UDL v UDM

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Nicole Loh
• Judgment Date: 12 July 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGFC 77
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Suit No. D1755/2016
• Published date: 19 July 2017
• Year: 2017
• Hearing Date: 24 March 2017,23 February 2017,31 March 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr A.P. Thirumurthy (A Alagappan Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Alagappan (Murthy & Co.)
• Subject Matter: Family Law - Division of Matrimonial Assets - Wife's Maintenance
• Citation: [2017] SGFC 77

District Judge Nicole Loh:

The Plaintiff Husband is a 58 year old xxx. The Defendant Wife is 46 years old who was a housewife for most of the marriage. Parties had been married for 13 years until the grant of the Interim Judgment based on the Counterclaim.

There were discrepancies within the Wife’s Counterclaim as to the year in which parties’ relationship as husband and wife ceased however, the difference of one year was immaterial in the larger scheme of things. This was essentially a marriage with no issue between the parties which did not last very long.

The ancillary issues placed before me were that of the Wife’s claim for maintenance and division of matrimonial assets between the parties.

Orders Made

I made the following orders : Defendant’s Great Eastern Policies No. xxx and xxx to be transferred to the Plaintiff. Defendant shall be removed as an occupier of xxx (hereinafter referred to as “the HDB flat”). The property at xxx (hereinafter referred to as “the Malaysian Property”) shall be sold in the open market. Sale proceeds after paying the outstanding mortgage loan and cost and expenses of sale shall be paid to the Plaintiff. The Defendant shall return the following items to the Plaintiff :- Rolex Gent s Watch with Diamond Dial; Omega Gent’s Watch Half Gold Bezel (more than 20 years old); Omega Gent’s Watch Seamaster Blue Dial (Limited Edition s/no: 1106); Russian Tourbillion Watch & Assortment of Watches & Accessories; Beijing Olympic Limited Edition Pen & Momentos; Rolex & Omega Antiques Watches & Collectibles (Purchased from America); LV Men’s Travelling Bag (Blue Color); Spore Currency Notes (2x $1000), $50 & $100 including Old Orchid Currency; Old unused phone cards, old coins & old stamps; Replica Painting Scroll from China Palace Museum (12” Width x 15 feet long); Diamond & Gold Ornament Rings & Sapphire Necklace, Earrings & Ring (Thailand); Antique Wooden Medical Chest in-laid with White Jade (approx 30 rect shape); Wooden Chest with Pungent smell; Brandy & Whisky & Wines including several “XO” grade (30 bottles/lot); Assortment of Old Wooden Figurine (30 pcs/lot); Old Antique China Plate with French Art Scene; New Wooden Laid Back Sofa; and Computer Note book. Each party to keep all other assets in their own names. The above shall be in full and final settlement of all claims for division of assets between the parties and Defendant’s maintenance. Each party to bear own cost.

Appeal

The Wife has appealed against the orders in paragraphs 4(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) above.

Wife’s Claim

The Wife’s claims at the Ancillary Hearing were, inter alia, as follows: Wife to retain Malaysian Property and the Husband is to fully redeem the mortgage or to continue paying the monthly instalment towards the mortgage until it is fully paid; Husband to pay $150,000 as lump sum maintenance (in this regard, the HDB flat is to be sold so that the lump sum maintenance can be payable from CPF refunded in a sale) alternatively he is to continue to pay $1,000 as monthly maintenance; Husband to be removed as a beneficiary of her 2 Great Eastern insurance policies; Husband to re-transfer the Wife’s NTUC policy back to her; Husband to transfer the Singtel account for the Wife’s handphone to her. Husband to handover all of the Wife’s photographs and to return 2 charcoal irons; Wife to retain certain antiques in her possession.

Assets included in the pool of Matrimonial Assets

Malaysian Property

The Malaysian Property was purchased in the Wife’s sole name by the Husband prior to the marriage but continued to be funded by the Husband throughout the marriage. The Wife’s claim was that this was a gift from the Husband to her as a form of dowry and this is supported by the fact the property is in her sole name. This was denied by the Husband who claimed he had intended it to be their home when he retired. He explained that due to Malaysian laws restricting ownership of properties by foreigners, it was purchased in the Wife’s sole name since she is a Malaysian citizen.

Firstly, there were no supporting evidence provided by the Wife to conclude that the Husband had intended to give the Malaysian Property to the Wife. Despite the Wife’s initial denial of there being such Malaysian law, the Husband also produced evidence of the restrictions on foreigners buying Malaysian properties with a purchase price below RM250,000 (the Malaysian Property was purchased at RM 221,000) at the time of the purchase. The Wife’s reply submission was that the Husband chose not to purchase the Malaysian Property at a purchase price above RM250,000 although he could have because he intended it to be a dowry for her. I found the Wife’s submission illogical as I would not expect the Husband to offer to pay a higher price for the property just so he could register it in his name as well when parties were able to purchase the property, albeit only in the Wife’s name.

