Highly paid wife wins larger share of marital assets as judges deem her marriage to be dual-income

Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 15 Feb 2025
Author: Theresa Tan

Judges deem marriage a dual-income one where man was not primary homemaker.

A woman earning over $30,000 a month won her appeal, following a divorce, that her marriage should be considered dual-income in the eyes of the law, even though she was the sole breadwinner for most of her married life of nearly 35 years.

The successful appeal gave the woman, who is a director in a company, a larger share of the couple’s matrimonial assets, which are worth $7.8 million.

The Appellate Division of the High Court gave her 67 per cent of the marital assets, up from the 60 per cent another High Court judge awarded her previously.

The judgment by Justice Woo Bih Li, Justice Debbie Ong and Justice Mavis Chionh was published on Feb 5.

They pointed out that simply because one spouse earns far less than the other does not make the marriage a single-income one.

Also, just because one spouse worked intermittently over the course of the marriage does not in itself determine if it was a single- or double-income union, they said.

Instead, the key focus should be a “qualitative assessment” of the roles played by each spouse during the marriage when it comes to determining if the marriage was a single- or double-income one.

The couple in this case are in their 60s with three children, who are in their 20s and 30s.

The woman worked full-time throughout their marriage, but the man worked full-time in a bank only in the first nine years of their union.

He later tried his hand at a series of jobs, such as selling fried noodles at a hawker stall, running a home delivery laundry service, and acting as a general manager of a private firm which paid him $2,200 a month.

He was unemployed when Justice Teh Hwee Hwee ruled in June 2024 that their marriage was a single-income one, and awarded him 40 per cent of the marital assets. The woman received 60 per cent.

The woman appealed against the judgment, arguing that Justice Teh erred in classifying her marriage as a single-income one.

Justice Ong, who delivered the appeal judgment on behalf of the three judges, said: “A homemaker spouse in a single-income marriage is the primary homemaker, not just a spouse who does some or even substantial homemaking.”

The affidavits of the couple’s children stated that they had a close relationship with their father, that he gave them emotional support, and that he looked after them when they were ill or injured.

However, they did not mention his other contributions at home, such as whether he was as involved, as he claimed, in supervising the domestic helpers and maintaining the household.

On the other hand, their youngest child described their mother as the “glue that held the family together”.

Justice Ong said: “It is evident that the wife worked full-time, but still made very considerable efforts in caring (for) and spending time with the children and in managing the household.”

The judges found that the couple were involved in caring for their children and shared homemaking responsibilities.

However, the main difference was that the man had more time at home to spend with the children. Even so, the judges felt that the man did not play the primary homemaking role.

The judges said of the woman: “It is undisputed that she was the sole breadwinner for the majority of the marriage.”

The judges also noted that the woman managed her children and home “single-handedly” – though with the assistance of domestic helpers – when the man was jailed for six months for hiring an illegal worker at his hawker stall.

Justice Ong said: “The historical circumstances surrounding his cessation of full-time employment, his ventures into businesses and work of an ad hoc nature show that he also had a bread-winning role, even though he was not quite successful in that role.

“It appears that the husband was able to sustain his personal expenditures and give the children some pocket money from his own income, as the wife did not give him an allowance.”

Hence, they determined the marriage was a dual-income one.

Ms Aye Cheng Shone and Ms Natasha Choo of AC Shone & Co acted for the woman, while the man’s lawyer was Mr Jonathan Wong of Tembusu Law LLC.

Mr Ivan Cheong, head of the Singapore family law team at Withers KhattarWong, said this judgment provides greater clarity on the principles the courts will consider in determining whether a marriage is a single- or dual-income one.

This classification is important in determining the approach the courts would use for a just and equitable division of matrimonial assets, he said.

In a dual-income marriage, the courts would use a “structured approach” where the judge would put a ratio to the couple’s respective direct financial contribution and indirect contribution to the marriage, said Ms Thian Wen Yi, a partner at Harry Elias Partnership.

Direct financial contributions to the marriage would include payments towards mortgage instalments and house renovations, as well as the money contributed towards the acquisition of other assets, while indirect contributions would include taking care of the children and housework, Ms Thian said.

The courts will take the average of the two ratios to decide on the final share given to each party, she explained.

For single-income marriages, the courts look at precedent cases with similar facts, together with the direct contributions made by each spouse, to decide on the division of marital assets, said Mr Cheong.

Ms Thian said it would be unfair to apply the “structured approach” to single-income marriages as it is weighted in favour of monetary contributions, and thus would unduly favour the spouse who earns an income over the homemaking one.