UYZ v UZA

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chia Wee Kiat
• Judgment Date: 02 August 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGFC 84
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 19 June 2019
• Docket Number: FC/D 1422/2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Soo Chih and Charmaine Chan (Ho Wong Law Practice LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Simon Wong Kwek Seong (LawHub LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family law,Division of Matrimonial Assets,Maintenance
• Published date: 17 August 2019

District Judge Chia Wee Kiat: Introduction

In ANJ v ANK [2015] SGCA 34 (“ANJ”), the Court of Appeal (“CA”) set out a structured approach towards the division of matrimonial assets under s 112 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) (“WC”). The structured approach involves three broad steps by which the ratio of the parties’ direct contributions is first ascertained, relative to that of the other party. This is followed by ascribing a second ratio of the parties’ indirect contributions, relative to that of the other party and finally deriving the parties’ overall contributions relative to each other by taking an average of the two ratios (see Twiss, Christopher James Hans v Twiss, Yvonne Prendergast [2015] SGCA 52 at [17]). In TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15 (“TNL”), the CA had the occasion to revisit ANJ. In particular, the CA noted (at [41], [43] and [45]) and that while the ANJ approach works well in “Dual-Income Marriages”, the approach should not be applied to “Single-Income Marriages” as the approach “tends to unduly favour the working spouse over the non-working spouse”. The CA went on further to observe (at [47]) that in long Single-Income Marriages, the courts tend towards an equal division of the matrimonial assets and the CA was “in general agreement with this approach”.

The present case involves a husband who works as a Funeral Director and a wife who was a homemaker throughout their marriage. Unfortunately, the marriage did not survive the test of time. After 20 years, the parties ended their marriage leaving the matrimonial assets to be divided and the question of maintenance for the wife to be decided. These ancillary matters came up for hearing before me on 19 June 2019.

In an unusual twist, the wife (the non-working spouse) has asked the court to apply the ANJ approach towards the division of the matrimonial assets. The husband (the working spouse), on the other hand, has urged the court to apply the TNL approach which favours equal division in long Single-Income Marriages. Why did the parties adopt positions that seem to be at odd with the observation in TNL (at [43]) that the ANJ approach “tends to unduly favour the working spouse over the non-working spouse”? At the core of this ancillary hearing lies the question of whether there are exceptions to TNL such that the ANJ approach may still be applicable notwithstanding that the marriage is one that consists of a working spouse and a non-working spouse.

Background

The parties were married on 19 January 1998. They were both divorcees at the time of the marriage and have no children arising out of this marriage. The wife was an insurance agent at the time of marriage and had stopped working at the husband’s request.¹ The husband was then employed by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). After leaving the SAF, he joined a multi-level marketing company for about a year before entering the funeral services line.² The husband is 66 years old this year and the wife 61 years old.³

On 26 December 2017, the husband was admitted to a local hospital after he experienced chest and back pain.⁴ During a visit to the hospital, the wife discovered to her immense surprise and shock that the husband had been transferred from his Class B1 ward to a Class A ward at the direction of a woman [T] who claimed to be his wife. When she entered the room at the new ward, the wife was shocked by the husband’s hostility and change of attitude.⁵

On 14 January 2018, the wife received a text message from the husband asking her to prepare divorce papers and he was prepared to give her everything.⁶ The husband did not respond to the wife’s attempts to contact him in respect of the text message.⁷ The wife contacted the hospital on 16 January 2018 to find out the status of the husband’s condition but was informed by the hospital that the husband was discharged on 15 January 2018.⁸

The husband commenced divorce proceedings on 29 March 2018⁹ based on the alleged fact that the parties had lived apart for a continuous period of a least 4 years since mid-2009.¹⁰ The wife disputed the fact of separation.¹¹

At the contested divorce hearing on 7 November 2018, the parties agreed for the husband to withdraw his claim and for the divorce to be granted on an uncontested basis on the wife’s counterclaim. The counterclaim reveals that the husband had, since being taken away from the hospital by T, admitted to having an extra-marital affair with T. The husband had kept the affair hidden from the wife for over 10 years. The husband had been paying for T’s expenses whilst the wife had been taking care of his needs and health all these years. Despite the wife’s best attempts and efforts to save the marriage, the husband had refused any possibility of a reconciliation. An Interim Judgment (“IJ”) was accordingly granted on the counterclaim on an uncontested basis based on the husband’s unreasonable behaviour. At the time IJ was granted, the parties were married for about 21 years.¹²

As there are no children to the marriage, the issues for determination at the ancillary hearing are mainly: The division of matrimonial assets; and Maintenance for the wife.

