Estate of Yang Chun (Mrs) née Sun Hui Min, deceased v Yang Chia-Yin

JudgeAng Cheng Hock JC
Judgment Date20 June 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] SGHC 152
Citation[2019] SGHC 152
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Published date29 June 2019
Docket NumberSuit No 375 of 2017
Plaintiff CounselPhilip Fong Yeng Fatt, Chie Zi Han and Lau Jia Min, Jaime (Eversheds Harry Elias LLP)
Defendant CounselSivanathan Wijaya Ravana (R.S. Wijaya & Co.)
Subject MatterTrusts,Resulting trusts,Presumed resulting trusts,Constructive trusts,Breach of trust,Remedies
Hearing Date03 January 2019,11 January 2019,22 February 2019,04 January 2019,02 January 2019,10 January 2019
Ang Cheng Hock JC: Introduction

This case arises from a disagreement over the beneficial ownership of the moneys in several joint bank accounts. The resolution of this dispute ultimately depends on whether, in the circumstances of the case, the right of survivorship operated, and what were the consequences that flowed from the defendant’s actions in transferring the joint account moneys to his personal accounts.

Facts The parties

The plaintiff in this case is the estate of the late Mrs Yang Chun Nee Sun Hui Min, who I will refer to as “Mdm Sun”. She passed away on 1 October 2016 at the age of 97. Mr Howard Chi Hao Sun (“Mr Sun”) is her nephew and her estate’s sole executor and legal representative.

Mdm Sun had been married for over 50 years to Mr Jack Yang, also known as Yang Chun (“Mr Yang”), who had predeceased her. Mr Yang passed away on 15 May 2012 at the age of 95. The defendant is his nephew and the sole executor and legal representative of his estate.1 However, he is being sued in these proceedings in his personal capacity.

Background to the dispute The family dynamic

Mr Yang emigrated to Singapore from Taiwan in 1969. He became a managing director, director and shareholder of several companies here until he retired at the age of 80.2 He was not known to be a spendthrift and lived frugally.3 Mdm Sun joined her husband in Singapore upon her retirement from her job in Taiwan in 1971.4 She did not work after moving to Singapore.

The couple had no children of their own but they were close to the nephews on both the Yang and Sun side of the family. In 1972, as a child, Mr Sun was formally adopted by Mr Yang and Mdm Sun in Taiwan. He and his younger brother re-located to Singapore and lived with the couple for a period of eight and three years respectively.5 Then, in 1982, at age 17, Mr Sun emigrated to the United States (“the US”) to further his studies and live with his biological mother. His adoption by Mr Yang and Mdm Sun was nullified for this purpose. However, they remained close and he continued to visit Singapore once or twice a year to see his uncle and aunt.6

Sometime in the 1990s, the issue of Mr Sun’s nullified adoption resurfaced. Mr Yang and Mdm Sun had considered emigrating to the US and it was agreed that Mr Sun would sponsor their visa applications. Unfortunately, the couple had forgotten that Mr Sun’s adoption had been nullified years before and did not disclose this fact during the application process. Owing to this non-disclosure, Mr Yang’s and Mdm Sun’s visa applications were denied.7 Mr Yang was greatly embarrassed by the incident and this became a sore topic of conversation between him and Mr Sun whenever the latter visited Singapore.8

The defendant emigrated to Singapore from Taiwan in 1972. He worked for his uncle, Mr Yang, for 14 years until 1984 when he set up his own construction business. However, he remained in contact with Mr Yang and Mdm Sun and continued to visit them regularly. This was also the evidence of the couple’s long serving domestic helper, Mdm Looi Ah Mooi (“Mdm Looi”). The defendant’s two sons had dinner with the couple on a weekly basis. Following Mr Sun’s departure to the US, the defendant’s family was the couple’s only close relatives who resided in Singapore.

The couple were primarily cared for by Mdm Looi, who worked for them from 1982 until the time of Mdm Sun’s death in October 2016.9 She was also referred to by the parties as “Lichoo”. During her period of employment, Mdm Looi grew very close to Mr Yang and Mdm Sun, regarding the latter like her own mother.10 In 2009, Ms Ohmmar Thu (“Ms Ohmmar”) was hired as a second domestic helper to help Mdm Looi look after the couple, who needed more assistance as they grew older.11

Mr Yang and Mdm Sun’s assets

During their years living in Singapore, Mr Yang and Mdm Sun resided at their apartment at 36 Tomlinson Road (the “Tomlinson Property”), which had been purchased sometime around 1975. The Tomlinson Property was initially registered in Mr Yang’s sole name but, in 2004, Mr Yang lodged an instrument of transfer such that the defendant and Mdm Sun held the Tomlinson Property with him as joint tenants.12 There is no evidence that either Mdm Sun or the defendant provided any consideration for this transfer. On Mr Yang’s death in 2012, it is not disputed that ownership devolved to Mdm Sun and the defendant as joint tenants pursuant to the right of survivorship.

