WPV v WPW

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Josephine Kang
• Judgment Date: 13 September 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGFC 27
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce No 1363 of 2021
• Hearing Date: 05 July 2022,25 August 2022,11 November 2022
• Citation: [2023] SGFC 27
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Yong Quan (SC Wong Law Chambers LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Nicholas Yong and Andrew Wong Wei Kiat (Fortis Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Matrimonial Assets,Division
• Published date: 21 September 2023

District Judge Josephine Kang: Introduction

This judgment is written in respect of an appeal filed by the Plaintiff-Wife against part of my decision given on ancillary matters, namely, the order made on the division of the matrimonial home.

For ease of reference, I shall refer to the Plaintiff-Wife as “Wife” and the Defendant-Husband as “Husband”.

The Wife had filed for divorce on 24 March 2021. The divorce was uncontested and interim judgment was entered by consent on 1 September 2021, with ancillary matters adjourned to be heard in chambers.

At the end of the 1st tranche of the ancillary matters hearing (“AM hearing”), the parties managed to amicably resolve issues relating to the custody, care and control and access of the children. The remaining issues for adjudication pertained to: The division of the matrimonial assets; and The maintenance for the children.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved my decision. On 11 November 2022, I delivered my decision through a Registrar’s Notice. The relevant portion of the order dealing with the division of matrimonial assets is set out below: Division of Matrimonial Assets: Orders in relation to the matrimonial home: The matrimonial home shall be sold on the open market within 6 months from the date of the Final Judgment and the sales proceeds shall be applied as follows: To make full payment of the outstanding housing loan to the bank; To pay the requisite CPF refunds in accordance with applicable CPF laws to the parties’ respective CPF accounts; To pay all costs and expenses incidental and relating to the sale of the property; The balance sales proceeds shall be apportioned as follows: 57.45% shall be given to the Wife; $15,781.36 shall be taken from the Husband’s share of the sales proceeds to be given to the Wife; The balance sum shall be given to the Husband. There shall be joint conduct of the sale; This order is made subject to the Central Provident Fund Act (Cap. 36) (“CPF Act") and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder made in respect of the Member's CPF moneys, property and investments. The Board shall give effect to the terms of this order in accordance with the provisions of the CPF Act and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder; The Registrar or Assistant Registrar of the Family Justice Courts under section 31 of the Family Justice Act (No. 27 of 2014) is empowered to execute, sign, or indorse all necessary documents relating to matters contained in this order on behalf of either party should either party fail to do so within seven (7) days of written request being made to the other party. In such event, the defaulting party shall be liable for all costs and incidentals incurred on an indemnity basis. Orders in relation to the joint accounts: Unless agreed otherwise, the monies in the joint accounts (based on the balance sum of $12,411.68) shall be split between the parties in accordance with the following ratio: 57.45% for the Wife; and 42.55% for the Husband. Each party shall retain all other assets held in their respective names.

The Wife took the position that there was a clerical error in the order made and sought a clarification hearing. In her lawyer’s letter to the Court dated 25th November 2022, she submitted that the order should state that she was entitled to receive 57.45% of the net value of the matrimonial home before refund of CPF. An order that she received 57.45% of the net sales proceeds, after taking CPF refunds into account, would result in an unjust outcome inconsistent with the ANJ approach.

The court did not accede to the Wife’s request for a clarification hearing. On 12 April 2023, the Wife’s lawyers wrote in for a clarification hearing once again. The court responded that it was unlikely to change its decision but acceded to Counsel’s request to see the hearing judge. On 26 May 2023, Counsel for both parties attended before me. After hearing parties, I maintained that I was not inclined to change my decision. If the parties disagreed with any aspects of my decision, the proper avenue would be for them to file an appeal.

Consequently, on 31 May 2023, the Wife appealed against part of my decision i.e. on the division of the matrimonial home, including how CPF refunds are to be treated, and how proceeds of sale are to be divided. I shall limit my judgment to the issues on appeal. The judgment shall deal with each of these issues in turn: The pool of matrimonial assets Valuation of the pool of matrimonial assets Whether the pool needs to be adjusted on account of the Husband’s alleged dissipation of matrimonial funds Division of the matrimonial assets The basis of division The parties’ direct contributions Apportionment of the parties’ respective direct contributions to the jointly-owned assets The parties’ respective direct contributions The parties’ indirect contributions Average Ratio, Weightage, Adjustments Implementation of the division ratio

The parties

The parties were married on 21 September 2000. They have 3 children from the marriage. At the time of the interim judgment, the parties had been married for more than 20 years, which makes this a long marriage.

