A man forced his estranged wife to sign a divorce agreement that would grant him 100 per cent ownership of their Housing Board flat without even paying a cent for it.
He did so barely two months before the divorce hearing when he showed up at her workplace, “exhibited violent tendencies and threatened her to sign it after damaging her office equipment”.
The general manager of a manufacturing company probably thought that doing so would enable him to walk away from the failed marriage with the couple’s $550,000 flat, but he did not count on his prized agreement being thrown out by the courts.
The Family Justice Court did not give any weight to the agreement because it found that the wife, who works as an office administrator, did not obtain any legal advice before signing it.
As she had signed the document under pressure, with the terms blatantly unfair to her, the court eventually ruled that she would still be entitled to 41 per cent of the flat, based on her contribution to the marriage.
Unhappy with the ruling, the man filed an appeal and argued that the court should respect the contractual freedom between two adults and divide their assets according to the divorce agreement.
But then High Court Judge Choo Han Teck noted that it is settled law that the court holds the ultimate power to determine the division of matrimonial assets in a manner that is just and equitable.
So any agreement that is signed between divorcing couples – whether prenuptial or postnuptial – cannot be automatically enforced unless the courts find there are some merits to their agreements, based on the facts and circumstances of the cases.
But in this case, Justice Choo saw no reason to overrule the lower court’s finding that the “one-sided agreement” was signed by the wife without obtaining legal advice and that it ought not to be given any weight at all.
Many Western family TV dramas often touch on prenuptial agreements which wealthy people require those marrying into their families to sign to prevent any claims on their assets.
But such agreements cannot be automatically enforced in Singapore because the courts here have the last say to ensure that both spouses are treated fairly.
That said, divorcing couples can sign a mutually agreed settlement on their assets and such an agreement is likely to be upheld if the terms lean towards equal or fair sharing of the matrimonial assets.
Here are two other observations that the court made in the case on how matrimonial assets should be dealt with.
When it comes to real estate valuation, owners would want to see a higher price being assessed for their homes so that they can convince potential buyers to pay more.
But in this case, the man wanted to knock down the value of his flat by about 20 per cent, presumably because a lower value would mean that he would pay his former wife less during their split.
He asked the court to accept his valuation of $455,000, based on the sale of a similar flat in their block in April 2022. His former wife’s valuation was much higher, at $550,000, which was based on the sale of a similar flat in a neighbouring block in January 2023.
The Family Court had accepted the wife’s valuation because the sale of that flat was more recent, taking place about a month before the couple’s hearing.
But the husband argued that the flat in the neighbouring block could fetch a higher price because it had a park view and was away from the main road. He claimed that his unit would not be able to fetch a similar price because it faced a congested side road and utility bin area.
The wife countered that the neighbouring block was nearer to the expressway, which meant that there was more noise from traffic. She added that the value of their flat would have increased because their block was nearer to an upcoming MRT station.
Justice Choo noted that the lower court had taken a “common-sense approach” by accepting a figure closest to the resumption of the parties’ hearing. He noted that the valuation of the matrimonial home is ultimately an estimation made solely for the purposes of attributing a fair figure for division.
As he felt that it was not unreasonable for the court to accept the wife’s valuation because it was more recent, he saw no reason to alter its finding.
What this means is that if owners do not want to use the sale price of other properties to gauge the price of their own units, they should pay a fee to have a proper valuation done on their homes.
It is common for some divorcing spouses to claim that they owe money to relatives and friends or that some of their savings are inherited from late relatives so they have less to share with their estranged spouses.
But such ploys usually do not work unless they can prove their claims with bank statements or documents that can validate the numbers.
In this case, the man claimed that he had received about $40,000 from his late brother, but the validity and authenticity of the brother’s will was questioned by the court because it was not signed. There was also no bank statement to show the man had received the inheritance.
He also claimed that he owed more than $200,000 to his relatives and friends.
For instance, he said he had borrowed more than $90,000 from his mother to buy a property in China. He also claimed he paid about $37,000 to his aunt and sister-in-law to take care of the assets in China.
He said he had also borrowed $85,000 from his family and friends to pay for the legal fees for his divorce proceedings.
But all these claims were dismissed by the Family Court because he could not produce any bank statements to prove he had received the loans. Neither was there any documentary evidence of the “service fees” payable to his aunt and sister-in-law.
On appeal, the man merely claimed that “nobody does anything for free” and therefore it was “entirely logical” that he must pay them for their services. Yet he still could not produce evidence of such loans and fees.
As for the $85,000 loan, he produced a few IOU notes but he had redacted the names of the creditors, claiming his friends “did not want to get involved in the legal proceedings”.
He said his claim was “well explained and reasonable” but did not produce any bank statements that could show the transfers of the various sums of money if the loans had been genuine.
Not surprisingly Justice Choo dismissed the husband’s appeal on his alleged financial liabilities.
The lesson here is simply this – you can produce various agreements or documents to try to prove your case in a dispute, but if these documents are signed under duress or not independently verified, you will still find it hard to win the dispute.
-
Check out The Straits Times InvestMe microsite for exclusive content and courses to boost your financial literacy.