Acting in his capacity as the lawful attorney of Mdm Sun, Mr Sun later took steps to sever the joint tenancy, which was carried out on 26 April 2016.13 After Mdm Sun’s death in October 2016, there were legal proceedings between Mdm Sun’s estate and the defendant concerning whether the severance was effective and whether the property should be sold.14 The High Court decided that the joint tenancy was severed and also granted the order for a sale. Eventually, in January 2018, the defendant purchased Mdm Sun’s estate’s half-share in the Tomlinson Property for S$1.3m and he is now its sole owner.15

While living in Singapore, Mr Yang and Mdm Sun opened bank accounts together in Citibank, UOB and POSB. These accounts were in their joint names and they were both signatories for the accounts. The joint accounts that are relevant to these proceedings are: POSB Passbook Joint Savings Account No. 081-XXXXX-9 (the “POSB joint account”); UOB Joint Current Account No. 357-XXX-XXX-8 (the “UOB joint account”); UOB Joint Bank Account No. 126-XXXXXX-1 (the “UOB time deposit account”); Citibank Joint SGD Maxisave (Base) Account No. 0-XXXXXX-028 (the “Citibank joint account”); and Citibank Fixed Time Deposit Account No. 0000010XXXXXXX000030 (the “Citibank time deposit account”). At the time of Mr Yang’s death in May 2012, the UOB time deposit account was no longer open. The defendant’s acts in relation to the moneys in these joint accounts at UOB, Citibank and POSB are the subject of these proceedings, as will be explained below.

As they grew older, Mr Yang and Mdm Sun became reliant on the defendant to assist them in their financial affairs. In the mid-1990s, the defendant was granted a mandate to operate the joint accounts with Citibank. This was described by the parties as a “power of attorney” in Citibank’s standard form, although the actual document that was executed by Mr Yang and Mdm Sun was a “Letter of Authority Application Form” that was undated.16

In the mid-2000s, the defendant was granted a mandate to operate the joint accounts with UOB. The document granting this mandate was not produced by the defendant in these proceedings. Around that time, Mr Yang also entrusted the defendant with the passbook for the POSB joint account passbook so that he could use the passbook for “deposit and drawing”.17 The defendant explained in his evidence that he was only able to deposit moneys into the POSB joint account but he could not withdraw any moneys from it.18 This is disputed by Mr Sun. I will deal with this point later in my judgment.

The defendant was given access to these accounts to assist Mr Yang “in certain (and not all) financial matters”.19 Given their close relationship, Mr Yang reposed a significant degree of trust and confidence in the defendant to assist the couple with their affairs. By 2010, the defendant had taken on sole responsibility for managing Mr Yang’s and Mdm Sun’s living expenses.20 Mdm Looi and Ms Ohmmar received reimbursements for their household expenditures by presenting their receipts to the defendant.21 This was done weekly.

Besides granting these mandates to operate the joint accounts, Mr Yang also provided the defendant with information about bank accounts which had been set up by Mr Yang and Mdm Sun in their names, and also in the names of their relatives, including the defendant’s siblings, Mr Yang Chia-Ling and Mdm Lin Yang Min. He wrote letters to the defendant dated 21 August 1996 and 11 May 2005 setting out these accounts.22 This was for the defendant’s “information and retention”. Quite obviously, this was to ensure that the defendant was aware of the couple’s finances in case anything should happen to them. In another letter dated 14 September 2009, Mr Yang also informed the defendant of other assets owned by the couple, including the details of a safe deposit box in Taiwan, jewellery, precious items and other valuables.23

In addition to the joint accounts, the couple also held personal bank accounts in Taiwan and joint bank accounts in the US. This is relevant because Mdm Sun’s savings from the time she worked in Taiwan were remitted to Singapore in two tranches from her Taiwanese bank accounts to the UOB time deposit account24: a sum of US$261,000 on or about 15 October 2007;25 and a sum of US$157,000 on or about 19 November 2007.26

These transfers were overseen by Ms Hsu Chih-Chi (“Ms Hsu”). Ms Hsu was the personal assistant of Mdm Sun’s brother-in-law in Taiwan, one Mr Fan. She was instructed by Mr Yang and Mdm Sun to remit the moneys from Mdm Sun’s Cathay United bank accounts (Account No. 020-50-XXXXXX-8 and 201-50-XXXXXX-4).27 Ms Hsu had also earlier remitted a sum of US$12,070 from Mdm Sun’s account on or about 20 June 2007.28 This was on the instructions of Mr Fan. Ms Hsu was informed that Mr Yang and Mdm Sun had previously made an investment in Mr Fan’s company and he was now returning that sum to them first by payment into one of Mdm Sun’s Cathay United bank accounts, and then to the UOB time deposit account.29

Mr Yang’s will

On 29 November 2007, at the age of 90, Mr Yang made a will (“the Will”) which appointed the defendant as the sole executor of his estate.30 In the Will, Mr Yang set aside a sum of S$300,000 for the maintenance of Mdm Sun: I give to my Trustee a sum of Singapore Dollars Three Hundred Thousand (S$300,000.00) to hold the same in trust for the care and maintenance of my wife MRS YANG CHUN nee SUN HUI-MIN...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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