Kuek Hoon Eng (m.w.) v Chew Keng Min

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sharon Lim
• Judgment Date: 06 August 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGDC 184
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 28 January 2014
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Raymond Yeo (Koh Ong and Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: B Rengarajoo (B Rengarajoo and Associates)
• Citation: [2004] SGDC 184

6 August 2004

District Judge Sharon Lim:

1 The parties were married on 28 February 1967 . They have three children, all of whom have reached the age of majority. The decree nisi was pronounced on 19 August 2003 on the ground that the parties had lived separate and apart for a continuous period of four years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The issues raised during the ancillary matters proceedings before me pertained to maintenance for the Petitioner and the division of matrimonial assets. Five affidavits were filed in support of the Petitioner’s case and four in favour of the Respondent.

2 I made the following orders after perusing the affidavits and hearing the submissions of both parties’ counsel:

1. The Respondent shall pay to the Petitioner $1.00 per month as nominal maintenance with effect 1 June 2004;

2. The matrimonial home at 7 Parry Road Singapore 547192 is to be sold on the open market. The net proceeds of sale, after deducting costs/expenses of sale and after payment of outstanding housing loan, are to be paid as follow:

(a) $40,000.00 to the Respondent; and

(b) the balance to the Petitioner.

3. The Respondent shall have no claim to the property in Block Kasturi Unit No C-7-5 7^th Floor Johore Bahru that is held jointly by the parties’ son Peter Chew Kok Heng and the Petitioner;

4. The Respondent is to return the gold chain and the two pendants with a cross belonging to Dennis Chew Kok Tong, the parties’ 3^rd child forthwith;

5. The Respondent shall repay to the Petitioner the total sum of $74,600.00

6. The Petitioner shall have sole conduct of the sale of the matrimonial home;

7. The Registrar of the Subordinate Courts shall be empowered to sign all the documents necessary for the sale of the matrimonial flat at 7 Parry Road Singapore 547192;

8. There be no order as to costs;

9. There be liberty to apply.

The Respondent appealed against order 2, 4 and 5. I shall thus only give my reasons for making those specific orders.

The marriage

3 This case involved a long marriage spanning some 37 years. The parties have 3 grown sons. The Petitioner first worked in the Singapore Police Force till 1987 before becoming a property agent, an occupation she has held todate. The Respondent was initially a civil servant before going into business. He set up a shopping company and subsequently expanded his business to Vietnam. Since 1994, the Respondent has been living in Vietnam and has continued to do so even though he claimed to have resigned from his post in the company in 2001.

4 According to the Petitioner, the marriage faced cracks from its early years due to the Respondent’s frequent womanising. In fact, the Petitioner had felt compelled to apply for maintenance for the children in 1972. A divorce petition was also filed by the Petitioner in 1995, but was withdrawn. The parties made numerous attempts to reconcile over the years, but failed, allegedly due to the Respondent’s persistent womanising, despite his promises to reform.

5 The Respondent on the other hand averred that the reason for the failure of the marriage was the Petitioner’s insatiable desire for money. He could not find peace of mind at home due to the Petitioner’s constant demands for money, and as such, sought solace elsewhere.

The parties’ acquisition of matrimonial assets

6 The main matrimonial property in dispute is a private property at 7 Parry Road Singapore 547192. In order to ascertain the parties’ financial contributions towards the acquisition of this property, it was necessary to consider the parties’ history of contributions to previous properties and trace the proceeds of sale arising from these that were then channelled towards the purchase of this property.

Block 183 Toa Payoh Central #03-266 Singapore

7 The first matrimonial home of the parties was a HDB flat purchased for a sum of $8,800. It was sold in 1984 at the price of $45,000. The Petitioner averred that the sale proceeds were used towards the acquisition of the second matrimonial proper. This was not disputed by the Respondent. No mention was made as to which party contributed towards the purchase of this first property.

Block 237 Hougang Street 21 #06-408 Singapore

8 The second matrimonial home was purchased in 1984 for $126,400. Aside from $45,000 from the sale of the previous flat, the parties both paid for the flat through their CPF. The Respondent stated that the flat was purchased mainly from his CPF, but was unable to tender documentary evidence of this. The Petitioner said that both parties had contributed to the purchase of the flat and was able to show this through samples of her CPF statements during the ownership period of the property. Unfortunately, neither party was able to establish the total that each of them had contributed to the acquisition of the flat. This second home was sold in 1991 for a total sum of $230,000.

