Chin Kim Yon v Chin Kheng Hai

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng SJ
• Judgment Date: 06 January 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 2
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 1213 of 2014
• Year: 2016
• Published date: 12 January 2016
• Hearing Date: 03 August 2015,05 August 2015,09 October 2015,04 August 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Winston Quek Seng Soon (Winston Quek & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Goh Peck San (P S Goh & Co)
• Subject Matter: Family law,Advancement,Presumption,Trusts,Resulting trusts,Presumed resulting trusts
• Citation: [2016] SGHC 2

Tan Lee Meng SJ:

This case concerns a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Chin Kim Yon (“Chin”), and his illegitimate son, the defendant, Mr Chin Kheng Hai (“Hai”). The dispute relates to the ownership of 27 Hillview Avenue #08-06, Singapore 669559 (“the Hillview property”). Although Chin paid for the Hillview property when it was purchased in 2000, it was registered in the names of his illegitimate daughter, Ms Chin Yun Qin (“Qin”), who is Hai’s sister, and Hai. Chin contended that the Hillview property is held for him under a purchase money resulting trust and sought a declaration that he is the beneficial owner of the said property. He also sought an order that Hai transfer all rights to the Hillview property to him within 14 days of the order.

Hai, who denied that the Hillview property is beneficially owned by his father, contended that the property was a gift to him and Qin. He relied on the presumption of advancement and equitable estoppel to thwart his father’s claim.

Hai also asserted that upon the death of Qin, who died intestate in January 2014, he was entitled to the latter’s half share of the Hillview property, which was transferred to his father after Qin’s death. In his counterclaim, Hai sought an order that his father transfer Qin’s half share of the Hillview property to him.

Background

Chin, aged 76, worked for a long time as an illegal street hawker before he secured a contract with Singapore Press Holdings for the distribution of newspapers in Jurong. Subsequently, he expanded his newspaper distribution business by acquiring a licence to distribute newspapers in Pasir Panjang.

In 1958, Chin married Mdm Sim Ah Swan. The couple had three sons and two daughters.

Chin said that he and Mdm Sim often quarrelled and they ceased to contact each other in 1969. By then, Chin was in a relationship with Hai’s mother, Mdm Lim Ya. He and Mdm Lim Ya had two illegitimate children, namely, Qin, who was born in 1965, and Hai, who was born in 1967.

Mdm Lim Ya helped Chin in his newspaper distribution business in the Jurong area. Subsequently, Chin transferred his licence to distribute newspapers in Jurong to her. Hai claimed that when he and Qin were in primary school, they helped in the family’s newspaper distribution business.

After Hai completed his national service, Chin sent him to the United States to study. Hai was abroad for six years and, after his graduation, he returned to Singapore and stayed with Qin in the Hillview property, which was then rented by the latter. At that time, Qin was running a business called “Sofa Culture” at Shaw Centre in Scotts Road and Hai helped her in this business after he returned to Singapore from the United States.

On 20 January 2000, Qin, who was then renting the Hillview property, took an option for the purchase of the said property at $700,000 from her landlord. An attempt by Qin and Hai to secure a loan from a bank for the purchase of this property was unsuccessful. Chin, who said that Qin asked him for help, said that he had “no choice” but to step in and pay for the said property. The Hillview property was registered in the names of Hai and Qin as tenants in common with equal shares. Chin said that, as a father, he had to act fairly and that was why the Hillview property was registered in the names of both his children. At the time the Hillview property was purchased, Hai was 33 years old while Qin was 35 years old. Both of them were unmarried.

In June 2003, the Hillview property was mortgaged to DBS bank for a term loan of $400,000 (“the DBS loan”) repayable over 20 years. Although the loan was stated in the loan documents to be for “working capital financing”, it was intended for the purchase of another property by Qin. Chin and Hai were named as the borrowers of the DBS loan. Shortly after obtaining the said loan, Qin, who was single, asked her father to add his name to hers for the purpose of purchasing a HDB flat at 4 Holland Close #06-01 (“the Holland Close HDB flat”) in July 2003.

The relationship between Chin and Hai deteriorated around 2013. Hai alleged that his father did not treat his mother well and that he and his sister had to look after their mother until she passed away on 30 March 2013. Chin, who did not deny that Mdm Lim Ya left him to stay with her children, claimed that she also stayed with him whenever she wanted to do so.

