Lee Chung Meng Joseph v Krygsman

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang JC
• Judgment Date: 21 December 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 277
• Date: 21 December 2000
• Subject Matter: Maintenance,Whether judge's assessment and division of matrimonial assets sensible and fair,Whether husband at liberty to apply for variation of maintenance order should wife's income increase in the future,Divorce,Family Law,Division of matrimonial assets
• Docket Number: Divorce No 2123 of 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Lim Shui Yi (Hoh & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie Hong (Tan Peng Chin & Partners)

: This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Koh Juat Jong of the Family Justice Division, Subordinate Courts, given on 17 August 2000. I shall refer to the parties individually as the husband and the wife.

The decree nisi and the ancillary matters

The parties were married on 19 December 1987 in Singapore. On 16 August 1999, the wife filed this petition for divorce on the ground of four years` separation in that she and the husband had been leading separate lives since 1994 despite staying in the same room in the matrimonial property. The wife prayed for dissolution of the marriage, that she be given the sole custody, care and control of their son with reasonable access to the husband, that the matrimonial property at 19 Jalan Tarum, Singapore 576738 be sold in the open market at a price equal to or above valuation within six months from the date of the order to be made, that she be given a share of the sale proceeds and that the husband pay maintenance for her and their son. Their son, Jason Lee, was born on 17 September 1989.

On 21 January 2000, a decree nisi was pronounced in the uncontested petition.

On 16 August 2000, the judge heard the ancillary matters and made the following orders the next day:

(a) By consent, the parties shall have joint custody of the child with care and control to the wife and access to the husband as follows:

(i) overnight access every alternate Friday at 8pm to Sunday at 8pm;

(ii) on the husband`s birthday, on the alternate birthday of the child, on alternate public holidays and half of Chinese New Year holidays;

(iii) half of the school holidays with liberty to take the child overseas;

(b) the matrimonial property shall be sold and the proceeds of sale after repayment of the housing loan and the overdraft facilities (limited to the balance as at the date of the order or the sum of $160,000, whichever is the lower) and the deduction of all costs and expenses of the sale, be divided in the proportion of 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband; each party shall refund their CPF account of moneys withdrawn for the purchase of the property with accrued interest; the husband is at liberty to purchase the share of the wife in the property by paying a sum equivalent to that stated above;

(c) the husband shall pay the wife the amount of $1,500 per month with effect from 1 September 2000 for 18 months and $2,000 per month thereafter for the maintenance of the wife and the child;

(d) liberty to apply; and

(e) no order as to costs.

The husband appealed against the judge`s orders relating to maintenance and the division of the matrimonial assets. I dismissed his appeal with costs fixed at $1,500.

The factual background

In 1986, the husband bought a terrace house at Margaret Drive for about $68,000. After the marriage in December 1987, the parties moved into this terrace house after living with the wife`s family for a short stint. When this property was sold in 1994, the housing loan had been paid up in full. It fetched a sale price of some $325,000, which, according to the husband, went towards the purchase price of the matrimonial property at 19 Jalan Tarum, the investment property at Walmers Drive (more on this later) and the housing instalments.

In 1994, the parties jointly purchased 19 Jalan Tarum for $1.1m as their matrimonial home. The husband took a housing loan of $770,000 from the Far Eastern Bank, paying the remainder of the price with cash and with money from his CPF account. The wife contributed only $1,000 from her CPF savings. To pay the monthly mortgage instalments of $4,728, the husband utilised $1,200 per month from his CPF account and the sale proceeds of the terrace house as his net monthly salary of $3,200 was insufficient to pay the balance of the mortgage instalments. When the sale proceeds had been used up, he used an overdraft account to make up the difference. As at 11 March 2000, the husband had utilised $139,179 (inclusive of interest) of his CPF money for the payments on the matrimonial home.

As at December 1999, the outstanding housing loan was $683,527. When the ancillary matters were heard in August 2000, the loan was estimated to be $670,000. In addition, the matrimonial home secured an overdraft of $147,000 as at the end of April 2000. The three bank statements produced by the husband for February 1999, January and April 2000 showed that the outstanding overdraft had grown from $29,000 in February 1999 to $146,000 by the end of January 2000. The husband claimed that this overdraft was used to finance the family expenses, the mortgage payments and his investment properties in Walmers Drive and Berwick Drive. I will elaborate on these investment properties shortly.

