fc_judgments_version: 61
This data as json
| _id | _item | _version | _commit | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _item_full_hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 61 | 53 | 1 | 1779 | [
"Family law \u2013 Ancillary matters \u2013 Division of matrimonial assets"
] |
2024-07-24 | Family Court | Divorce 113 of 2022 | WZV v WZW | [2024] SGFC 52 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F31843-SSP.xml | [
"Paul (M/s Cross Street Chambers) for the Wife",
"Tan Wei Chieh (M/s Prestige Legal LLP) for the Husband."
] |
2024-08-01T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Darryl Soh | <root><head><title>WZV v WZW</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WZV <em>v</em> WZW </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31843-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 52</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Divorce 113 of 2022</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">24 July 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Darryl Soh </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Paul (M/s Cross Street Chambers) for the Wife; Tan Wei Chieh (M/s Prestige Legal LLP) for the Husband. </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> WZV — WZW </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Ancillary matters</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Division of matrimonial assets</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">24 July 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Darryl Soh:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 This matter concerns ancillary reliefs arising from divorce proceedings between the Plaintiff-Wife (“Wife”) and the Defendant-Husband (“Husband”) (collectively referred to as the “Parties”). By consent, the Parties agreed for the Wife to be granted sole care and control over the two children of the marriage, with supervised access to the Husband. The Parties could not however agree on the financial and children’s custody orders. In respect of the division of matrimonial assets, the Parties disagreed on the satisfaction of the Wife’s personal liabilities from the pool of matrimonial assets and the indirect contributions ratio to be ascribed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 On 17 April 2024, I ordered for the Parties to be granted joint custody of the children, for the pool of matrimonial assets to be divided in the ratio of 63.82:36.18 in favour of the Wife, and for the Husband to pay a total monthly children’s maintenance of $890.00. The Husband was dissatisfied with the orders relating to the division of matrimonial assets and filed a Notice of Appeal on 24 April 2024. In these grounds, I explain my decision on the division of matrimonial assets in greater detail.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background Facts</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The Parties are in their 40s and they were married in 2004 after they first met as colleagues. The Husband is presently employed in the security industry and the Wife is in an administrative role. After they were married, they temporarily resided in the home of the Husband’s parents. The Parties subsequently purchased their matrimonial home (“Matrimonial Home”) a year later and they moved into it together with the Husband’s family.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> The Parties are blessed with two children, both of whom are in or around their teenage years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 Difficulties in the marriage arose sometime a year after their marriage and the Parties had numerous disputes that led to heated quarrels. Years later from February 2017, the Parties ceased living together as husband and wife. They however continued to reside in the Matrimonial Home.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The Wife commenced divorce proceedings on 10 January 2022 on the basis that the Husband behaved in such a way that the Wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Husband. The Husband subsequently filed his Defence and Counterclaim on 4 February 2022. The Parties subsequently came to an agreement and the divorce proceeded on an uncontested basis on the fact that the Parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least four years immediately preceding the filing of the Writ. The marriage was dissolved, and Interim Judgment was granted on 6 March 2023.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Issues in Dispute and Orders Made</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The Parties filed the following affidavits in respect of the ancillary reliefs:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_a"></a>(a) Wife’s Affidavit of Assets and Means filed on 6 June 2023 (“WAOM”);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_b"></a>(b) Husband’s Affidavit of Assets and Means filed on 7 June 2023 (“HAOM”);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_c"></a>(c) Husband’s 2<sup>nd</sup> Ancillary Matters Affidavit filed on 22 September 2023 (“H2AM”); and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_6-p2_d"></a>(d) Wife’s 2<sup>nd</sup> Ancillary Matters Affidavit filed on 25 September 2023 (“W2AM”).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The hearing of the ancillary reliefs took place over three days, on 22 January 2022, 9 January 2024, and 17 April 2024. In respect of the children’s care orders, I recorded the Parties’ consent for the Wife to be granted sole care and control over the two children of marriage, with supervised access to the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 After hearing the Parties’ evidence and submissions, I ordered for the Parties to be granted joint custody of the children. In respect of the financial orders, I ordered the pool of matrimonial assets to be divided in the ratio of 63.82:36.18 in favour of the Wife, no spousal maintenance for the Wife, and for the Husband to pay a total of $890.00 monthly for the two children’s maintenance. To achieve a division as close to the said ratio of 63.82:36.18, I made the following consequential distribution orders:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">1. The [Matrimonial Home] … shall be sold on the open market within 9 months of the Final Judgment. The sale proceeds shall be applied as follows: -.