect of her divorce on 8 July 1999. In that same month, she realised that she was pregnant with twins whom she thought [Y] had fathered. [Y], with the knowledge that [X] was pregnant, proposed to [X] in September 1999. The parties married in the US on 23 November 1999. Twin sons were born in March 2000.

In June 2001, [Y] transferred the Property to be held by [X] and himself as joint tenants (“the transfer”). [Y] maintained that this transfer was effected only because he could enjoy discounted interest rates in respect of his mortgage loan by naming [X] (a Singapore citizen) as a registered co-owner of the Property. [Y], however, remained solely responsible for the mortgage payments at all times and claimed to have clarified with [X] that he would remain the Property's sole beneficial owner. [X] claimed, however, that the transfer was made because [Y] wanted to make her a joint tenant of the Property so that she and her children would have a place to stay should anything happen to [Y], whose new job required frequent overseas travel. The parties never stayed in the Property.

In 2004, the family relocated to the US. In 2005, [X] filed divorce proceedings in the US. In 2008, while the US divorce proceedings were ongoing, [Y] discovered that the parties' marriage was invalid as [X] had not obtained the decree absolute at the time of their marriage. [Y] successfully applied to the US courts to have their marriage annulled. It was later discovered that [Y] was not the biological father of the twins.

As the US courts had declared the marriage void in May 2009, the US courts did not need to rule on division of matrimonial assets and maintenance. The parties agreed that [X] could not obtain ancillary relief pursuant to a nullity of marriage under Ch 4A of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed), which applied only to marriages dissolved or annulled with effect from 2011. Accordingly, the parties' dispute over the Property could only be resolved under the law of property and trusts.

[Y] contended that [X] held her share as joint tenant in the Property on trust for [Y] on the following grounds: (a) a resulting trust in his favour as he had provided the entire purchase price of the Property; (b) that the presumption of advancement did not apply; (c) there was no intention by him to give a half-share in the Property to [X]; and (d) that in any event, his transfer of the Property to [X] as joint tenant was vitiated by mistake. In turn, [X] submitted that: (a) she had provided direct financial contributions to the purchase of the Property; (b) the presumption of advancement operated in her favour; (c) the parties' common intention was for her to be joint tenant of the property; and (d) the transfer of the Property was not vitiated by mistake.

Held, allowing OS240 and dismissing OS574:

(1) All payments for the Property were made by [Y], while [X] made direct financial contributions by virtue of the fact that the inclusion of [X]'s name as joint tenant allowed [Y] to enjoy a reduced rate on his mortgage loan. Under the resulting trust analysis, [X] would have a beneficial interest in the Property in the proportion of the interest saved by [Y] to the purchase price of the Property had there been no savings on interest: at [28] and [30].

(2) A considerably strong presumption of advancement operated in favour of [X]. The parties in effect had a spousal relationship. At the time of transfer, [Y] thought he was [X]'s legal spouse and that the twins were his biological children. [X] was also financially dependent on [Y]. Additionally, the parties were, generally speaking, in a close and caring relationship at the material time. The resulting trust analysis was thus rebutted by the strong presumption of advancement: at [32], [33], [36], [37], [39] and [44].

(3) The parties shared a common intention that [Y] would be the sole beneficial owner of the Property. The parties kept their finances markedly separate. [X] also admitted in a declaration filed in the US court proceedings that she was named as a joint tenant of the Property for the sake of interest savings only. Furthermore, the parties had never lived in the Property. Both the resulting trust analysis and the presumption of advancement were thus displaced by evidence of the parties' common intention that the Property would be solely-owned by [Y]: at [50], [70], [72] and [86].

(4) The transfer was not vitiated by mistake. The equitable jurisdiction to set aside a voluntary disposition on the ground of mistake was exercisable when there was a causative mistake, as to either the legal character of the transaction or a matter of fact or law that was basic to the transaction, and that was of such gravity that it would be unconscionable to refuse relief. The mistake as to the validity of the parties' marriage was not material to the transfer as they were in a considerably close and loving relationship at that time. Had [Y] known about the invalidity of his marriage at that point in time, it was probable that he would have re-registered his marriage to establish its validity. The mistake regarding the twins' paternity did not have to be addressed as [Y] did not pursue the issue: at [95] and [96].

Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] 3 SLR 1048 (folld)

Neo Hui Ling v Ang Ah Sew [2012] 2 SLR 831 (refd)

Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108; [2008] 2 SLR 108 (folld)

Pitt v Holt [2013] 2 AC 108 (refd)

Springette v Defoe [1992] 2 FLR 388 (folld)

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) Ch 4A

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (c 51) (UK)

Alagappan s/o Arunasalam (A Alagappan Law Corporation) for the plaintiff in HC/OS 240/2015 and the defendant in HC/OS 574/2015;

Lim Pei Ling June and Low Seow Ling (Eden Law Corporation) for the defendant in HC/OS 240/2015 and the plaintiff in HC/OS 574/2015.

