SINGAPORE – Some couples’ love for their real estate outlasts their marriages because they still fight over it even when they are no longer together.
Disputes over the shares of the properties can be complicated if the assets are owned jointly, or worse, in only one party’s name.
When it comes to properties that are listed in both names, the law will presume that couples have the intention to own the real estate in equal shares, unless there is compelling evidence to show otherwise.
This was what happened to a wealthy man when he tried to remove his former wife’s name from the title of a luxury condominium unit that was bought in joint names as an investment property.
The man claimed that his mother paid for the apartment and that he had no intention of letting his former wife have a share in it.
He said he added her name during the purchase because the woman threatened to hurt herself if this was not done.
While the man argued that he was the sole owner during the dispute, the appellate court found that his conduct showed he had wanted to benefit his then wife.
Intention to share property
Her name was added to the apartment about four years before they eventually split.
She was a homemaker who took care of their three children, and the court found that the man’s caring behaviour even after the divorce showed that he intended to share the property with her.
In one of his letters to the Family Justice Court during their divorce, he wrote: “I love her a lot and as such I put her name in my properties to make sure she is financially safe when I am gone.”
The court noted that such conduct would rise to the legal presumption of gifting, and this meant the man had intended to let his former wife become a joint owner.
Indeed, the man’s will, which was made after the divorce, also proved that he recognised his former wife’s interest as a joint owner.
The court found that in his will, the man implicitly stated that if he died before his former wife, she would become the sole owner of his properties as the surviving joint owner.
In the end, the apartment was ordered to be sold and its proceeds divided equally between the two owners.
No gifting of property
In a separate, unusual case, a man bought a house in his wife’s name even though he was already with another woman.
He paid about 84% of the purchase price and his wife paid the remaining 16%.
The property was listed solely in the wife’s name, but both sides had different explanations for this when they fought over it.
The wife said she wanted the property put in her name as she was feeling insecure because of his infidelity.
She claimed that her husband gave her the property “to appease her and to assuage his guilt”.
The husband said this was not true, but he let her put her name on the property deed because she wanted to brag to her friends that she was the owner.
The Court of Appeal found in favour of the husband because the wife could not explain why she signed a power of attorney allowing her husband to deal with the property if she were truly the sole owner.
The court added: “There was no convincing reason why (the husband), a man nearing retirement who had just begun an affair, would make the biggest purchase of his life, only to gift it to someone who was his wife in name only.”
As a result, it ruled that the husband had succeeded in rebutting the legal presumption of gifting because he proved that he had no intention of giving the wife the whole house.
In the end, the parties were given shares of the house based on how much they paid, which meant the wife was given only 16% of the property and the remaining 84% would belong to her husband.
The lesson here is that if you have no intention of sharing your property, you should think twice about adding another name to it.
-
Check out The Straits Times InvestMe microsite for exclusive content and courses to boost your financial literacy.