On 11 July 2013, a few months after his mother passed away, Hai went to a house in Johor, at which his father and mother had stayed. Chin was also there with some of his workers. According to Chin, Hai assaulted him and hit him with a bottle after he told Hai to leave the house. However, Hai denied hitting his father and alleged that it was in fact his father who had hit him and who had asked his workers to do likewise. Police reports were lodged in Johor by Hai and his father. In his police report, Chin said that Hai took items from his home and that he was “really afraid of what could happen to [him] in the future”.

Qin passed away on 22 January 2014. Chin claimed that he was entitled to Qin’s half share of the Hillview property under the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed) and applied for the Grant of Letters of Administration for her estate. Qin’s half share of the Hillview property was transferred to him on 13 December 2014. Hai did not object to this transfer at the material time.

Chin discovered after the said transfer that Qin and Hai had defaulted in the payment of some of the instalments due under the DBS loan. He also found out that money was owed to the Management Corporation of the Hillview property for maintenance fees and contributions to the sinking fund.

After making some payments for the outstanding maintenance fees for the Hillview property and instalments for the DBS loan, Chin decided that the said property should be sold as he did not wish to continue to make payments for the DBS loan. His then solicitors, Toh Tan LLP, wrote to Hai on 11 July 2014 to propose that the Hillview property be sold by public auction by Knight Frank Pte Ltd. In a number of letters and emails to Hai, Chin’s solicitors never referred to the alleged resulting trust and did not assert that he was the beneficial owner of Hai’s half share of the Hillview property. Instead, Chin sought the co-operation of Hai as “co-owner” to sell the Hillview property by public auction. As Hai had his doubts as to whether the said property should be sold by public auction, no action was taken to sell it by public auction. In the meantime, on 22 August 2014, the Hillview property was valued at $1.25m by Jones Lang LaSalle.

Chin replaced his solicitors, Toh Tan LLP, with Winston Quek & Co. On 27 October 2014, Winston Quek & Co wrote to Hai to assert for the first time in writing that Hai and Qin held the Hillview property on trust for their father and to demand that Hai transfer his interest in the property to his father within 14 days. As Hai did not accede to the demand, the suit before the court was filed on 14 November 2014.

Abandonment of the counterclaim

In his counterclaim, Hai asserted that a father of an illegitimate child is not entitled to a share of the child’s property under the Intestate Succession Act and that his father had wrongfully acquired Qin’s half share of the Hillview property after she died intestate in 2014. Hai further contended that as he is Qin’s only sibling, he is entitled under the Intestate Succession Act to Qin’s half share of the property. In view of this, Hai sought an order that his father transfer Qin’s half share of the Hillview property to him.

At the commencement of the trial, Chin and Hai entered into a written agreement for the counterclaim to be withdrawn with no order as to costs and on certain other terms. As such, the counterclaim need not be considered any further in this judgment.

The two-stage test for the presumptions of resulting trust and advancement

As mentioned, while Chin contended that the Hillview property was held on a resulting trust for him, Hai denied that there was any such trust and relied on the presumption of advancement.

In Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 (“Lau Siew Kim”), VK Rajah JA, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, pointed out that there is a two-stage test to be applied when considering the presumptions of resulting trust and advancement. He stated (at [57]) as follows:

… We are of the view that a two-stage test remains helpful and, indeed, necessary. The court must first determine if the presumption of resulting trust arises on the facts; and it is only if a resulting trust is presumed that the presumption of advancement would apply to displace that initial presumption. In addition, it should also be noted that the actual effect of the presumptions of resulting trust and advancement relates to the burden of proof in the particular case. … [emphasis in original]

In line with the two-stage test, whether there is a presumption of resulting trust in favour of Chin will first be considered before the presumption of advancement in Hai’s favour is dealt with.

The presumption of resulting trust

Chin claimed that as he paid for the Hillview property with his own funds, it is presumed that there is a resulting trust of the said property in his favour. It is trite law that when a person pays for a property and registers it in the name of another person without any apparent reason, a resulting trust arises in favour of the former in the absence of contrary evidence. In Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92, Eyre CB said as follows (at 93):

… The clear result of all the cases, without a single exception, is, that the trust of a legal estate, whether freehold, copyhold, or leasehold; whether taken in the name of the purchasers and others jointly, or in the names of others without that of the purchaser; whether in one name or several; whether...