29 May 2017

Judgment reserved.

Foo Tuat Yien JC:

1 These twin originating summonses before me concern essentially the same issue, namely, the beneficial ownership of real property located at [address redacted] (“the Property”). The Property was bought by Mr [BMM] (“[Y]”) before marriage (ie, in 1997), transferred to Ms [BMN] (“[X]”) in 2001 to be held as joint tenants (after the parties married in 1999 and after twins were born to them in March 2000). The twist in this case is that the marriage was later discovered and declared to be void on the ground that, at the time of marriage, the court had not granted a decree absolute in respect of [X]'s divorce from her previous marriage, and the twins were later discovered through DNA tests and declared to be the biological issue of another man and not [Y].

2 In Originating Summons No 240 of 2015 (“OS240”), [Y] seeks a declaration, inter alia, that [X] holds her share as joint tenant in a property at the Property on resulting trust for him. Originating Summons No 574 of 2015 (“OS574”) prays for relief that largely mirror those sought in OS240. There, [X] seeks a declaration that she and [Y] each hold an equal beneficial interest in the Property, or alternatively a declaration that she holds a beneficial interest in the Property in a proportion calculated based on her various financial contributions.

3 After an examination of the relevant law and evidence, I find that [Y] has sole beneficial ownership of the Property pursuant to the parties' common intention. Accordingly, I allow OS240 and dismiss OS574. I elaborate on my reasons below. The facts are stated at some length to provide necessary context.

The facts
The parties

4 [Y] was born in Hong Kong and raised in the US since he was 11 years old. He graduated with Bachelor's and Master's degrees in engineering and worked as an engineer for about 13 years before obtaining his Masters of Business Administration, after which he worked in the banking and finance industry as a corporate and commercial banker.

5 [X] was born and raised in Singapore, and read fashion merchandising at college in Canada before returning to Singapore to start her own company designing and manufacturing clothing. Thus, in 1994, she became the co-owner of a Shanghai-based fashion business which she managed with her business partner, one [M].

The parties' supposed marriage

6 [Y] bought the Property in August 1997. The parties met in early 1998 in Singapore. [X] was then married with a son (“[S]”) who was born in 1993. Nonetheless, [X] and [Y] dated, and [X] filed for divorce in 1999. On 8 July that year, [X] was granted the decree nisi in respect of her divorce. In that same month, she realised that she was pregnant with twins whom she thought [Y] had fathered. [Y], with the knowledge that [X] was pregnant, proposed to [X] in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • BOM v BOK and another appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 29 d4 Novembro d4 2018
    ...do not contest the law on mistake vis-à-vis voluntary dispositions. As the Singapore High Court held in BMM v BMN and another matter [2017] 4 SLR 1315 at [95] (endorsing the UK Supreme Court decision of Pitt and another v Holt and another [2013] 2 AC 108 (“Pitt”), the court’s equitable juri......
  • BOK v BOL and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 11 d1 Dezembro d1 2017
    ...108 (“Pitt v Holt”). The principles in that case were adopted and applied by the Singapore High Court in BMM v BMN and another matter [2017] 4 SLR 1315 at [94]. A useful summary of those principles is found in Kennedy v Kennedy [2014] EWHC 4129 (Ch) at [36]: There must be a distinct mistake......
  • Ng So Hang v Wong Sang Woo
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 16 d1 Julho d1 2018
    ...be, in our view, presently unwarranted. … [emphasis in the original] The Defendant relied on the case of BMM v BMN and another matter [2017] 4 SLR 1315 (“BMM v BMN”) to argue that the presumption of advancement should be applicable in the present case.149 In BMM v BMN, the plaintiff and def......
2 books & journal articles
  • Restitution
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 d5 Dezembro d5 2017
    ...Zhou Weidong v Liew Kai Lung [2018] 3 SLR 1236 at [57]–[58]; see also M+W Singapore Pte Ltd v Leow Tet Sin [2015] 2 SLR 271 at [42]. 55 [2017] 4 SLR 1315. 56 BMM v BMN [2017] 4 SLR 1315 at [90]. 57 BMM v BMN [2017] 4 SLR 1315 at [91]–[92]. 58 BMM v BMN [2017] 4 SLR 1315 at [95]. 59 [2013] 2......
  • Equity and Trusts
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 d5 Dezembro d5 2017
    ...2 AC 108. 3 [1978] 1 WLR 255. 4 [2017] SGHC 90. 5 [2017] 4 SLR 945. 6 Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed. 7 [2017] SGHC 317. 8 [2017] 4 SLR 1018. 9 [2017] 4 SLR 1315. 10 [2014] 3 SLR 1048. 11 [2017] 2 SLR 964. 12 See Kelvin Low & Alvin See, “Recent Developments: Presumed Resulting Trusts, Vitiating Facto......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT