District Judge Yarni Loi:
Introduction
This case involves a dispute between siblings over the will that an unmarried sibling had left behind when she passed away. The will was prepared and executed shortly after she had been diagnosed with Stage 4 breast cancer and she passed away about a month after she executed the will. The will was favourable to her youngest brother and his wife (the plaintiffs). Some of her other siblings now challenge the will.
At trial, it emerged that in the year leading up to the execution of the will, the siblings in the family had been embroiled in an unpleasant family dispute involving disagreements over the care of their ailing mother which spilled over into an exchange of lawyer’s letters. One of the elder siblings had issued a legal letter of demand to the late sister, the youngest brother and some other siblings, to request that they contribute financially towards Mother’s care. Family ties became strained and siblings estranged. Suffice to say, after this incident, their late sister did not speak to some of her siblings, although she remained close to her youngest brother and a younger sister. When she was diagnosed with cancer, she only informed the youngest brother and younger sister. They helped to look after her. She made them promise not to inform mother and the other siblings of her illness. They also did not inform mother and the other siblings of her death, which may not have been the kindest or the wisest decision. As things unfolded, mother and the other siblings came to know about her death through a third party about a month later. They were shocked and devastated. Mother would never see her daughter again and the siblings would never see their sister again. They did not have the chance to visit her one last time, to talk and perhaps tie up loose ends, to pay their last respects. Faced with a void of information, they scrambled to piece together what had happened by speaking to third parties. With what little information they managed to obtain and perspectives they strongly held, they concluded that their late sister, freshly diagnosed with Stage 4 breast cancer, could not have been in her right mind when she executed the will.
I can hardly imagine the depth of the shock, anguish and grief that mother and these other siblings must have felt when they heard news of their late sister’s death. However, I find that the allegations they have raised to challenge her will are based largely on hearsay, opinion and suspicion. I am satisfied, after carefully considering all the evidence adduced at trial, that their late sister had the mental capacity to execute the will, knew of and approved the will, and executed the will of her own volition.
Background facts
The Testatrix, a Muslim, was 53 years old when she passed away from metastatic breast cancer on 26 January 2017. She had divorced her ex-husband, Mhd Y, on 31 August 2002 and they had no children. There is some evidence that he continued to live in her HDB flat in Serangoon, which is in her sole name (Serangoon Flat). She used to work as a restaurant supervisor.
Prior to her death, the Testatrix had executed a will on 27 December 2016 (2016 Will) bequeathing 1/3rd of her estate to the 2nd Plaintiff, the wife of her youngest brother, the 1st Plaintiff. The remaining 2/3rds would be distributed amongst her Mother and seven siblings in accordance with Muslim inheritance laws. Her main asset was her Serangoon Flat. Several siblings now challenge the 2016 Will.
Based on the Muslim Inheritance Certificate dated 9 February 2017 obtained from the Syariah Court, the distribution of the estate of the Testatrix under Muslim law would be in the following proportions: (a) Mother– 12 shares (b) 5 Brothers– 10 shares each = 50 shares (c) 2 Sisters– 5 shares each = 10 shares. Total = 72 shares.
Family members and witnesses at trial
The siblings in the family, roughly in order of seniority, are: The 4th Defendant. He is the eldest sibling. He does not appear to have been very close to the other siblings, but as he said, his door is always open for them, if they have problems. The 2nd Defendant. He did not enter an appearance to defend the suit. His whereabouts appear to be unknown to the family. The 6th Defendant. She is the eldest daughter. She is based in the United States (States) where she has been living for the past approximately 40 years. She is married and works as an Office Manager. She returns to Singapore for about 18 days every year during the Hari Raya festival period, when she reunites with the family at Mother’s place. She appears to have been the sibling who provided the greatest financial support to the family and their parents over the years. The 3rd Defendant. He did not enter an appearance to defend the suit. It is understood that he does not want to be involved in the Suit. The 5th Defendant. He is a hawker. He is about 2 years older than the Testatrix. The Testatrix. The 7th Defendant. She is based in the States where she is a housewife. She was very close to the Testatrix and they would speak to each other on the phone weekly. Although named as the 7th Defendant, she filed a draft consent order supporting the Plaintiffs’ claim. The 1st Plaintiff. He is an Engineer. He is the youngest son and the most highly educated of all the siblings. His wife, the 2nd Plaintiff, is a housewife. The elder siblings have alleged that the Plaintiffs were not close to Mother and did not visit her regularly. The 6th Defendant suspects that the Plaintiffs may hold a grudge because Mother did not agree to help look after one of their sons many years ago.