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">a. To make full payment of the outstanding housing loan to the bank (if any);</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">b. To pay the HDB resale levy (if any);</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">c. To pay all costs and expenses incidental and relating to the sale of the property;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">d. The balance net sale proceeds shall be divided in the following manner: 78% to the [Wife] and 22% to the [Husband];</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">e. Each party shall pay the requisite CPF refunds in accordance with applicable CPF laws to party's respective CPF accounts from the party's proportion of the balance sale proceeds.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">i. In the event the [Husband] is unable to pay the requisite CPF refunds in accordance with applicable CPF laws to his CPF accounts from his proportion of the balance sale proceeds, the [Wife] shall transfer from her CPF account to top-up the said shortfall CPF monies into the [Husband’s] CPF account.</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-3">ii. After the completion of sale of the matrimonial flat, the [Husband] shall transfer back the said shortfall CPF monies from his CPF account to the [Wife’s] CPF account</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">f. The [Wife] shall have sole conduct of the sale of the [Matrimonial Home].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 The Husband was dissatisfied and appealed against the orders relating to the division of matrimonial assets on 24 April 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Division of Matrimonial Assets</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Pool of Matrimonial Assets Not Disputed</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Parties did not dispute the pool of matrimonial assets. It had a gross value of <b>$1,000,336.53</b>, with its breakdown as follows:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="16.7033406681336%"><col width="50.3900780156031%"><col width="32.9065813162633%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/No</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Description</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Value</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Joint Asset</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Matrimonial Home</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$600,000.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Sub-Total</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$600,000.00</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Wife’s Assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Ordinary Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$101,569.43</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">3.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Special Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$139,693.16</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">4.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Medisave Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$68,500.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">5.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Account ending 8251</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$31.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Sub-Total</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$309,793.59</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Husband’s Assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">6.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Ordinary Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$14,285.88</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">7.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Medisave Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$53,789.57</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">8.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Special Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$10,940.42</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">9.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">POSB Account ending 5050</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$0.07</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">10.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Motorcycle</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$11,527.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Sub-Total</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$90,542.94</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total Gross Value of the Uncontested Matrimonial Assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$1,000,336.53</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Liabilities</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The Parties were on common ground that the mortgage on the Matrimonial Home ($144,245.72) was to be satisfied from the pool of matrimonial assets. The Wife also did not object to the Husband’s personal liabilities ($33,109.58) being satisfied from the same. The Parties however could not agree whether the same treatment was to be extended to the Wife’s substantial liabilities in her name.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Wife’s Personal Liabilities</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 According to the Wife, she owed a total of $425,320.94 to creditor financial institutions.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> The Wife explained that the Husband suffered a slipped disc in 2007 after carrying a heavy load during his then employment in logistics. He left that employment a year later as he was unable to involve himself in any physical activity or handle driving heavy machinery despite going for surgery. The Husband was generally unemployed between 2009 and 2012, with intermittent employment.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> Between 2008 and 2015, the Wife alleged that she had used up her own moneys of $300,000.00 and more by obtaining credit card loans for the Husband to undergo expensive surgeries and psychiatric treatment at various hospitals and clinics. The Husband rejected the Wife’s case and claimed that the bulk of the hospital bills were paid for by his insurance.