SGHOUSING.COM 新加坡房地产网

Court rules she has no claim on flat since she wanted nothing to do with it earlier

A Man fought three times to keep a million-dollar apartment as part of his divorce settlement, eventually winning the last round without a lawyer.

The Court of Appeal, which published its decision yesterday, ruled that Mr Samuel Ong, a manager in his 30s, could keep the Malvern Springs flat in Onan Road.

But it upheld earlier court decisions that another property, a flat also in Onan Road, be disposed of according to the couple’s contributions to its purchase.

The couple divorced in September 2003 after a marriage of just over three years.

Ironically, Mr Ong and his former wife, Ms Kristine Chan, had bought the new apartment for just over $800,000 to try and save their marriage, as they felt its feng shui was good.

Ms Chan, 33, an accountant, now lives in Britain.

The couple had booked the Malvern Springs apartment in February 2002 to replace their first home, which had been bought jointly.

Although Mr Ong made the initial downpayment, the understanding was that the mortgage loan would be a joint one.

But as the marriage soured, Ms Chan insisted that Mr Ong agree in writing to make all loan payments for the new flat, or she would not sign the mortgage loan papers.

Both sides stood their ground, but Mr Ong, worried he could be sued by the developer for defaulting on payments, bought the flat in his sole name in May 2003.

Meanwhile, Ms Chan continued with her share of monthly payments for their existing home in Onan Road for which both had contributed initial deposits, he more than she.

After the divorce, in the first legal round, the district court ruled that the new flat should be part of the two properties to be shared and Ms Chan should get 18.56 per cent of the total net worth.

It also held that she should get a token $1 per month in maintenance from Mr Ong.

In the second legal battle, Mr Ong appealed to the High Court. The judge reduced the net amount Ms Chan should get to 15 per cent after taking into account Mr Ong’s ‘unsatisfactory financial state’.

The third round took place last month before the Court of Appeal. On March 20, Justice Judith Prakash delivered the court’s judgment. She noted that Ms Chan had made it clear from the beginning ’she was to have no part’ in buying the second flat.

But when the flat turned out to be a ‘profitable investment’, she took a ‘radically different’ position and claimed a share.

The court said if the flat had become a failed investment, Ms Chan would ‘no doubt’ have wanted nothing to do with it.

At the hearing last month, Mr Ong addressed the court for about 30 minutes before Ms Chan’s lawyer from Harry Elias Partnership responded.

Contacted yesterday, Mr Ong declined comment, explaining that he wants to move on.

NO PAIN, NO GAIN

‘If the wife maintains she has nothing to do with the liabilities associated with Malvern Springs, then she similarly can have no share in its profits.’JUSTICE JUDITH PRAKASH, delivering judgment on behalf of the Court of Appeal

Source : Straits Times - 27 Mar 2007