Apart from the affidavits for the ancillary hearing, the parties also made reference to the Affidavits of Evidence-in-Chief (AEICs) filed for the divorce hearing and the Answers to Interrogatories.¹³

The husband contends that the present case involves a Single-Income Marriage stretching 20 years. He was the sole income earner whilst the wife played the role of homemaker. The husband submits that the marriage falls squarely within TNL’s categorisation of long Single-Income Marriages and therefore an equal division of the matrimonial assets would be fair and equitable.¹⁴

The wife contends that whilst she was primarily the homemaker and the husband was the main breadwinner, she had rental income from her shop unit at Grandlink Square. In addition, she had brought substantial assets into the marriage. As such, the wife submits that it would be just and equitable to adopt the ANJ approach.¹⁵

After hearing the parties’ submission on 19 June 2019, I adjourned the matter to give it further consideration and for a decision to be subsequently given. I note that the positions articulated by the parties at the hearing varied in some aspects from their written submissions. Whilst it is not uncommon for parties to vary or change their positions in the course of family proceedings, my review of the parties’ oral submissions, written submissions and their affidavits presented a number of computational and other issues which were difficult to reconcile without clarifications. Accordingly, I requested for counsel’s assistance to provide the court with a Joint Summary of their updated positions. The Joint Summary was duly filed on 17 July 2019 and I thank counsel for their assistance. Counsel have also confirmed that they have no objection for the decision of the court to be rendered in writing.

In these written grounds, I shall first consider the division of matrimonial assets and then the question of maintenance for the wife.

Pool of Matrimonial Assets Undisputed assets

According to the Joint Summary, the parties agree on the following matrimonial assets and their values: Joint Assets

	Asset	Agreed Value ($)
1	Matrimonial Flat	377,000
2	OCBC Account	1053.07
3	POSB A/C 081-	1,472.57
	Subtotal	379,525.64

Wife’s Assets

	Asset	Agreed Value ($)
1	Shop unit	280,000
2	ICBC Account	3,171
3	NTUC Insurance	26,000
4	Great Eastern Life Insurance 145-	29,792.23
5	Great Eastern Life Insurance 114-	31,646.18
6	Great Eastern Life Insurance 001-	33,127.72
	Subtotal	403,737.13

Husband’s Assets

	Asset	Agreed Value ($)
1	Motor Vehicle	2,996
2	POSB Account No. 089-	480.43
3	AB Pte Ltd Shares	16,800
4	Singtel Shares	4,202
5	Gold Agri-Res Shares	1,560
6	CPF Accounts	71,902.99
	Subtotal	97,941.42

Disputed assets

According to the Joint Summary, the following assets are disputed: Husband’s Assets

	Asset	Agreed Value ($)
1	POSB Account No. 124-	7,676.06

Wife’s Assets

	Asset	Husband’s valuation ($)	Wife’s valuation ($)
1	POSB Account No. 043-	51,527.32	3,264.82
2	CDP Shares	153,843.13	N.A.
Total	205,370.45	3,264.82

POSB Account No. 124-

The husband had in his affidavit stated that POSB Account No. 124- was in his sole name.¹⁶ However, at the ancillary hearing, counsel for the wife tendered a copy of a bank book which shows that POSB Account No. 124- is in the joint names of the husband and the wife. The husband did not object to the admission of the copy of the bank book.

In the Joint Summary, the wife states that the account was opened by the wife before the parties were married and that the monies were provided for wholly by her. The wife states further that the husband was added in as a beneficiary but is only entitled to the monies upon the wife’s death. The wife contends that the said account being opened before the marriage and not being the co-operative partnership of efforts should be excluded.

In the Joint Summary, the Husband asserts that since the wife has averred to have named the husband as the beneficiary of this account, the sums should be taken as a gift by the wife to the husband. The husband states that the bank account would constitute a matrimonial asset liable to division.

I note that there is nothing in the wife’s affidavits that alluded to when the account was opened, when the husband’s name was added in and when the monies were...