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> In addition, he disputed the quantum of liabilities claimed by the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 There were several issues that arose out of the Wife’s case. First, the documents evidencing the extent of the Wife’s personal liabilities as at the date of the Interim Judgment were incomplete and unclear. If proven, the second issue was whether the liabilities were to be satisfied from the pool of matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-4">(1) Quantum of the Wife’s Personal Liabilities as at Interim Judgment</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 Given the Wife’s incomplete documents and in light of the Husband’s case in reply, I directed the Wife to file a supplementary affidavit with all the necessary supporting documents. The Wife subsequently provided the necessary documents in her supplementary affidavits filed on 2 January 2024, 21 February 2024, and 22 March 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 Materially, in the Wife’s supplementary affidavit of 21 February 2024, the Wife provided the below breakdown of moneys owed to the respective creditor financial institutions as at 6 June 2023<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span>, with documents from each institution confirming the stated amount owed as at the said date. The Wife’s revised case for her liabilities was consequently reduced to <b>$375,012.17</b> (down from the initial $425,320.94).</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="16.7033406681336%"><col width="50.3900780156031%"><col width="32.9065813162633%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/No</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Description</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Value</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Diner [sic] Club</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$64,035.17</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Maybank</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$22,840.03</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">3.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$60,089.58</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">4.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Bank of China</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$78,022.44</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">5.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CIMB</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$32,387.87</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">6.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Citibank</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$48,698.27</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">7.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">OCBC</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$15,096.89</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">8.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">HSBC</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$16,243.27</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">9.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Standard Chartered (SCB)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$16,465.35</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">10.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Amex</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$21,133.30</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$375,012.17</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The Husband’s Counsel submitted that whilst the Husband acknowledged the Wife’s liabilities, the Husband did not accept the quantum stated. I found this to be a somewhat curious position to take because of the clear documentary evidence in support.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> The Husband bore the consequent evidential burden to rebut the evidence put forward by the Wife, but the Husband had no evidence to the contrary. In light of this absence, I accepted the Wife’s case that she had personal liabilities of $375,012.17 as at the Interim Judgment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 For completeness, I refer to the Husband’s specific line of defence that his medical treatment was covered by insurance. This defence was used to address whether liabilities were in fact incurred by the Wife. I found that this line of defence did not assist the Husband in light of the clear document evidence tendered in the Wife’s supplementary affidavit of 21 February 2024 confirming the extent of her liabilities.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-4">(2) Whether the Wife’s Personal Liabilities are to be Deducted from the Pool of Matrimonial Assets</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 The Husband took the position that the Wife’s personal liabilities should not be satisfied from the pool of matrimonial assets. No reasons or submissions were advanced in support of this.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 As articulated by Choo Han Teck J in <em>WNR v WNQ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30472-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGHCF 43</a> (“<em>WNR v WNQ</em>”), affirming the observations in <em>WAS v WAT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27228-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGHCF 7</a>, the key issue is whether the spouse’s debts are proven to have existed as at the Interim Judgment date. If so, the spouse’s liabilities should rightly be accounted for when calculating the net matrimonial assets available for division. Further, there was no allegation whatsoever that the liabilities were incurred inappropriately.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 The Husband’s position was therefore unsustainable in light of the observations in <em>WNR v WNQ</em>. For completeness, I found his position to be ironic and disingenuous since he himself sought to satisfy his own personal liabilities from the pool of matrimonial assets.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Net Value of Matrimonial Assets to be Divided</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 In light of my decisions above, the net value of the pool of matrimonial assets to be divided stood at <b>$447,969.06</b>.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Just and Equitable Division of the Pool of Matrimonial Assets</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 Section 112(1) of the Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) (“the Charter”) empowers the court when granting or subsequent to the grant of a judgment of divorce to order the division between the parties of any matrimonial asset or the sale of any such asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of the sale of any such asset in such proportions as the court thinks <em>just and equitable</em>. The guiding principles of exercising this power are set out in s. 112(2) of the Charter.