The Plaintiffs have started this action, asking that the court uphold the 2016 Will. Of the Defendants named in the action, only three of the Testatrix’s elder siblings, the 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants (collectively, Disputants), filed a Defence and Counterclaim to the Suit and gave evidence at trial. Their contention is that the 2016 Will is invalid and the entire estate should be distributed in accordance with Muslim inheritance laws. No other witnesses were called on behalf of the Disputants. Mother, named as the 1st Defendant, filed a Notice of Action to act in person but did not file a Defence and Counterclaim, nor did she give evidence at trial. The younger sister, the 7th Defendant, filed a draft Consent Order supporting the Plaintiffs’ claims and testified on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The other witnesses who testified on behalf of the Plaintiffs were Mr [N] (Mr N), the lawyer who had drafted and witnessed the execution of the 2016 Will, as well as Dr [S] (Dr [S]), Senior Consultant, Department of Medical Oncology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) who had seen the Testatrix in January 2017 before she passed away.
Background - major falling out amongst siblings regarding Mother’s care in TTSH (“hospital incident”)
Sometime in early January 2016, Mother, who was already suffering from various ailments such as diabetes, heart disease and rheumatism, was hospitalised in TTSH after she suffered a stroke. The hospital apparently advised that she did not have long to live and should remain in hospital for a while. Mother however was in pain and in tears, and wanted to go home. The siblings who were initially present in the hospital when Mother was admitted had a huge disagreement over whether or not Mother should be discharged. The disagreement was particularly acrimonious and sharp between two brothers, the 1st Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant. The 1st Plaintiff felt that Mother should continue to stay in hospital, whilst the 3rd Defendant was in favour of bringing Mother home. The two brothers quarrelled and almost came to physical blows in TTSH. The situation was very tense. The other siblings who were present at the time included the Testatrix and the 5th Defendant.
The 5th Defendant and the Testatrix called their eldest sibling (the 4th Defendant) and their eldest sister (the 6th Defendant) to inform them about their Mother’s situation in hospital. The 6th Defendant gave evidence that she made arrangements to fly back to Singapore immediately. When she arrived in Singapore on 13 January 2016, she went straight to hospital where she observed that Mother was in a very weak condition, pleading and crying to go home. Taking full control of the situation, she made arrangements for Mother to be discharged from hospital on 14 January 2016, even though some other siblings did not agree to this.
Thereafter, the 6th Defendant stayed on in Singapore for about one month to help to take care of Mother. She made sure arrangements were put in place to help Mother recuperate from her stroke, including engaging helpers and purchasing the necessary equipment to support Mother’s rehabilitation at home. She returned to the States after ensuring that Mother was settled and comfortable. According to the 6th Defendant, during this period, some of the siblings would come and visit Mother, including the 3rd and 4th Defendants. However, some of the siblings did not visit Mother. The latter camp included the Plaintiffs as well as the Testatrix. Prior to this incident, the Testatrix used to visit Mother very regularly. The 7th Defendant, who is based in the States, appears not to have been in Singapore during this period.
The 6th Defendant sends lawyer’s letter of demand to siblings
The 6th Defendant testified that after Mother’s discharge, she tried to call some of her siblings, including the 1st Plaintiff, the Testatrix and the 7th Defendant, to discuss how they could help Mother, but they did not return her calls. According to the 6th Defendant, she had borne the bulk of the financial responsibility for looking after their parents in the past. She felt that it was time her siblings shared some of the financial responsibility.
Sometime in February 2016, she proceeded to instruct a law firm to send a letter of demand to some of...
