Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne v Su Emmanuel and Another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Lai Siu Chiu SJ |
Judgment Date | 01 July 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 172 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 1124 of 2014 |
Year | 2015 |
Published date | 21 May 2016 |
Hearing Date | 12 March 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Bhargavan Sujatha (Gavan Law Practice LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Raj Singh Shergill, Chia Aileen (Lee Shergill LLP),The second defendant in person. |
Subject Matter | Land,interest in land,tenancy in common |
Citation | [2015] SGHC 172 |
Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne (“the plaintiff”) took out the above Originating Summons (“the OS”) and applied for the following reliefs in relation to the property situated at Block 10D Braddell Hill #13-14 (“the property”) against Su Emmanuel (“the first defendant”) and Emmanuel Satish Philip Ignatius (“the second defendant”) (collectively “the defendants”):-
The court granted prayers (a) to (c) and (e) above with an additional prayer as follows: in the event that the first and/or second defendant wishes to buy over the plaintiff’s 70% share in the property, such election shall be made within 10 days of the date of the order, and the sale shall be completed within 60 days of the date of hearing.
As the property was held as tenants in common by the plaintiff and the two defendants, there was no need to sever the tenancies under prayer (a) but there was a need to apportion the equitable or beneficial ownership vis a vis the legal ownership.
The first defendant, being dissatisfied with the orders that were granted, has appealed (by way of notice of appeal in CA No 67 of 2015) against the whole of this court’s decision. A stay on the orders was also granted to the first defendant pending her appeal.
The factsThe plaintiff is the younger sister of the second defendant while the first defendant is the second defendant’s wife and the plaintiff’s sister-in-law. The plaintiff is presently a retiree. The defendants are not on speaking terms although they remain married and continue to reside at the property.
According to the plaintiff, the second defendant lost his job in the hotel industry around April or May 2002. The result was that the second defendant encountered difficulties in servicing the mortgage instalments on the loan (“the defendants’ loan”) that he had taken from the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (“the Bank”) to part-fund his purchase of the property. The second defendant also utilised his CPF contributions for the same purpose. By then, the defendants were residing at the property. The second defendant informed the plaintiff that he had fallen behind on his mortgage instalments and that the Bank would soon be recalling the defendants’ loan resulting in the defendants losing the property. The second defendant requested the plaintiff’s financial assistance.
The plaintiff (then aged 47) was a teacher in a government school. As she had sufficient funds in her CPF accounts, the plaintiff agreed to help the defendants. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant informed her that the defendants’ lawyers were from Khattar Wong & Partner (“KWP”). According to the plaintiff, the second defendant said that for expediency, KWP should also act for her, and they did so. This was disputed by the first but not the second defendant.
Thereafter, various proposals were mooted for the plaintiff to buy into the property, namely that she purchases: (i) 60% share with the balance 40% held by the second defendant; (ii) 50% share from the first defendant and 1% share from the second defendant and (iii) 50% share from the second defendant with the balance 50% being held by the first defendant. Alternative (iii) was not approved by the CPF Board which held a charge on the property.
The parties then applied on 24 April 2003 for approval from the CPF Board for the plaintiff to purchase 49% share in the property (“the 49% share”) with the first defendant holding 50% share and the second defendant retaining 1% share. This was approved by the CPF Board.
At that time, the property was valued at $530,000 and therefore the price for the 49% share was $259,700. The outstanding sum of the defendants’ loan was around $316,000. On 27 May 2003, the plaintiff and the second defendant signed the sale and purchase agreement (“the SPA”) at the office of KWP.
In order to sell the 49% share to the plaintiff, the defendants had to redeem the defendants’ loan. However, they were not in a position to do so as neither defendant was gainfully employed. They could not take up a fresh loan either. However, the Bank agreed to grant a loan to the plaintiff to enable the defendants to settle the defendants’ loan and discharge the Bank’s existing mortgage.
On 14 August 2003, the Bank issued a letter of offer to both the plaintiff and the second defendant. The Bank offered a loan of $165,000 (“the loan”) which was to be used to settle the outstanding sum under the existing mortgage and to pay for the plaintiff’s share. The monthly instalment on the loan was $1,481.56.
In April 2004, $233,730 was also withdrawn from the plaintiff’s CPF accounts to pay for the 49% share. On 16 April 2004, the plaintiff paid the second defendant $25,970 being 10% of the purchase price for the 49% share. In the same month, the plaintiff attended at the office of KWP again to sign the mortgage documentation for the loan. KWP’s letter dated 20 April 2004 stated the outstanding sum of the defendants’ loan as of that date was $345,726.03, which the plaintiff paid, using her CPF funds and from the loan she had taken up, in the following manner:
| |
| |
| |
There was a balance of $53,003.97 ($165,000 - $111,996.03) left of the loan. After deducting the sum of $10,395.14 which was paid as legal costs to KWP and Harry Elias Partnership who was acting for the CPF Board, a sum of $42,608.83 was left. KWP issued a cheque for $42,608.83 in favour of the second defendant. Together with the initial 10% payment of $25,970, the second defendant received from the plaintiff a total of $68,578.83. The difference between that sum and the purchase price of $259,700 was only $191,121.17. However, as seen from the figures in [13] above, the plaintiff had paid far more than the purchase price for the 49% share.
The plaintiff serviced the instalments for the loan by monthly payments ranging from $1,572.60 to $1,671.60 after making an initial payment of $6,199.36 in September 2004. When she turned 55 years old in December 2010, the plaintiff was told she could not continue using her CPF contributions to service the loan’s instalment repayments if there were insufficient funds and that she needed to pay cash. All in, the plaintiff paid $155,082.50 on the loan through her CPF funds. Between January 2011 and March 2013, the plaintiff paid about $20,000 in cash towards the loan. As of April 2013, the outstanding sum on the loan was $21,032.94. This sum was subsequently paid by the defendants’ eldest son who had started working.
According to the plaintiff, she paid a total of $525,579.10 for the property including interest, based on the following breakdown:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
On the other hand (according to the plaintiff), the defendants’ payments (only made by the second defendant) for the property amounted to $182,862.33 (excluding interest) and were made in the following manner:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Again, the figures in [15] and [16] show that the plaintiff had paid more than the purchase price for the 49% share. The plaintiff computed the defendants’ contributions of $182,862.33 as being either 34.5% (based on a value of $530,000) or 28.13% (based on a value of $650,000) of the property. She complained that although the first defendant made no monetary contribution at all towards the property, she nonetheless retained 50% in the property and benefited further by residing at the property exclusively all these years with her family. The plaintiff, on the other hand, having contributed about 82.03% towards the price of the property (based on a value of $530,000), or 66.88% (based on a value of $650,000), had not received any benefit at all. In fact, the plaintiff informed that she was on the brink of bankruptcy and had to rent a place to stay.
It was also the plaintiff’s case that besides the payments in [16] for the property, she had also contributed towards the upkeep of the defendants over ten years since 2002, averaging $300...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another
...of the property as compared to the 49% interest that she held as legal owner: see Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne v Su Emmanuel and Another [2015] SGHC 172 (“the GD”). On appeal, the wife contends that the Judge erred on both counts. For reasons which we will shortly detail, we allow the appeal i......
-
Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another
...of the property as compared to the 49% interest that she held as legal owner: see Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne v Su Emmanuel and Another [2015] SGHC 172 (“the GD”). On appeal, the wife contends that the Judge erred on both counts. For reasons which we will shortly detail, we allow the appeal i......