TEI v TEJ
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Jen Koh |
Judgment Date | 01 September 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGFC 114 |
Court | Family Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Divorce No. 6142 of 2012 |
Year | 2015 |
Published date | 10 September 2015 |
Hearing Date | 30 March 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ms Ellen Lee (M/s Ramdas & Wong) |
Defendant Counsel | Ms Helen Chia w Ms Nair (M/s Chia-Thomas Law Chambers LLC) |
Subject Matter | Catchwords: Division of Matrimonial Assets, Division of Matrimonial Home. |
Citation | [2015] SGFC 114 |
This is an appeal against the division of a matrimonial home by the wife in divorce proceedings commenced in 2012.
The parties were married in September 2003. The wife is a businesswoman with a food catering business and according to the husband, a xxx. The husband is a lawyer working in xxx. The parties have a set of twin boys aged 10 plus, studying in an international school in Singapore.
Interim Judgment dissolving the marriage was granted in April 2013. The parties resolved the issues of custody and access as well as interim maintenance after mediation in November 2013. The parties agreed to joint custody of the children with care and control to the wife and liberal terms of access (spelt out in the consent order) to the husband. The husband also agreed to pay monthly maintenance in the sum of $8,450 for the children, to be responsible for their school fees and school transport charge. The value of the maintenance award then amounted to about $15,000 per month (average). The husband defaulted payment of maintenance and enforcement proceedings ensued.
The ancillary matters were therefore confined to issues of final maintenance amounts and the division of matrimonial assets. I heard the ancillary matters on 26 February 2015 and gave directions for the submission of documents. I made my orders on 30 March 2015.
Orders Made I made the following orders:
The wife filed an appeal against the part of the orders pertaining to the division of the matrimonial home. I now set out the reasons for my decision.
The matrimonial home in Arcadia RoadThe matrimonial home is a private condominium bought by the husband in his sole name. It was purchased for $1,550,000. The husband said that his mother paid the initial deposit of 15%. The rest of the purchase was funded by a housing loan secured against the property of which the husband solely paid the monthly mortgage initially of about $4,800. As at December 2014, the outstanding housing loan was approximately $1,158,000. Additionally, the husband had overdraft facilities secured against the property of which a sum of $605,000 was outstanding to the bank.
Both parties agree that the market value of the matrimonial home was in the region of $3,880,000 to $4,000,000.
The wife’s submissionThe wife said that she made substantial financial contributions towards the renovation costs of the matrimonial home as well as purchasing the furniture, fittings and household items for the family’s use. She added up the sums and said that she had expended an approximate sum of $142,500. She submitted that she also contributed in terms of money, work and labour in improving and maintaining the home for the family. She used her income and expenses for this purpose.
The wife referred to her contributions to the family. She submitted that she supported the husband by introducing him to friends ‘with higher social standing and financial influence’. She claimed that it was her effort that resulted in the husband securing employment and acquiring his wealth and ‘social standing’.
In respect of the children, she said that she promoted their welfare by looking after them and taking care of the household generally. This enabled the husband to concentrate on his career.
The wife’s claimThe wife’s original position was 50% of the value of the matrimonial home or $642,500 (approximate) in full and final settlement of her claims to maintenance as well as for a share in the matrimonial home. This position was subject to the condition that the children and she would be able to reside in the matrimonial home until the children attained the age of 21. She said that if this occurred, she was prepared to bear half the costs of mortgage payments, outgoings, domestic helper’s salary and expenses which she calculated to be approximately $3,100 per month.
The wife changed her position after the enforcement action she had instituted against the husband. She said that she could no longer continue to live in the matrimonial home and as such, she wanted a larger share in the matrimonial home. She said that this translated to a 75% share of the matrimonial home and that the matrimonial home should now be sold so that she could use the sale proceeds to purchase an alternative new home for the children and herself. She also prayed that the husband was to refund his CPF utilized for...
To continue reading
Request your trial