Koh Yen Ling v Tan Teik Yu Mark
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Masayu Norashikin |
Judgment Date | 30 September 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 126 |
Citation | [2015] SGFC 126 |
Published date | 28 October 2015 |
Docket Number | Divorce Petition No. 1626 of 2013 |
Hearing Date | 03 March 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ms Loh Wai Mooi [Bih Li & Lee LLP] |
Defendant Counsel | Ms Suchitra A/P K Ragupathy [Rodyk Davidson LLP] |
Subject Matter | Family law,division of matrimonial assets,monies for first matrimonial property paid by husband's father,whether loan or investment by father,whether subsequent sale proceeds were a gift to the husband alone |
Introduction
Parties were married in September 2005. Interim Judgment was granted in January 2014 on the Defendant husband’s counterclaim of the Plaintiff wife’s adultery. There are no children to the marriage.
The Plaintiff did not claim any maintenance for herself. The only outstanding ancillary matter issue was division of the matrimonial assets which I heard on 20 January 2015 and 6 March 2015. On 8 July 2015, I made the following orders, and also gave parties brief reasons and calculations for my decision.
The Defendant appealed against the orders as to the division of the matrimonial home and other matrimonial assets, as well as the costs order for the ancillary matters proceedings. I set out the reasons for my decision below. I shall refer to the Plaintiff as the Wife, and the Defendant as the Husband.
Background
The Wife is 34 years old and the Husband 37 years old. Both parties are legally trained and were practising lawyers in eminent law firms during the marriage, though the Wife resigned on 30 September 2013.
When parties got married, they were undergoing pupillage and/or had just qualified as lawyers. Subsequently, they both worked in London from 2007 to November 2009.
The current matrimonial home is a property at 25 Balmoral Park #08-01 Pinewood Gardens, Singapore 259854 (“the Matrimonial Home”). It was purchased in 2010 after parties returned to Si9ngapore and was held by parties as joint tenants until the Wife severed the joint tenancy and the holding was converted to one of tenants-in-common in equal shares. Prior to leaving for the UK, parties’ owned 33 Balmoral Road #09-01 Balmoral Gate Singapore 259811 (“Balmoral Gate”).
The Husband moved out of the Matrimonial Home in October 2012. The Wife moved out in January 2013. Since then, the Matrimonial Home has been vacant.
The Wife is one of the owners of a property under construction known as 3 Leedon Heights #09-01 D’Leedon Singapore 267951 (“Leedon Heights”), purchased on 18 December 2012. She and her mother hold the property as tenants-in-common with her mother having a 95% share and the Wife the remaining 5% share.
The main issues before me, aside from the question of division of the matrimonial assets, were:
Balmoral Gate
This property was purchased in both parties’ names in 2005 and sold in June 2007 before parties left for the UK for work. The nett sale proceeds were more than $500,000.
The purchase was financed from both the Husband’s and Wife’s CPF accounts (through the monthly mortgage payments), cash from the parties’ joint account as well as a sum of money emanating from the Husband’s father/parents (“the Disputed Sum”). It was agreed that the monies from the joint account would be attributed equally to both parties. What is not agreed is the quantum of the Disputed Sum, and the legal nature of the Disputed Sum.
Wife’s caseThe Wife said that the Husband’s father lent the parties a sum of $110,000 for the downpayment of Balmoral Gate. At that time (2005), parties were newly married and had just started working. They did not have sufficient funds to pay the whole deposit and arranged for the Husband’s father to lend them a sum of money that was sufficient to cover the rest of the deposit for Balmoral Gate. They were expected to repay the loan.
This amount was allegedly fully repaid by the parties paying for the Husband’s sister’s university fees in the UK between 2007 and 2009. The Wife said this was a sensible arrangement as parties were then also working in the UK and had funds available in the UK currency (GBP). The arrangement avoided any loss in the exchange rate between Singapore Dollars (SGD) and GBP. The amount paid for the university fees was about SGD120,968.75, roughly the same amount lent to them by the father, taking into account currency exchanges.
As such, the Wife argued that the entire sale proceeds from Balmoral Gate should be attributed to the parties, with no part of it to be attributed to the Husband’s father/parents. Her evidence was that they had made a nett profit of $587,475.66 from Balmoral Gate.
The Wife relied on the following matters in support of her position:-
Unlike the Wife, the Husband’s case vacillated and evolved from affidavit to affidavit.
First affidavitIn his first Affidavit of Assets and Means, the Husband made no mention of Balmoral Gate, save to say that he made cash payment of $564,815.05 towards the purchase of the Matrimonial Home. In later affidavits, this appeared to be a substantial portion of the sale proceeds of Balmoral Gate. He was therefore attributing that amount as his sole contribution, with no apportionment to the Wife nor to his father.
Second affidavitIn the Husband’s second affidavit, he said that his parents paid a total of $149,157.84 towards Balmoral Gate, with $120,734.25 coming from his father, and $21,026.22 coming from his mother. The reason given by the Husband for his father’s contribution was that the father had sold a London investment flat in 2003 (in the father’s and the Husband’s joint names) during which time the father was made redundant and struggled to make...
To continue reading
Request your trial