The wife claimed that not more than $40,000 of the overdraft would have been used for the family expenses and instalment payments. She asserted that she had contributed $17,165.47 for the furniture and fittings in the matrimonial home. The husband acknowledged that the wife had bought some furniture but claimed that he had reimbursed her a sum of about $17,000 at her request. However, the wife said that the reimbursement was only $6,343, relying on an acknowledgement note that he had made her sign. The husband denied that the note was an acknowledgement of the said reimbursement. The husband also claimed that the wife worked as a housing agent and, at times, as a hairdresser, and not only did not contribute to the house and the household expenses (which came up to $1215 monthly) but took $800 to $1,000 per month from him as well. The wife said he gave her $750 monthly for groceries and for their son`s expenses.

The matrimonial home, a single-storey semi-detached house on some 3,200 square feet of land, was assessed by the husband`s valuers to be worth $1.2m. Although the wife asserted that it was worth $1.4m, she was contented to accept the valuation of $1.2m in her arguments.

In late 1994, the husband, his brother-in-law, the wife`s father and one other person purchased a property at Walmers Drive for $2.35m with each purchaser having a quarter share therein. Each contributed $165,001, the husband paying for his share from the sale proceeds of the terrace house at Margaret Drive. A revolving facility of some $1.76m was obtained from Tat Lee Finance together with a construction loan of some $558,541.

A pair of semi-detached houses was then constructed on the property at Walmers Drive. One of these was sold in late 1997 for $1.66m. The remaining loan was then converted into a fixed term loan of $800,000. As at the end of May 2000, the loan amount outstanding was $778,911.

The other semi-detached house, now designated 29 Lichfield Road, was tenanted at $2,200 per month from March 1998 to March 1999. It was valued at $1.75m.

The husband claimed that the above development project resulted in a loss of $682,255, a quarter of which he would have to bear.

In September 1999, the husband, two of his sisters and a brother-in-law bought a property at Berwick Drive for $1.44m. He drew $14,400 from his overdraft account to contribute to the down payment. The rest of the 20% down payment was paid by the other three and the remaining 80% of the purchase price was paid for through a bank loan. The husband claimed that the value of this property remained constant and that his stake was only the $14,400 he had paid.

General United Construction and Merchandising Co Pte Ltd was a company incorporated in 1989. The husband was a director and a 50% shareholder thereof. The other 50% had devolved to his sister from his deceased brother-in-law. The company`s main asset was a leasehold property in Jalan Jentera which was acquired by JTC in 1999 for $750,000. The company`s financial statements for 1997, 1998 and 1999 showed net profits of $5,872, $14,928 and $21,078 respectively. The retained profits for 1997 and 1998 were $85,915 and $100,842 respectively. Curiously, for 1999, a retained loss of $71,495 appeared.

The wife claimed that this company was worth between $10m to $20m bearing in mind the turnovers of $7.9m (1997), $4.1m (1998) and $5.1m (1999), the profits, the goodwill and the potential. The directors` remuneration for the three years amounted to $115,200 for 1997, $115,200 for 1998 and $105,600 for 1999.

The company`s draft accounts for 1999 showed that it owed the directors $712,405 for their drawings as at 31 December 1999. A computation, allegedly prepared by the company`s auditors, showed that some $212,000 was owing to the husband and $529,000 was owing to the sister. The husband could not offer any explanation for this computation but said it was unlikely that the directors would receive any payment.

The husband had a Honda Civic car bought in 1992 with an estimated value of $20,000. The wife had a Suzuki SWIFT bought in 1993, a large portion of the purchase price of which was, according to the husband, paid by him. From 1994, he gave her the monthly instalments for the car in cash and from 1996, he gave her cheques. The cheque amounts totalled $11,386. He also had to pay about $7,000 from his overdraft account to forestall re-possession of the car. The wife did not dispute that the husband had helped in the payments of her car but claimed she had paid some $63,682. The husband estimated the value of the Suzuki SWIFT at $25,000.

The husband had little in his POSB and his CPF accounts. He said he owed $45,000 to the tax authorities, a large portion of which comprised a penalty imposed as a result of his failure to declare certain director`s fees in his income tax returns for the years 1991 to 1994 and would be paying $2,980 per month to the tax authorities until August 2001.

The wife had $1,384 in her bank account and $9,630 in her CPF ordinary account. She had, however, purchased about $22,000 worth of jewellery.

Insofar as indirect contributions were concerned, the wife claimed that she had looked after the husband, their son and the home and performed various...