9 In addition to her financial contributions through payment of the CPF instalments, the Petitioner claimed that she had won a lottery prize of $80,000 in 1984. This was from purchasing a winning ticket with the numbers ‘1819’ together with her siblings. The number was from the registration number of her brother’s wedding car. She used this sum and more of her own funds to pay for the renovations to the flat and the purchase of various home items totalling $104,418.20. These were set out in painstaking detail with the supporting documentary evidence in her third affidavit.

10 The Respondent alleged that the winnings of $80,000 solely belonged to him. He had told the Petitioner to buy the lottery ticket and had selected the number based on the registration number of his car. Yet, when she received the money, none of it was given to him or used to contribute towards the acquisition of any matrimonial assets. He believed the Petitioner had kept the funds. The Respondent did not address the issue of who had paid the cost of renovations and the purchase of the various home items.

32 Poh Huat Crescent Singapore

11 The third matrimonial home at Poh Huat Crescent (‘Poh Huat property’) was purchased in 1991 for the sum of $730,000 in the Respondent’s sole name. The Petitioner claimed that the sale proceeds from the sale of the Hougang flat were used for the acquisition of the Poh Huat property. In addition, she stated that the reason for the property being in the Respondent’s sole name was his promise to his family that it would save them money on bank loan interest rates if his company were to apply for the mortgage loan for the purchase of the property. The Respondent promised that he would settle the mortgage instalments promptly. Although she had no documentary proof, the Petitioner said that she had financially contributed to the acquisition of the property by raising $70,000 for the downpayment of $73,000. The Respondent contributed the balance $3,000.

12 As the Respondent did not keep up with the payment of the monthly mortgage instalments, the Petitioner claimed that she had withdrawn her fixed deposit account monies amounting to $23,640.36, her pension gratuity of $43,047.02, her savings and sold her jewellery in order to help the Respondent pay off the sums. The Petitioner said that she also paid $146,929.60 for various household repairs and items as well as shouldered the monthly mortgage instalments from July 1999 till the property was sold in mid-2000. As such, she claimed that she contributed a total sum of $213,616.62 towards the Poh Huat property.

13 The Respondent denied the Petitioner’s claims of financial contributions towards the Poh Huat property and her assertion that she had been tricked by him into agreeing to put the property in his sole name. The Respondent however added that for the sake of keeping the peace in the family, he accepted her claim of financial contribution. This took place sometime in year 2000. He showed evidence that he had paid $439,567.42 towards the purchase of this property from his CPF funds and the balance from his income through direct debit from his bank account. He also insisted that it was he, not the Petitioner, who had paid the downpayment for the property.

14 The Poh Huat property was sold on 22 June 2000 for $1,190,000. After payment of the outstanding loan and other incidental charges, the net proceeds amounted to $565,118.50. The cheque for this sum was drawn in the Respondent’s sole name.

7 Parry Road, Singapore

15 I now turn to the final matrimonial home at 7 Parry Road, Singapore (‘Parry Road property’) which forms the subject matter of the appeal. According to the Petitioner, the sale proceeds from the Poh Huat property were channelled to the purchase of the Parry Road property which was purchased for $1,080,000 on 12 July 2000. The Petitioner contended that the sale proceeds from the Poh Huat property amounting to $563,318.50 should be apportioned to both parties equally given their respective direct and indirect financial contributions to the Poh Huat property. The Respondent also contributed $39,000 from his CPF and $10,800 cash being 1% of the purchase price. In addition, the Respondent applied for a renovation loan of $30,000. The balance was covered by a mortgage loan from Standard Chartered Bank, and the Petitioner’s cash payments of $97,200 (9% of the purchase price) and $5,000 for legal costs. She also incurred a sum of $128,592.44 for renovation works and paid the property tax ($2,456.91) and insurance ($821.94). At the time the Parry Road property was purchased, the Respondent once again assured the Petitioner that he would bear no less than 50% of the household outgoings, the renovation loan and the mortgage on the property.

16 However, the Petitioner stated that the Respondent did not keep to his word. Over the years, he only made payments of $7,462 towards the renovation loan and nothing towards the mortgage loan. The other sums that had been remitted to her by the Respondent from Vietnam through his employee had been used...