Valuation of the pool of matrimonial assets

The parties’ respective quantification of the pool of matrimonial assets and the Court’s assessed values are tabulated below. With the exception of the matrimonial home, the parties were able to agree on the valuation of the rest of the items in the pool¹.

S/N	Description	Wife	Husband	Court’s Assessment
	Joint assets
a	Matrimonial Property @ [Westwood Drive] Singapore (“Westwood Drive”)	$1,031,377.01 $1,941,030.002 less outstanding loan of $909,652.993	$890,347.01 $1,800,0004 less outstanding loan of $909,652.99	$1,031,377.01
b	OCBC Easisave Account No. XXXXXXXXXXXX	$9,633.40	$9,633.40	$9,633.40 (agreed)
c	UOB Stash Account No. XXX-XXX-XXX-X	$2,778.28	$2,778.28	$2,778.28 (agreed)
	Total			$1,043,788.69
	Assets in Wife’s sole name
d	OCBC 360 Account No. XXXXXXXXXXXX	$1,357.805	$1,357.80	$1,357.80 (agreed)
e	OCBC Easicredit Account No. XXXXXXXXXXXX	$26.326	$26.32	$26.32 (agreed)
f	DBS Savings Account No. XXXXXXXXXX	$1,303.287 As of 31/08/2021	$1,303.28	$1,303.28 (agreed)
g	DBS Cashline Account No. XXX-XXXXXX-X	$5.448	$5.44	$5.44 (agreed)
h	CPF Accounts	$241,103.179	$241,103.17	$241,103.17 (agreed)
i	Manulife Premier Lady Policy No. XXXXXXXXXX	$16,577.23	$16,577.23	$16,577.23 (agreed)
j	Prudential PruLife (PL5) Policy No. XXXXXXX	$15,657.90	$15,657.90	$15,657.90 (agreed)
k	Prudential PruLink Super Account II (CPFIS-SA) (R1S) Policy No. XXXXXXXX	$8,604.93	$8,604.93	$8,604.93 (agreed)
l	Prudential SuperGrowth Account (CPFIS-SA) (PIS) Policy No. XXXXXXXX	$9,260.69	$9,260.69	$9,260.69 (agreed)
	Sub-Total	$293,896.76	$293,896.76	$293,896.76 (agreed)
	Assets in Husband’s Sole Name
m	Prudential Policy No. XXXXXXXX	$20,699.0210	$20,699.02	$20,699.02 (agreed)
n	ST Engineering x750	$2,83511	$2,835	$2,835 (agreed)
o	DBS Bank Account No. XXX-X-XXXXXX	$1,450.6312	$1,450.63	$1,450.63 (agreed)
r	Husband’s CPF Account	$220,157.97	$220,157.97	$220,157.97 (agreed)
	Sub-Total	$245,142.62	$245,142.62	$245,142.62 (agreed)
	Total			$1,582,828.07

Note (1): At the hearing, both parties agreed to exclude their respective vehicles from the pool of matrimonial assets. Note (2): Husband agreed that his liabilities were personal and hence, were excluded from computation. Assessment of the Matrimonial Home’s value

In her first affidavit of Assets and Means, the Wife had initially quantified the nett value of the property at $2,992,947.01 (being $3,902,600 less $909,652.99). This was derived by multiplying $1,027 PSF¹³ against the total floor area of the property, which was 3,800 sqft. In his affidavit, the Husband disagreed with the Wife’s valuation methodology and stated that it was common knowledge that the sale price of landed properties was based on land area and not floor area¹⁴.

Subsequently, in her written submissions, the Wife revised her valuation to $1,941,030¹⁵. This was derived by applying $1,027 PSF against the land area of the property, which was 1,890 sqft. While she did not specifically say so, the Wife’s revised method of valuation would effectively be consistent with the Husband’s proposed method of valuation as stated on his affidavit.

Curiously, despite what he had earlier stated on affidavit, the Husband did not provide his quantification on that basis. He simply pegged the value of the house at $1.8 million without any further explanation. When queried, the Husband’s Counsel replied that the figure was based on ‘similar property sales in the vicinity’. No documents were provided in support of the same.

As the Husband had no objective evidence to support his valuation, I preferred the Wife’s quantification over his. In any event, since the Wife had effectively adopted his earlier valuation methodology, he should have no basis to object to the Wife’s current valuation. I accordingly assessed the matrimonial home’s nett value as $1,031,377.01 (being $1,941,030.00 less outstanding loan of $909,652.99).

This accordingly brings the size of the total matrimonial pool to $1,582,828.07. Next, I considered whether the pool should be adjusted to take into account the Wife’s arguments on the Husband’s alleged dissipation.

...