In any event, even if there was indeed an intention of an inter-spousal gift, in AQS v AQR [2012] SGCA 3, it was held that:

“even if the husband did intend to make a gift of the matrimonial flat to the wife, this did not in law preclude it from being regarded as a matrimonial asset to be divided (Yeo Gim Tong Micheal v Tianzon Lolita [1996] 1 SLR (R) 633 at [12]). Where the courts have exercised their discretion and not divided gifts made by one spouse to another, circumstances were exceptional in the sense that the gift was made for a specific purpose such that it would be inequitable to allow the giving party to renege on the gift: for example, in Wong Ser Wan v Ng Cheong Ling [2006] 1 SLR (R) 416 (see [75] – [78]), the husband made a gift to induce the wife to halt the divorce proceedings against him; in Lee Leh Hua v Yip Kok Leong [1999]1 SLR(R) 554 (Lee Leh Hua), the husband made the gift specifically as compensation for abandoning his wife. That the circumstances in Lee Leh Hua were exceptional was affirmed in Yow Mee Lan v Chen Kai Buan [2000] 2LR(R) 659 at [62], which also affirmed the general rule that where one spouse makes a gift to the other, the court can still exercise its powers to divide the gift as a “matrimonial asset” falling within s 112 (10) of the Women’s Charter. Ultimately, whether the court should decide to exercise those powers depends on the particular circumstances before it, with the aim of achieving a just and equitable division of the matrimonial assets between the parties.”

In Tan Hwee Lee v Tan Cheng Guan [2012] SCGA 50, the Court of Appeal also rejected any argument proposing that an inter-spousal gift should not be included in the pool of matrimonial assets. It was held that:

“an inter-spousal gift should always be included in the pool of matrimonial assets (subject to one exception which we will elaborate on below at [45-49], and it is only at the point of the apportionment of each spouse’s share that the court can exercise its discretion to address any inequity. We have come to the view that there should only be one exception to the general rule, viz de minimis inter-spousal gifts, while all other “exceptions” (as established in Lee Leh Hua and Wong Ser Wan) should no longer be followed.”

Therefore, I have included the Malaysian Property into the pool of matrimonial assets to be divided between parties.

HDB flat

The Wife made no claim on the HDB flat in terms of division of matrimonial asset and confirmed this repeatedly during the ancillary hearing. Her only claim which affected the HDB flat was in terms of seeking a lump sum maintenance (which is dealt in later paragraphs below). Despite her confirmation that she was not seeking to make a claim on division of the HDB flat, since I had disagreed with her submission on the Malaysian Property and had included it into the pool of matrimonial assets, I also added the HDB flat into the pool of assets for fairness as it is an asset of substantial worth in the Husband’s sole name.

The case of the missing antiques

The Husband acquired many antiques during the marriage. It is undisputed that the antiques were stored at the HDB Flat even after he moved out of the HDB Flat in December 2015. It was also undisputed that the Wife removed the antiques in the HDB Flat to the Malaysian Property around March 2016 without the Husband’s knowledge. When the Husband discovered this, he took steps to retrieve the antiques from the Malaysian Property on 28 March 2016 with the assistance of some lorries and labourers. The Husband claims that nonetheless, the Wife continued to remove antiques and claimed that she has possession of $232,600 worth of antiques¹ (“Disputed antiques in Singapore”). Of this list, the Wife admitted to having possession of some of the antiques² but claims all other assets have been retrieved by the Husband from the Malaysian Property.

The Husband also set out a second list of assets remaining in Singapore worth $43,000³. This was not disputed by the Wife. (“Undisputed antiques in Singapore”).

The Husband listed gifts he had given to the Wife during the marriage worth a total of $53,000⁴ (“Inter-spousal gifts”).

Lastly, the Husband had a list of antiques worth RM173,000⁵ which he claims he removed from Malaysia. This is undisputed by the Wife (“Undisputed antiques in Malaysia”).

I have excluded the category of Inter-spousal Gifts from the Husband to the Wife from the pool of matrimonial assets as they consist of watches, jewellery and handbags. Although the total worth comes up to S$53,000, in view of the totality of the pool of matrimonial assets, I find that these gifts are de minimis inter-spousal gifts which are to be excluded from the pool of matrimonial assets.

The Wife has not denied the existence of the lists of antiques and value as set out by the Husband. Therefore, I have included the Disputed Antiques in Singapore, Undisputed Antiques...