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 The Court of Appeal laid out a structured approach for the division of matrimonial assets in <em>ANJ v ANK</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/17925-SSP.xml')">[2015] 4 SLR 1043</a> (“<em>ANJ v ANK</em>”), which was succinctly described in <em>USB v USA</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/24962-SSP.xml')">[2020] 2 SLR 588</a> (“<em>USB v USA</em>”) at [36] as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(a) first, ascribe a ratio that represents each party’s direct contributions relative to those of the other party, having regard to the amount of financial contribution each party has made towards the acquisition or improvement of the matrimonial assets;</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(b) second, ascribe a second ratio to represent each party’s indirect contribution to the well-being of the family relative to that of the other throughout the marriage; and</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">(c) third, using each party’s respective direct and indirect percentage contributions, derive each party’s average percentage contribution to the family that would form the basis to divide the matrimonial assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 The Parties were on common ground that the structured approach applied in view of the dual-income nature of the Parties’ marriage.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Step 1 – Direct Contributions</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 Most issues were not disputed between the Parties, with neither party seeking credit in terms of direct contributions for the assets that were in the opposing party’s name. The only dispute between the Parties on direct contributions was on cash payments allegedly made towards the Matrimonial Home.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 The Husband submitted that that his parents contributed $36,000.00 to the initial downpayment towards the Matrimonial Home and sought for each party to receive equal credit for the said amount as their direct contributions. The Wife rejected the Husband’s submission as there was no proof that such a payment was made – the Wife referred to purchase-related documents where no such payment was recorded.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span> In reply, the Husband’s Counsel candidly accepted that there was no documentary proof in support of the Husband’s case. As the Husband failed to satisfy his burden of proving his case, I excluded the sum of $36,000.00 from the following calculation of the Parties’ direct contributions in respect of the Matrimonial Home:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="46.72%"><col width="28.04%"><col width="25.24%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Husband</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Wife</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="b" colspan="3" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>(A) Uncontested Direct Contributions</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(i) CPF Contributions</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$142,596.62</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$230,058.26</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(ii) Renovations</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$10,000.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$10,000.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="b" colspan="3" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="QuoteList-Table-1"> <b>(B) Contested Direct Contributions</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">(i) Cash downpayment</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$0.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$0.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="b" colspan="3" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Total</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$152,596.62</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$240,058.26</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Apportionment of the Gross Value of the Matrimonial Home ($600,000.00) as each party’s Direct Contributions</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$233,176.71</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$366,823.29</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 Consequently, the direct contributions in respect of the pool of matrimonial assets stood at <b>67.64:32.36</b> in the Wife’s favour:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="13.1%"><col width="39.24%"><col width="23.82%"><col width="23.84%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>S/No</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Description</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Husband</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Wife</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Joint Asset</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Matrimonial Home</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$233,176.71</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$366,823.29</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Wife’s Assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">2.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Ordinary Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$101,569.43</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">3.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Special Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$139,693.16</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">4.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Medisave Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$68,500.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">5.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">DBS Account ending 8251</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$31.00</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Husband’s Assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">6.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Ordinary Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$14,285.88</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">7.