Chue Hon San v Wong Yim Yen (m.w.) and Alicia Israel (Intervener)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sowaran Singh
• Judgment Date: 15 May 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGDC 140
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Petition No.2708 of 2011
• Published date: 16 April 2014
• Year: 2013
• Hearing Date: 19 March 2013,26 March 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms.Michele Lim (M/s Michele Lim & Associates)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms. Cheong Yen Lin Adriene (Harry Elias Partnership LLP),Mr. Raymond Yeo (M/s Raymond Yeo & Co)
• Citation: [2013] SGDC 140

District Judge Sowaran Singh:

The Plaintiff (husband/father) and the Defendant (wife/mother) registered their marriage on the 18 July 1966² and have 6 adult children from the union who are now between 49 to 40 years old³. On the 6 June 2011 the husband filed for a divorce and on the 22 June 2011 the wife filed a Defence and Counterclaim. The husband was described⁴ as being a 69 year-old taxi driver and the wife as being a 69 year old housewife⁵. After a contested divorce hearing, Interim Judgment (IJ) was granted on the 3 February 2012 on the wife’s Counterclaim based on the unreasonable behaviour of the husband. The ancillaries came up for hearing on the 19 March 2013. Earlier, on the 20 July 2012⁶ their daughter Alicia Israel was granted leave to be added as an Intervener (the Intervener/Alicia/ formerly known as Chue Chai Peng)). At the hearing all the parties were represented by counsel and the husband was legally aided.

At the conclusion of the hearing the court ordered that the flat be sold in the open market within 6 months with the wife having conduct of the sale. The net proceeds after (a) refund of both parties CPF accounts with the monies used for the purchase plus the accrued interest (b) payment of all sales expenses (c) payment of the sum of $119,232.29 to the Intervener Alicia and (d) payment of the sum of $110,000 to the husband were to be given entirely to the wife. This was to be in full and final settlement of all their claims including the wife’s claim for her own maintenance and parties were to keep all other assets that were in their own names. The wife was to have the option of purchasing the husband’s share of the flat upon refunding in full the CPF monies used by him for the purchase plus the accrued interest and payment of the sum of $110,000 within 4 months of its order.

The Appeal

On the 5 April 2013, the husband filed an appeal against the court’s decision. He asks that the court’s decision be rescinded and the flat be sold in the open market within 6 months and the net proceeds after refund of both parties (the Plaintiff/husband and the Defendant/wife) CPF monies and the accrued interest, payment of all the sales expenses and payment of the sum of $250,000 to him (the Plaintiff/husband) be given wholly to the wife. The wife was to have to have the option to purchase his share by refunding in full his CPF monies used for the purchase with the accrued interest and payment of $250,000 to him within 4 months of this⁷ order. He also asks that the wife bear the costs of the appeal. The court will now deal with the issues that arose at the hearing.

The Parties Positions in Brief⁸

In her AM Fact and Position Sheet⁹ the wife said that theirs was a 50 year marriage with six adult children between 48 to 39 years of age. She valued the fully paid up flat at $500,000. She had paid a sum of $4,266 from her CPF with the accrued interest being $996 (total: $5,262) and the husband had paid from his CPF a sum of $5,000 with the accrued interest being $968 (total: $5,968). The Intervener paid a cash sum of $119,232.29. She asked that the husband’s share in the flat be transferred to her without any consideration or refund into his CPF account. Her other assets were her CPF monies of $1,759 and a sum of $17,653 in her bank accounts (total: $19,412).The husband’s other assets listed by her were his CPF monies of $8,804 and $7,860 in his bank accounts (total: $16,665). There was a sum of $957 in a joint bank account. She asked the sum in the joint bank account be divided equally and her reasonable share of the rest of their other assets taken into account in the division of the flat. As a housewife, she had no income and her expenses came up to $2,808. She asked for lump sum maintenance to be taken into account in the division of the assets.

In his AM Fact and Position Sheet the husband valued the flat at $508,000. He had paid from his CPF a sum of a sum of $5,000 as the initial capital payment and the wife a sum of $4,266. In addition his indirect contribution out of the parties’ joint POSB account was for the payment of the following expenses/bills: utility, telephone, service/conservancy, property tax, groceries for the household, medical, transport and children’s expenses. He proposed that the flat be sold in the open market and the net proceeds after deducting the sales expenses be divided equally between him and the wife. The parties were to refund their own CPF accounts with the monies used for the purchase plus the accrued interest. He asked that the court take into account when making a division of the flat the sum of $20,500 comprising the surrender value of a Wing On Life Assurance policy of $16,500 sometime in the 1980’s and a sum of $4,000 which the wife borrowed from him 4 years ago.

