View Article - Singapore Academy of Law

15 SAcLJ Matrimonial Assets and the 3 rd Party 231
2002) against his three siblings. He sought a declaration from the court
that a certain property (the Ringwood bungalow) belonged to the estate
of his late mother and that the legal owners (his siblings and himself)
only held the property on trust for the mother’s estate. If the property
belonged to the mother’s estate, the husband’s share would be 50%
under the will of the mother. If the property belonged to the legal
owners, the husband would have a one third share in the property. The
court’s decision on whether the property belonged to the mother’s estate
would therefore affect the pool of matrimonial assets available for
distribution. The High Court suit was still pending at the time of the
ancillary matters hearing in the Family Court. The Family Court
nonetheless proceeded to hear the ancillary matters, and to make an
“alternative order”. The wife was given a 15% share of the husband’s
one third share of the Ringwood bungalow, on the basis that the property
belonged to the legal owners. However, the Family Court went on to
order that in the event that the High Court found that the Ringwood
bungalow belonged to the estate of the husband’s mother (thus entitling
the husband to 50% of the property), the husband was to pay the wife
15% of his additional 16.66% 26 share in the property.
2.3.3 Clearly not a matrimonial asset
24 The court may decide that the asset or part of the asset claimed
by the 3 rd party is clearly not a matrimonial asset, without having to
decide the 3 rd party’s share of that asset. For example, in the case of Goh
Heok Hoon (m.w.) v Ang Kok Keng, 27 the husband claimed that certain
monies in a bank account were held by him on trust for his mother. The
wife claimed that these monies belonged to the husband. She did not
claim that they were a gift from the husband’s mother to her, or to both
her and her husband. After examining the evidence, the Family Court
stated that it was not clear whether the monies were held by the husband
on trust for his mother, or whether the said monies were a gift from his
mother to him, but held that in any event, whether a trust or a gift, they
were not a matrimonial asset, and would not be taken into account in the
division of matrimonial assets. (The appeal by the husband against the
orders on division of matrimonial assets was dismissed.)
25 It is important, therefore, to analyse the claims being made by
each of the parties, in order to ascertain whether the court must make a
decision regarding the 3 rd party’s share in the matrimonial asset before
26
27
Which is roughly 50% less 33.33% (the one third share).
unreported, Divorce Petition No. 602801 of 2001