Teo Siew Ngoh v Ng Hock Huat

Lai Siu Chiu J:

[1] This was a hearing to determine ancillary matters between Teo Siew Ngoh (“the Wife”) and Ng Hock Huat (“the Husband”) subsequent to an interim judgment of divorce granted on 17 October 2011 to the Wife. After hearing counsel for both parties, I made the following orders:

(a) The property at 19 Chuan Walk, Singapore 558425 (“the matrimonial property”) was to be sold within 180 days of 19 February 2013 at or above valuation to be determined by the average of two valuations carried out by reputable valuers such as Knight Frank, CBRE or Jones Lang La Salle and, less commission, sale, legal and incidental expenses, the net sale proceeds were to be apportioned 35% and 65% respectively in favour of the Wife and the Husband. Each party would refund from its own share of the sale proceeds all its CPF withdrawals or contributions (inclusive of interest) utilised in the purchase;

(b) The Husband was to pay to the Wife in lieu of periodic maintenance a lump sum of $180,000 which was to be deducted from the Husband’s share of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial property;

(c) In addition, the Husband was to pay to the Wife $58,500 from his other assets, which sum was also to be deducted from the Husband’s share of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial property; and

(d) Costs for the entire proceedings were awarded to the Wife fixed at $4,000 excluding disbursements on a reimbursement basis.

[3] The parties were married on 16 July 1981. They have one son and one daughter who are presently 28 and 26 years of age respectively and working. On 17 October 2011, interim judgment dissolving the marriage was granted to the Wife on the basis of the Husband’s unreasonable behaviour.

[4] The Wife works as a part-time tutor at a child care centre while the Husband works as a construction project manager earning a substantial salary. Before the Husband moved out of the matrimonial home in August 2010 (apparently to live with another woman), he gave the Wife a monthly allowance of $2,300 (out of which $400 was paid to the Husband’s parents). After the Husband moved out, the Wife received $1,500 per month until December 2011, after which the Husband stopped paying her any allowance altogether.

[5] The Wife disclosed the following assets in her affidavit of means:

[6] The Wife’s total assets (excluding the matrimonial property) amounted to $94,155.54. The Wife did not declare the surrender value of her insurance policies (see items 2 to 10 above) although this information would be well within her power to obtain. The total sum insured by those policies was $280,500.

[7] The Husband disclosed the following assets in his affidavit of means:

[8] The Husband’s total assets (excluding the matrimonial property) amounted to S$550,785.47 and NZ$3,476.82. I accepted the Husband’s submission that the total assets amounted to S$554,297.00

[9] The court is empowered by s 112(1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the Charter”) to make a division of matrimonial assets in such proportions as it deems just and equitable. In making such a division, the court is duty bound to consider all the circumstances of the case and the following factors listed in s 112(2) of the Charter:

[10] It is trite law that a broad brush approach should be adopted to achieve a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets (Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appeal [2011] 2 SLR 1157 at [78] (“Yeo Chong Lin”); NK v NL [2007] 3 SLR(R) 743 (“NK v NL”) at [26]). This approach takes into account both the financial and non-financial contributions of the parties but does not meticulously investigate every minute sum and/or expense each party has paid or incurred (Yeo Chong Lin at [78]; NK v NL at [26]).

[11] The Wife submitted that the matrimonial property should be sold on the open market and that 65% of the sale proceeds should be awarded to her. At the hearing, counsel for the Wife (Helen Chia) clarified when queried by this court that the 65% share was derived by taking the sum of:

(a) 4.3% for her direct financial contribution of $40,000 towards the purchase price of the matrimonial property;

(b) 30% for her indirect financial and non-financial contributions during the marriage; and

(c) 30.7% in lieu of maintenance.

[12] Leaving aside for the moment the Wife’s lump sum maintenance claim of 30.7%, the Wife was essentially claiming a 34.3% share of the matrimonial property.

