Yeo Cheng Kwee v Chang Liang Hiang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Suzanne Chin
• Judgment Date: 05 November 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 406
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Divorce Court Petition No.5897 of 2012
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 24 November 2014
• Hearing Date: 04 September 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Ang Woon Kherk (M/s Lim Swee Tee & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Alan Johns (M/s Alain A Johns Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Catchwords: Ancillary matters Division of property Maintenance for Wife Lump sum maintenance Child maintenance
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 406

District Judge Suzanne Chin: Background Introduction

This was the Plaintiff husband’s (“Husband”) appeal against certain aspects of the ancillary orders made on 4 September 2014. The Husband is appealing against the orders made in relation to the issues of maintenance for the Wife and child and division of matrimonial assets.

Background

The parties were married on 29 December 1988 and have three children. At the time of the hearing, the 2 older children were already adults while the youngest was 19 years old. It was a long marriage of 25 years.

The Husband was on 29 June 2011 arrested for drug consumption and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment [Note 1]. He returned to the matrimonial flat at Block 641 Rowell Road, #19-52, Singapore 200641 (“Matrimonial Flat”) for a period of time after he was released from prison and subsequently left the matrimonial home in March 2012.

The Husband filed for divorce on 6 December 2012 on the basis of the parties having lived apart for a continuous period of at least four years. The Husband claimed that he had been separated from the Defendant wife (“Wife”) since August 2005. The Wife denied the allegation of separation and contested this with a Defence and Counterclaim alleging that the marriage had broken down on the basis of the Husband’s adultery and unreasonable behaviour. Eventually, the Husband admitted that the alleged separation was in fact untrue and consented to the divorce being granted on his unreasonable behaviour. An Interim Judgment dissolving the marriage was granted on 11 December 2013 and the ancillary matters were adjourned to be heard in chambers.

The Ancillary Orders

The contested ancillary issues were: Maintenance for the wife and child; and Division of the matrimonial flat.

The ancillary matters came for hearing before me on 4 September 2013 and I made the following orders: Custody, care and control and access By consent, the Plaintiff and Defendant shall have joint custody of Yeo Zhi Xiang, Kenny with care and control to the Defendant and reasonable access to the Plaintiff. Maintenance and division of matrimonial assets In full and final settlement of the issues of maintenance of the Defendant and maintenance of Yeo Zhi Xiang, Kenny and division of all matrimonial assets, the Plaintiff’s share, interest and title in the matrimonial flat at Block 641 Rowell Road #19-52, Singapore 200641 (“matrimonial flat”) be transferred to the Defendant with no cash consideration and no refund of monies to the Plaintiff’s CPF Account. Each party is to retain his or her assets that are in their respective sole names without further division. In the event that either party fails to execute any or all documents in the transfer of the matrimonial flat within seven (7) days of being given notice to do so, the Registrar of the State Courts shall be empowered to sign all necessary documents for the said transfer of the property. Liberty to apply. No order as to costs.

Notice of Appeal

The Husband filed an appeal on 10 September 2014 against the order that the matrimonial flat be transferred to the Defendant for no cash consideration and no refund of monies to the Husband’s CPF Account.

I now set forth the reasons for my decision.

Division of Matrimonial Assets and Maintenance

The matrimonial flat was in the joint names of both parties. Parties had purchased this in 1993 for approximately $104,000.00. It was undisputed by the parties that the estimated value of the matrimonial flat was $600,000.00.

The Wife’s position Matrimonial Assets

The Wife stated that the monthly repayment for the housing loan was $412.00 and the outstanding housing loan as at March 2014 was approximately $4,000.00. She claimed direct contributions to the matrimonial flat of $154,835.66 in contrast to the Husband’s direct contribution of $84,922.80. Based solely on the CPF contributions of each of the parties, this would result in the parties direct financial contributions towards the matrimonial flat as 65% for the Wife and 35% for the Husband. The Wife also referred to the Husband’s claim that he had made the cash contributions for the mortgage payments and contended that all the cash payments were made by her[Note 2]. She explained that the monthly mortgage payments were at the time deducted from the Husband’s bank account and to ensure that the monthly mortgage payments continued, she deposited the relevant amounts into his bank account each month. She submitted that this was supported by the fact that the cash payments continued to be made to HDB even when the Husband was incarcerated (from 29 June 2011 to 20 January 2012) [Note 3]. Notwithstanding, she submitted that since these cash payments were in dispute, they should be disregarded and the parties contribution pegged according to their CPF contributions.

On her indirect contributions to the marriage, the Wife maintained that she singlehandedly raised and looked after the 3 children and maintained the household without any assistance from the Husband [Note 4]. She also drew the court’s attention to the fact that the Husband had admitted to not making any indirect financial or non-financial contributions towards the family during the course of the marriage [Note 5].

The Wife also referred to assets held in the Husband’s name, specifically to an insurance policy with Great Eastern Life (Policy No: 0013137177) which had a surrender value of $112,506.00. Taking this into account, her position was that the total assets in the Husband’s name amounted to $147,224.05 and the assets in her name totalled a sum of $55,035.97.

Maintenance

The Wife worked as a waitress at the Four Seasons Hotel Singapore. She was paid an hourly rate of $8.50 per hour with an average take home of $2,400.00 per month [Note 6].

The Wife recounted the history of legal proceedings between the parties during the course of the divorce proceedings: Sometime in 2013, the Wife had filed an application for interim maintenance under MSS 551 of 2013 and after the trial in August and October 2013, the Husband was ordered to pay maintenance in the sum of $500.00 per month for the Wife and 2 minor children [Note 7]. The Husband defaulted in making the maintenance payments as ordered by the court and as a consequence, the Wife took up enforcement proceedings under MSS 6059 of 2013. After mediation, the parties reached agreement and a consent order was recorded on 12 March 2014 whereby the Husband agreed to pay the arrears in monthly instalments of $50.00 per month on top of the monthly maintenance payments of $500.00 The Husband however continued to refuse to pay any maintenance (save for a sum of $130.00) over a period of 11 months. As a consequence of refusing to make any reasonable maintenance payments, the Husband was sentenced to 3 days’ imprisonment in each of 10 April 2014, 5 May 2014 and 16 May 2014. Notwithstanding, he continued to refuse to make any reasonable maintenance payments. The Husband applied for a variation of interim maintenance on 18 March 2014 under MSS 1299 of 2014 but failed to attend the hearing. His application was accordingly struck out. He also applied for a personal protection order for himself against the Wife under SS 969 of 2014 claiming that the Wife had been harassing him [Note 8]. Again this was struck-out when he did not attend the hearing. The Husband thereafter made no attempt to reinstate either of these matters

The Wife highlighted the fact that the Husband owed her an amount of $5,370.00 in maintenance arrears. She also pointed out that the court had awarded to her under MSS 551/2013 interim monthly maintenance of $300.00 for herself and $100.00 for Kenny (a further $100.00 had been awarded for the other child Wilson who was at the time of the hearing for maintenance still a minor).

The Wife stated that for the purposes of MSS551/2013, the Husband had in his affidavit of 12 June 2013, stated that as a taxi driver, his monthly income was $1,200.00. She disputed this and claimed that his salary was far higher. She also pointed out that while he had confirmed in oral evidence during the trial of MSS 551/2013 on 4 October 2014, that he was unemployed as at August 2013, he had stated in his first ancillary affidavit of 6 February 2014 that he was employed by Yuen Furniture Design as a driver with effect from 1 August...