Lee Yu Hou v Nam Lian Hiang(M.W.)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Choi Ming
• Judgment Date: 22 November 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGDC 394
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No.3875 of 2009
• Year: 2011
• Published date: 07 December 2011
• Hearing Date: 19 September 2011,28 September 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Cheong Yen Lin Adriene (Messrs Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Alain Abraham Johns (Messrs Alain A.Johns Partnership]
• Citation: [2011] SGDC 394

Lim Choi Ming: Background to this matter

This is an appeal by the Defendant (“the Wife”) against orders made by me on 28 September 2011 in respect of outstanding ancillary matters in Divorce Suit No: 3875 of 2009 (“the ancillary orders”).

The parties herein were married on 8 May 2004 at the Registry of Marriages. There are no children to the marriage. At the time of the hearing, the Plaintiff (“the Husband”) was an Software Engineer aged 36 years old while the Defendant (“the Wife”) was a Product Executive aged 29 years old.

Divorce proceedings

On 4 August 2009, the Husband commenced proceedings to dissolve the marriage with the Wife on the fact that the marriage had broken down irretrievably in that that the Wife had behaved in such a way that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her. The Wife filed a Defence and Counterclaim to contest the divorce on the basis of the Husband’s unreasonable behaviour.

The Interim Judgment was eventually granted on 14 April 2010 on both the Wife’s and the Husband’s respective allegations of unreasonable behaviour based on both parties’ amended Statement of Particulars and amended Counterclaim.

Issues at ancillary hearing

The ancillary matters were adjourned to be heard in chambers and the following issues came before me: The issue of maintenance for the Wife; and. The issue of the division of the matrimonial assets including the matrimonial flat at Block 204A Punggol Field #13-285 Singapore 821204 (“the matrimonial flat”).

Ancillary Matters

In respect of the outstanding ancillary issues, the parties filed the following:

Husband
P1	Affidavit of Assets and Means filed on 17/5/2010
P2	2nd ancillary Affidavit filed on 31/8/2010
PW-1	Affidavit by Lee Yuin Pin filed on 31/8/2010
P3	3rd ancillary Affidavit filed on 5/10/ 2010
P4	4th ancillary Affidavit filed on 30/11/ 2010
P35A	Plaintiff’s Ancillary Matters Fact and Position Sheet filed on 14/12/2010
PS	Plaintiff’s Submissions filed on 4/3/2011
PS-2	Plaintiff’s Skeletal Reply Submissions filed on 28/3/2011
PS-3	Plaintiff’s 2nd Skeletal Reply Submissions filed on 24/5/2011
PS-4	Plaintiff’s Request for Further Arguments dated 10/6/2011
Wife
D1	Affidavit of Assets and Means filed on 19/5/2010
D2	2nd ancillary affidavit filed on 21/7/2010
DW-1	Affidavit by Chan Kok Wee filed on 21/7/2010
D3	3rd ancillary affidavit filed on 25/10/ 2010
D4	4th ancillary Affidavit filed on 3/12/ 2010
D35A	Defendant’s Ancillary Matters Fact and Position Sheet filed on 6/12/2010
DB	Defendant’s Bundle of Documents filed on 21/1/11
DS	Defendant’s Skeletal Submissions filed on 24/3/2011
DS-2	Defendant’s Reply Submissions filed on 25/3/2011
DS-3	Annexure to Defendant’s Reply Submissions tendered at hearing on 25/4/2011
DS-4	Annexure 2 to Defendant’s Reply Submissions tendered at hearing on 25/4/2011
DS-5	Defendant’s Supplementary Submissions filed on 11/5/2011

The Ancillary Orders

The ancillary matters came on for hearing before me on the following days:

a)	24 January 2011:	Counsel for the Husband was on sabbatical leave and the substitute Counsel for the Husband was on medical leave. Matter was fixed to be heard before me on 28 March 2011.
b)	28 March 2011:	Matter part-heard
c)	25 April 2011:	Matter part-heard. Directions given for final reply submissions on direct financial contributions.
d)	6 June 2011:	Matter concluded and Judgement was delivered. Plaintiff wrote in to request for Further Arguments which I allowed.
e)	19 September 2011:	I heard parties on their further arguments.
f)	28 September 2011:	I changed my Orders of 6 June 2011 slightly and made the following orders:
	The matrimonial flat at Blk 204A Punggol field #13-285 Singapore (821204) shall be sold in the open market at a price above valuation within 3 months of the date of Final Judgment and the proceeds the sale used to repay the outstanding mortgage loan as well as to pay the cost and expenses of the sale including agent’s commission. Thereafter, the net proceeds of sale shall be divided in the proportion of 29% to the Plaintiff husband and 71% to the Defendant wife respectively. Each party shall refund to his or her own CPF account the monies utilized for the purchase of the flat including accrued interest from his or her own share of the sales proceeds. The above is in full and final settlement of the division of matrimonial assets. Each party shall henceforth retain his/her own assets in their respective names. Out of the Plaintiff’s husband’s share of sale proceeds, the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the sum of $2500 in full and final settlement of her claims for maintenance. No order as to costs. Liberty to apply.

