How two men became big losers by dragging families to court after marriage splits

An embittered husband who had barely contributed a cent to the matrimonial home ended up being the big loser when he tried to claim a big slice of his former wife’s $6 million assets.

The man asserted that many of her belongings were actually bought by him, even though his former spouse was a high-flying banker earning $30,000 a month, while he was jobless and did not shoulder any family expenses.

A generous onlooker might at least have given him points for trying his luck, but the High Court took a more hard-headed view and sent him packing with a sting in the tail, ordering him to repay $400,000 to his former wife.

As the case shows, it is sometimes better to negotiate a peaceful settlement than to go for broke, especially when you do not even have a strong case.

Never think you can use legal action to threaten others, because you stand to lose even more if your ploy backfires. Once an action goes before the court, everything will be up for scrutiny, and those who make false allegations invariably end up the biggest losers.

Here are two family disputes involving litigants who wanted more, but ended up with nothing.

Claim for ex-wife’s assets

The man in this case could have received a fair share of the matrimonial spoils because the couple had “agreed in principle” when they divorced that they should be allowed to retain their own assets, thus simplifying the split.

But the “centrepiece” of the man’s claim was that many of the assets in his former wife’s name actually belonged to him, so he should be entitled to a much bigger share.

He made this argument even though there was ample proof that the woman’s $30,000 salary as a banker paid for all the household expenses.

He was not working at the time of the divorce, but he previously ran an IT-related business that was supported by his former wife and her father.

Although he claimed that he paid for most of their five properties, he could not produce any records to show this. He also did not challenge his former wife’s assertions that he also spent her income on extramarital affairs.

The High Court found that the woman effectively raised and financially supported their two daughters alone and that she single-handedly paid for almost everything since day one of the marriage, including the wedding ceremony itself.

The husband was awarded 10 per cent of the couple’s $6 million in assets, or about $600,000. But as he had chosen to fight his wife in court, it emerged that he had taken $1 million from her for his business.

So he was ordered to return over $400,000 after deducting his share of the assets.

Claim for son’s property

A couple bought a $1.5 million condominium unit and put it under a trust for their elder son, while they would manage or lease it as the trustees. All was well until their marriage failed, and the husband staked his claim on the unit.

He argued that the condo did not belong to his son because the trust was a sham to dodge the additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD).

But the High Court did not buy his story as the man, a civil servant, was educated and intelligent. He was therefore unlikely to try to evade taxes, given the impact it could have on his career.

During the trial, he even provided a wrong amount for the ABSD that he allegedly evaded due to the “sham” trust. This led the court to dismiss his claim because he would have remembered the actual levy if he had plotted to evade the tax, as it was quite a large amount.

The court also approved the family’s application to have the man removed as a trustee for the property, as he did not act in his son’s interests. This meant that he would no longer have any say in the management of the unit.

If there is a lesson to be learnt from these cases, it is that it does not pay to drag one’s family to court for the flimsiest of reasons. Those who do could lose more money and forfeit the chance to be part of the family.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

How eating a cigarette landed a man in trouble with the law: Explainer EMA to study laws, policies for S’pore to adopt low-carbon hydrogen when it becomes viable