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Medisave Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$53,789.57</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">8.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">CPF Special Account</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$10,940.42</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">9.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">POSB Account ending 5050</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$0.07</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">10.</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Motorcycle</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$11,527.00</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Overall Direct Contributions</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$323,719.65</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$676,616.88</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Ratio</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>32.36</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="bottom"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>67.64</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Step 2 – Indirect Contributions</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 The Parties each sought to be credited with a higher ratio of indirect contributions relative to the opposing party.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 The Husband submitted that the indirect contributions ratio ought to be 60:40 in his favour. The Husband broadly relied on the following in support: (a) various indirect financial and non-financial contributions by his parents and his sister, (b) the Husband’s monthly contributions towards the family’s household expenses (<em>i.e. $</em>50.00 for household items and $1,300.00 towards the then family vehicle), (c) <em>ad hoc</em> past payments he made towards the family (<em>i.e.</em> purchase of an air conditioner and a laptop), and (d) various acts he had done in the past (<em>i.e.</em> ferrying the children to engagements and medical appointments).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 The Wife submitted that the indirect contributions ratio ought to be either 70:30 or 80:20 in her favour.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span> The Wife argued that she was the primary caregiver of the children and that the Husband was an absent father as he was totally involved in his drinking. The Wife additionally argued that she was the sole provider for the family and the household expenses were borne by her. To this end, she had to deplete her savings to ease the family expenses and took loans to pay for the Husband’s medical expenses following his injury. The Wife also alleged that the Husband was financially irresponsible and engaged in a cavalier attitude where he spent much time drinking outside with his friends after work.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 I adopted a broad-brush approach as articulated by the Court of Appeal in <em>USB v USA</em> at [43] – [46] for the assessment of the Parties’ indirect contributions. Having considered the evidence and submissions in this case, I set the indirect contributions ratio as 60:40 in favour of the Wife given her relatively higher indirect financial and non-financial contributions. There were four material points that I considered when arriving at this finding.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 First, I gave no credit to the Husband for the various alleged indirect financial and non-financial contributions by the Husband’s family. Assuming that these contributions did in fact occur, the Husband failed to show that these contributions were the result or product of his own personal efforts.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 Next, I did not take into account the Wife’s personal liabilities that will be satisfied from the pool of matrimonial assets, towards her indirect contributions. To do so would be double counting her efforts. If it had not been deducted, I would have agreed with the high indirect contributions ratio that she submitted in her favour.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 Third, I accepted the Wife’s case that she was the primary caregiver and I accept that she provided for a substantial portion of the family expenses following the Husband’s injury. Based on the Husband’s own evidence, he was generally unemployed between 2009 and 2012, with intermittent employment.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span> The overall relatively lower levels of the Husband’s CPF accounts were also consistent with the Wife earning a significantly higher relative income between the Parties over the years. Additionally, and ironically, the Husband’s own submissions on indirect financial and non-financial contributions by his parents and his sister disclosed the lack of such contributions emanating from his own personal efforts. Similarly, the Husband’s submissions on his personal contributions, if assumed to be accurate, also revealed his relative lack of involvement and efforts. When considered holistically, the Husband submissions validated the Wife’s arguments that she should be credited with a higher ratio of indirect contributions <em>between the Parties</em>. For completeness and to avoid doubt, I did not accept that the Wife’s submissions that she was the <em>sole</em> provider for the family as I accepted that the Husband provided <em>some</em> contributions such as the purchase and maintenance of the then family vehicle and made some minor contributions towards the family expenses over the years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 Finally, I rejected the Husband’s case that his insurance payouts would have covered all related contingencies and expenses arising from his injury. He provided no evidence whatsoever and he bore the burden of proof. Be that as it may, it could not be disputed that the Wife was in debt and the Husband was unemployed for a material period. This resulted in him minimally contributing towards the family’s finances, and the Wife having to make up for the lack of family income. Further, there was no evidence whatsoever that the loans that the Wife took was inappropriately incurred. When the facts and circumstances were considered as a whole and on a balance of probabilities, I accepted that the loans taken and serviced by the Wife prior to Interim Judgment were for the family expenses, which included the Husband’s medical treatment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 When the above-mentioned circumstances were considered, I was of the view that an indirect contributions ratio leaning in favour of the Wife amounting to 60:40 was merited. It could not however amount to the high ratio submitted by the Wife because a significant amount of her personal liabilities would be satisfied from the pool of matrimonial assets, and it would not also reflect the various indirect contributions made by the Husband over the years.