Notice of Appeal

It is against these orders that the Wife filed an appeal on 30 September 2011. In her appeal, the Wife is seeking for the following alternative orders (alternative orders sought in italicised script): That the matrimonial flat be sold in the open market at a price not below valuation price within three months from the date of Final Judgement. The proceeds of sale shall be used to repay the outstanding HDB loan and to refund both parties’ CPF monies utilised and to pay the costs and expenses of the sale. The net proceeds to be retained solely by the Wife. The Husband to pay the Wife a lump sum maintenance of $5000.

I therefore set out the reasons for my decision.

Division of Matrimonial Assets

The matrimonial flat at Block 204A Punggol Field #13-285 Singapore 821204 is a 5 room HDB flat purchased by the parties in joint names in December 2005 for $229,900¹. There is an outstanding HDB mortgage loan of $186,578.67 as at December 2009². The Husband says that the current market value is $410,000-00 based on HDB’s previous transactions for 5 room flats in the same block and floor level. The Wife states the value of the flat as $380,000³.

I will state at the outset that the submissions for this case had been protracted as both parties had sought to justify and claim credit for the cash payments made towards the loan instalments of the flat as well as for the outgoings and maintenance of the flat. What perhaps should have been a broad brush approach resulted in a micro-analysis of the deposits and withdrawals from a joint account which parties maintained for the purpose of paying off the housing loan, renovation loan and fixtures and furnishings for the home.

Since parties had embarked upon the course of scrutinising and disproving the various deposits made into the UOB Joint account from which payments for the flat had been made, I was left with little choice but to adopt the fine-tooth approach of the parties in assessing their respective direct financial contributions towards the acquisition of the flat.

The husband’s position

The Husband worked out the parties’ respective financial contributions as follows⁴: 40% to the Husband and 60% to the Wife. He based his assertion upon the general proposition that the monies from the joint account were jointly contributed by both parties, save where it could be proven that the Wife had contributed more.

The Husband asserted that he made substantial indirect contributions towards the family during the period that he had suffered panic attacks and was unable to work. His indirect contributions ranged from doing the housework and paying for certain expenses of the household with the income he derived working with his sister.⁵

In view of this, the Husband’s Counsel⁶ prayed for the flat be sold and after repayment of the outstanding loan to HDB, for the sale proceeds to be divided in proportion of parties’ respective direct financial contributions towards the flat. This would work out to 40% for the Husband and 60% for the Wife. From their respective shares, each party would repay their respective CPF accounts.

The Wife’s Position

The Wife sets out her direct financial contributions towards the purchase of the flat in the form of usage of her CPF monies as well as the various cash amounts paid out of the UOB Joint Account. The Wife estimated her direct financial contribution to 88% while the Husband contributed 12%⁷. Upon close scrutiny of the figures during the various hearing dates, the parties’ respective contributions were later fine-tuned to the calculations set out in DS-5.

Counsel for the Wife submitted that the Wife had made substantial indirect contributions towards the marriage in the following forms⁸: Payment of various household expenses, the car, insurance and even the Husband’s MBA, Conservancy charges and utility bills; Rent free occupation by the Husband since May 2009; Payment of the household expenses especially for the period that the Husband did not work.

The Wife therefore sought to have the flat sold, and all the proceeds of sale, after deducting the outstanding loan, be paid to her entirely with no refund of the Husband’s CPF monies utilised⁹.

The Court’s findings on the issue of the matrimonial flat Parties’ direct contributions to the acquisition improvement and maintenance

I noted that this was a case in which the marriage lasted for a short period of between 4 to 5 years at best. The marriage is also a childless one. I adopted the proposition set out in Ong Boon Huat Samuel v Chan Meilan Kristine by Justice Judith Prakash that “In a short and childless marriage, the division of matrimonial assets will usually be in accordance with the parties’ direct financial contributions as non-financial contributions will be minimal”¹⁰.

In this case, evaluation of each party’s direct financial contributions towards the purchase price of the flat was...