On their other assets he listed that he had a total of $1,164 in his POSB bank account No. 039-xxxxx-x, $6,696 in his UOB bank account No. 113-xxx-xxx-x, $957 in their joint POSB account No.129-xxx-xx-x and $8,804 in his CPF Medisave account¹⁰. He listed the wife’s other assets as being her CPF Medisave account sum of $1,759 and $16,605 in her POSB account held jointly with Chue Chai Peng¹¹. He wished that parties retain all the assets in their own names. As a part-time relief taxi driver he earned $400 per month and his expenses came up to $780. The conservancy charges and Singapore telecom and power supply was paid out of their joint POSB account. He offered no maintenance for the wife.

The Affidavit Evidence in Brief

In her first affidavit¹² the wife said that she had been married for 50 years and they had six children who were between 48 and 39 years of age. She was a housewife and the husband a taxi driver. She was last employed in 1988 as a chambermaid earning about $1,500 to $1,800. She stopped working to help care for their grandson. Since 2002- 2003 the husband had stopped contributing towards the household expenses. Prior to that he would give her about $500-$600 every month for her personal and household expenses. Since he had stopped, she received about $2,500 monthly from the children as an allowance. The flat was held by her and the husband as tenants in common with equal shares. She did not own any shares, insurance policies or unit trusts. In their joint POSB bank account No. 129-03251-0 there was a sum of $1,047 (as at September 2012). In her joint account with their daughter Chue Chai Peng she had a sum of $6,605. In her CPF Medisave account she had $1,759 and nil in her ordinary and special accounts¹³. As at September 2012 a sum of $4,266 was withdrawn from her CPF account for the flat and the accrued interest was $996.

Her total expenses were $2,808. Her household expenses came up to $1,317 which included $500 for marketing/groceries (for 3 adults – herself, their grandson and granddaughter), $200 (PUB bills), $50 (vitamins) and $300 (eating out). Some of these expenses) cable TV, PUB bills, maintenance of air-con, conservancy charges and property tax) were paid for by the Intervener. [Her share of these expenses could be reduced to about $700]. She also listed out her personal expenses as being another $1,491 comprising $208 (for medical checks), $83 (dental), $100 (hand phone), $125 (clothes/shoes), $41 (skin care), $50 ( hair cut)$200 (outings), $83 (birthdays presents), $83 ( Chinese New Year Ang Pow) and $500 (travel/holidays). [Here again some of these expenses could be reduced and a more reasonable sum she required was about $700].

For her indirect contributions she said that when they married in 1962 she sold vegetables and used her salary to supplement their household expenses for about 15 years. When they moved into their first flat at Hill View (the Hill View flat) in 1978 with their six children she was working as a chamber maid earning about $1,500-$1,800 for about 10 years. Her salary was again used to supplement their household expenses. She stopped working in 1988 when their grandson was born and helped to take care of him. She continued to contribute towards the household expenses from the allowance she received from the children of about $1,500-$2,000 at that time. Since she stopped working the husband also gave her about $500 -$600 monthly as an allowance but stopped in 2002-2003.

For the first 16 years of their marriage they lived with the husband’s parents and extended family. She did her part to maintain their area of the home and share of the chores. She was the sole care giver for their six children and tended to all their needs. When she was at work, the husband’s parents and other relatives who were also living there cared for them. She took over as soon as she returned from work. When she was selling vegetables her working hours were from 4am to 2pm, so she was around most of the day when the children were awake. When they moved into their Hill View flat in 1978 this arrangement continued and she made sure the household ran smoothly and cared for the children. Although she was working until 1988, she took care of the laundry, cooking, ironing, cleaning and supervised the children academically. The husband, who came from a traditional Chinese background, was “only concerned with bringing home the bacon”¹⁴.He worked as a taxi driver (earning about $2,000 monthly) and was the main breadwinner of the family due to the disparity of their incomes. He did not concern himself with the issues of the home/children and was happy to leave these to her to handle.

The current flat was originally bought by the Intervener. This was after they received the payout from the HDB of $176,000 for the Hill View flat which underwent the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SER). Alicia who was then single agreed to their request to use her CPF monies to purchase a new flat for them to stay. As Alicia was under 35 years of age, the HDB regulations required them to be the co-owners and to pay the minimum sum for the flat. Alicia...