[13] As for the other assets, the Wife contended that she was entitled to 35% of the Husband’s assets apart from the matrimonial property i.e. 35% of $554,297 (see [8] above) on the basis of their 30 year marriage.

[14] The Husband argued that he was entitled to 70% of all the matrimonial assets while the Wife was entitled to 30% thereof because she had made very little financial contributions during the marriage.

[15] It was undisputed between the parties that the Wife had contributed approximately 4% of the purchase price (viz $40,000) while the Husband had contributed the rest. Both parties asserted that they had made extensive contributions towards the maintenance and upkeep of the matrimonial property. In my judgment, the Husband had made substantially all of the financial contributions towards the matrimonial property because the Wife had stopped working to look after the children in 1984.

[16] In terms of non-financial contributions, it was undisputed that the Wife had performed household chores and looked after the two children during the long marriage. The Husband played a subsidiary role by ferrying the children to and from school and other activities, attending to minor household chores at home and helping the children in their homework.

[17] Adopting a broad brush approach, I was of the view that it was just and equitable that the Wife be awarded 35% share in the matrimonial property, thereby giving her an extra 31% share over and above her direct financial contribution of 4%.

[18] Apart from the matrimonial property, the Wife and Husband had other assets amounting to $94,155.54 and $554,297 respectively. However, the Wife’s figure of $94,155.54 was an understatement because it did not include the values of her various insurance policies. I therefore accepted the Husband’s submission that the Wife’s other assets amounted to $387,154 which meant that his other assets exceeded hers by $167,143 ($554,297–$387,154). The Wife’s higher asset sum was not challenged by the Wife at the hearing.

[19] Having regard to the length of the marriage and the Wife’s contributions in looking after the house and the children which allowed the Husband to concentrate on and advance his career, I was of the view that like the matrimonial property, it was just and equitable to award the Wife 35% of the Husband’s surplus assets of $167,143 viz. $58,500.

[20] Section 113 of the Charter empowers the court to make an order for maintenance. In granting such an order, the court has to consider all the circumstances of the case, including the factors set out in s 114(1) of the Charter:

[21] The power to order maintenance is exercised in a manner supplementary to the power to divide matrimonial assets, such that the court takes account of each party’s share of the assets; the order for maintenance plays a complementary role to the order for assets (BG v BF [2007] 3 SLR(R) 233 at [75]). The aim is to even out any financial inequalities between the spouses, taking into account any economic prejudice suffered by the wife during marriage (Tan Sue-Ann Melissa v Lim Siang Bok Dennis [2004] 3 SLR(R) 376 at [27]). The court should also endeavour to place the parties in the financial position in which they would have been had the marriage not broken down insofar as it is practicable and just to do so (s 114(2) of the Charter).

[22] The Wife submitted that she should be awarded a lump sum of $300,000 ($2,000 monthly for 12.5 years) in lieu of periodic maintenance. Her claim was based on the $2,300 monthly allowance given to her before the Husband moved out. The Wife further contended that a lump sum would allow her to have a clean break with the Husband.

[23] The Husband submitted that he should only pay her a monthly maintenance of $500 because the Wife works part-time and can rely on the financial support of their working children who are both graduates. In addition, the Husband contended that he would be unable to pay a lump sum in lieu of monthly maintenance because he had to repay a substantial housing loan of $664,000 on his property at 224 Westwood Avenue (see [7] above).

[24] In my view, a lump sum maintenance award of $180,000 ($1,000 per month for 15 years) would be a fair and equitable amount in the circumstances. Since both children are working and living with the Wife, a substantial part of her financial needs could reasonably be met by the children. Further, the Wife would no longer need to give a monthly sum of $400 to the Husband’s parents. In arriving at my decision, I also took into account the Wife’s age (54 years) and the low likelihood of her remarrying, the Husband’s age (55 years) and his desire to retire, the current life expectancy of women (84.1 years as observed in Chan Yuen Boey v Sia Hee Soon [2012] 3 SLR 402 at [75]) and the fact that the Husband has a woman in his life with whom he may start another family.