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 Concluding the issue of indirect contributions, I wish to observe that taking the Husband’s case as its highest, I found his submissions on indirect contributions to be unreasonable and without basis. The points made in support showed no objectivity as to why they would merit a ratio that is relatively higher in his favour.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Step 3 – Overall Contributions</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 The average ratio of direct and indirect contributions to the pool of matrimonial assets was consequently <b>63.82:36.18</b> in the Wife’s favour. Both Parties did not seek for further adjustments to be made. As such the average ratio was taken to be the final division ratio.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Distribution of Matrimonial Assets</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 In order to achieve as close to the division ratio of <b>63.82:36.18</b> in the Wife’s favour, I ordered the distribution of the pool of matrimonial assets in the manner set out at [8] above. That distribution had the following effect:</p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr" frame="all" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="42.92%"><col width="28.54%"><col width="28.54%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> </p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Wife</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Husband</b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">a) Share of the Net Value of the Matrimonial Home</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$355,488.34</p> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">(78%)</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$100,265.94</p> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">(22%)</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">b) Assets in their respective names</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$309,793.59</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">$90,542.94</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">c) <b><u>Less</u></b> Liabilities in their respective names</p> </td><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">- $375,012.17</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1">- $33,109.58</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>Resulting Share of the Net Value ($447,969.06) of the Matrimonial Pool of Assets</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$290,269.76</b> </p> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>(64.80%)</b> </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>$157,699.30</b> </p> <p align="right" class="Table-Para-1"> <b>(35.20%)</b> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 Since the Wife is to receive a significant majority of the equity (<em>i.e.</em> 78%) arising from the sale of the Matrimonial Home, I made the consequential order for the Wife to have sole conduct of its sale.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Wife sought costs of $3,000.00. The Husband’s Counsel disagreed and submitted for no order as to costs so as not to further aggravate the relationship between the Parties.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 I did not find any favour in the Wife’s submissions for costs. The Wife’s lack of reasonable diligence in putting up her case fully from the start resulted in delays in the efficient adjudication of the ancillary reliefs. However, as the hearing was subsequently conducted reasonably before me, I was of the view it was appropriate for no order to be made on costs.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Page 2 paragraph 4 of the Statement of Particulars (Amendment No. 1).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Page 2 paragraph 6 and page 5 paragraph 7 of the Statement of Particulars (Amendment No. 1).</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>To avoid doubt, these do not include further or supplementary affidavits directed by the Court during the hearing of the ancillary reliefs.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Page 6 paragraph 16, pages 8 – 9 paragraphs 26 – 27 of WAOM.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Page 6 paragraph 21 of H2AM.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Page 4 paragraph 17 of H2AM.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>In the Wife’s supplementary affidavit of 21 February 2024, the Wife checked with and produced written confirmations from the respective creditor financial institutions on the amounts owing as of 6 June 2023, a date which she thought was the date of Interim Judgment. See page 1 paragraph 3. The date of Interim Judgment was however three months earlier, on 6 March 2023. 6 June 2023 was the date that the Interim Judgment was <em>filed</em>. These inconsistent dates were not raised or objected to. See Notes of Evidence of 17 April 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Notes of Evidence of 17 April 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Notes of Evidence of 17 April 2024.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>$1,000,336.53 – $144,245.72 (mortgage on the Matrimonial Home) – $33,109.58 (Husband’s personal liabilities) – $375,012.17 (Wife’s personal liabilities) = $447,969.06</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Notes of Evidence of 22 November 2023.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Notes of Evidence of 22 November 2023 and see page 226 of W2AM.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>See pages 10 – 16 paragraphs 26 – 48 of the Husband’s Written Submissions.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>See pages 8 – 11 paragraphs 17 – 29 of the Wife’s Written Submissions.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>See 11<sup>th</sup> page of HAOM.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>Page 6 paragraph 21 of H2AM.</p></div></content></root> | 1724875be474a8c4925540ca4b60493b126f8abb |
Links from other tables
- 11 rows from item_version in fc_judgments_changed