TBI v TBJ

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee Li Choon
• Judgment Date: 26 March 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 112
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No: 5288/2012
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 10 November 2014
• Hearing Date: 29 January 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Wong Soo Chih (M/s Ho, Wong & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Ang Choo Poh Belinda (M/s Berlinda Ang Tang & Partners)
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 112

District Judge Lee Li Choon: Introduction

This judgement deals with the ancillary matter relating to the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance for the wife subsequent to a divorce. The Plaintiff-Husband and Defendant-Wife were married in December 2001. This is the Defendant-Wife’s second marriage. The Defendant has a 20-year old son from her previous marriage and parties have a daughter from this marriage who is now 12 years old. The Plaintiff is a driver earning a take-home pay of about $2,507 and the Defendant is presently working as an accounts assistant earning a take-home pay of about $1,295.

The Plaintiff-Husband filed for divorce on the ground that the Defendant has behaved in such a way that the Plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to live with her and Interim Judgment was granted on 29 April 2013. Subsequent to the divorce, the ancillary matters came for a hearing before me on 29 January 2014 and a decision was made by me as regards custody, care and control and access of the child of the marriage, maintenance for the said child and division of the matrimonial assets. The order on the matter of custody, care and control and access of the child of the marriage was with the consent of both parties.

The appeal filed by the Plaintiff is against my decision as regards the division of the matrimonial assets only.

Division of the Matrimonial Assets

Parties’ main matrimonial asset is the matrimonial flat situated at xxx. It is not disputed that the said flat was procured by the Defendant from her previous marriage. The flat was valued at $660,000 by the Plaintiff and at $645,000 by the Defendant. At the time of the ancillary matters hearing, the outstanding loan stood at $155,330.

Plaintiff’s Position

The Plaintiff’s position as regards the flat is that it should be sold in the open market and the net value after deducting the outstanding loan should be divided 50:50. The Plaintiff pointed to his direct financial contribution towards the flat through him being the one solely servicing the mortgage loan since 2006 and his indirect financial contribution as the sole breadwinner of the family as justifications for his position.

Defendant’s Position

The Defendant’s position is that the flat should be transferred to her upon her refunding the Plaintiff his CPF monies together with accrued interest utilized towards the acquisition of the flat and this amount stands at $104,393 at the time of the hearing. The Defendant says that the flat was taken over by her in 1997 from her ex-husband from her previous marriage. She paid $30,000 to her ex-husband’s CPF account to take over the flat. She also says she had been the one solely servicing the mortgage loan from 1997 to 2006 prior to the Plaintiff taking over the servicing of the mortgage loan.

The Defendant points out her various indirect financial and non-financial contributions to the family since the marriage such as paying for utilities, conservancy charges until 2008, looking after the family for 12 years, and helping the Plaintiff to pay off his soccer gambling debt amounting to $12,000 during the period 2005 and 2006.

My Decision The Law

Section 112(1) of the Women’s Charter (Chapter 353) states that the Court shall have power, when granting or subsequent to the grant of a judgment of divorce to order the division between the parties of matrimonial asset or the sale of any such asset, “in such proportions as the court thinks just and equitable”. The matters to be taken into consideration in arriving at a “just and equitable” division are in section 112(2) as well as those in section 114(1) so far as they are relevant. These include the extent of the contributions made by each party in money, property or work towards acquiring, improving or maintaining the matrimonial property in sub-paragraph 2(a) of section 112(2) (“financial contribution”) as well as the extent of the contributions made by each party to the welfare of the family (see sub-paragraph 2(d) of section 112(2) (“non-financial contribution” or “indirect contribution”).

In considering the matters stated above, I will quote the well-established principle succinctly and eloquently put forth by Lai Siu Chiu J in NK v NL [2006] SGHC 204 that, “Division of matrimonial assets is not and is never an exact science. The court can only attempt to make a just and equitable division, applying a broad-brush approach, bearing in mind the factors set out in s 112(2) of the Act. No two cases on ancillary matters are alike in their facts. Consequently, precedent cases cited by the parties can only serve as a guideline and cannot be applied blindly.” In short, I must apply the broad brush approach and give due weight to all relevant factors enumerated by section 112(2) of the Women’s Charter, including both financial contributions and non-financial contributions and come to a “just and equitable” division of the matrimonial assets having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

Parties’ Matrimonial Assets

I will first look at the assets that the parties have that are liable for division. The main matrimonial asset of the parties is that of the matrimonial flat at xxx. From the evidence, the parties’ other assets consist of the following: Plaintiff’s $5,057 in his Ordinary Account as at August 2013; Defendant’s $12,441 in her Ordinary Account as at August 2013; The Plaintiff’s insurance policies valued at $5,444.68; xxx shares valued at $3,236.40; unit trusts valued at a total of $21,087.71 and savings of $143.62.

The Defendant has no other assets other than the monies in her CPF account. I consider that all these other assets in the parties’ sole names are insubstantial when considered in relation to the value of the matrimonial flat. I also consider there is not a vast difference in the value of the assets in the parties’ sole names. Further, a portion of the Plaintiff’s other assets consists of insurance policies in which he has named the child of the marriage as the beneficiary and the Defendant is prepared to let status quo remain for the benefit of their daughter.

Thus, in using a broad brush approach, in dividing the matrimonial assets, I will not divide these assets in the parties’ sole names but allow status quo to be maintained for these assets. In determining what would be a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets, I will consider mainly the division of the matrimonial flat. However, in determining what would be a just and equitable outcome for the parties in the division of the matrimonial flat, I will bear in mind that the Plaintiff’s assets in his sole name is slightly more ($17,471) than that of the Defendant’s in value.

I will now deal with the division of the matrimonial flat. In light of the present slightly depressed market for HDB flats due to the recent policy changes as regards debt to income ratio and cash above valuation, I will take the Defendant’s lower valuation of $645,000 (this is $15,000 lower than that of the value submitted by the Plaintiff). It is not disputed that the outstanding mortgage loan stands at $155,330 at the time of the hearing. This brings the net value of the property at the time of the hearing to $489,670.

Parties’ Direct Financial Contribution towards Matrimonial Flat

The undisputed fact as regards parties’ direct financial contributions to the matrimonial flat is as follows:

	From Plaintiff (as at 14 January 2014)	From Defendant (as at 5 August 2013)
CPF Principal	$93,001.35	$105,586.95
Percentage	43.8%	53.2%

The disputed aspect concerns the Defendant’s allegation that she had contributed a further $30,000 towards the acquisition of the flat as this sum was paid by her to her ex-husband’s CPF account. There was no supporting document to show how this sum of $30,000 was paid to the ex-husband.

Be that as it may, as it is not disputed that the flat was acquired by her after her divorce from her first husband, and as she has consistently stated in her affidavits that this amount was paid by her to her first husband’s CPF account and there is nothing to contradict what she has stated, I shall include this amount of $30,000 as her direct financial contribution towards the acquisition of the flat. The percentage of each party’s share of direct financial contribution to the matrimonial flat is then computed as 41% : 59% in favour of the Defendant.

Parties’ Indirect Contributions

Parties were married in 2001. After the marriage, parties lived in the matrimonial flat procured by the Defendant in 1997 from her previous marriage. After the...