After their father passed away and left his only son as the only surviving joint client, three sisters filed a lawsuit against their younger sibling for their share of the property that had been used to manage the mother’s hardware business since 1985.
When his three older daughters asked him if he would divide the gross sales revenues of the property likewise among the four siblings, Mr. Ng Choong Keong Steven responded that they were the only and only owners of it on Veerasamy Road.
He added that he was his father’s “favoured child” and that the property, which was worth about S$ 500, 000 ( US$ 373, 000 ), had been intended for him to inherit in 2019.
Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy accepted the sisters ‘ claim that their parents had treated all four children equally, regardless of sex, in a decision made public on Wednesday ( Nov 6 ).
According to Justice Coomaraswamy,” I find that both families did not favor the defendant over their daughters because he was their single child,” as might have been common for parents in their generation and culture.
He discovered that the four sisters shared similar ownership of the property and issued orders in case the sisters wanted to purchase their brother’s 25 % beneficial interest in it.
The judge also mandated that Mr. Ng pay his sisters ‘$ 149,000 in prices because they had prevailed in the case.
A Event
The match was mounted by Ms. Ng Lai Kuen Priscilla Elizabeth, Fong Charmaine, and Har.
Elizabeth, the oldest, is in charge of managing her soon parents, Mr. Ng Kah Weng, who passed away in 2016. Elizabeth also serves as the trustee of her mother’s house, who passed away in 2017.
From 1985 until his passing, the Ng father was the sole owner of a technology store that was located on Veerasamy Road.
From 1985 until HDB made an offer in 1995 to buy an 89-year license of the home to the late Mr Ng at a discounted rate of S$ 403, 400 under its Price of Tenanted Shops Scheme, the business operated from the premises under one year leases from The Cover Board ( HDB).
In September 1995, the Ng father and his only son accepted the offer and signed the product, security, and conveyancing files for the order.
The property was subsequently jointly leased by Mr. Ng and his boy. Yet though he and his son shared a product from DBS, the late Mr. Ng paid the full purchase price for the home.
When Mr. Ng was dead, he paid for the property’s upkeep and maintenance in full and did not pay his son any fee in exchange for moving in.
In May 2016, he completed paying back the DBS payment. When he passed away a few months later, in December 2016, his wife took over the company and ran it out of the house with the assistance of two of her daughters.
The family also passed away in August 2017 and left a will that divided her land likewise among her four kids.
The three girls helped run the company after their mother passed away and took over the payments required to keep the home up.
The child received a notice from HDB in January 2018 stating that the table had updated its administrative records to reveal his current ownership of the property.
The boy was informed by HDB that he might want to seek legal counsel from a lawyer regarding any legal actions related to Mr. Ng’s passing that need to be taken at the title registry.
The sisters went to their brother in January 2018 to ask him to confirm that he would divide the net sales proceeds of the property likewise among them.
As the only surviving joint client, their brother assumed for the first time that he was now the sole and absolute owner of the property.
The son obtained the original document of designation from the bank in March 2018 and secured the elegant and complete discharge of DBS ‘ security interest in the property.
In October 2019, he obtained a valuation of the home and discovered that it was only for slightly more than S$ 500,000. A fortnight later, he announced his intention to sell the property to his daughters.
The sisters next filed a lawsuit to assert their ownership of the property.
Their brother filed a lawsuit, claiming to be the only beneficial owner of the property and suing his sisters for damages.
THE CHOICE
The main question, according to Justice Coomaraswamy, was whether the late Mr. Ng intended to help his son when the home was bought.
The judge ruled that it was acceptable to rely on presumptions and circumstantial evidence to determine Mr. Ng’s intention because he was no more alive to provide direct evidence and there is no other objective proof of his intention.
The boy claims that in August 1995, just before the child was set to get married, his father had made it clear that he intended to benefit him with the right of survivorship.
My father announced that he was buying the property and that the two of us would” visit name” after we had finalized the wedding preparations. Because I was his only child, he intended for me to acquire the house, the younger Mr. Ng testified.
He may have wanted to take care of me and my new home because I was likewise getting married. According to the younger Mr. Ng, my father had inherited anything my father owned in a similar manner.
The child claimed that as the only child, he was his father’s preferred child. He claimed that none of his sisters were named as the beneficiaries of an insurance policy that his parents had purchased.
The father’s claim that he was the preferred baby was rejected by the judge. He instead relied on the evidence of the father’s ex-wife.
Justice Coomaraswamy added that the late Mr. Ng’s intention for the property to remain a continuous and secure area where the business may continue to operate was much more likely.
The judge ruled that it was unlikely the parents intended for his son to inherit the house when he passed away in a sole and absolute manner. Instead of his son, the father good intended for the estate and business to help his wife after his passing.
The judge agreed with the sisters ‘ claims that the father’s decision to name his son as a joint tenant was done in order to negotiate better terms for the product from DBS, despite being aware of the legal repercussions if he had no intention of giving him the right of survivorship.
The judge noted that the boy was the family’s youngest child and that he had a steady job and an adequate salary at the time. The parents would be able to obtain a loan from DBS with fewer interest payments and tone if he had his child on board as co-borrowers.
Additionally, it was implied from the circumstances that the late Mr. Ng had no desire to grant his child the right to survivorship.
Justice Coomaraswamy used the mother’s equitable distribution of her possessions to her four children as an example of how the kids treated their kids.
According to the judge,” If anything, the mother’s behavior indicated an intention to favor the girls over the children by leaving the family home to a princess.”  ,
In addition, according to Justice Coomaraswamy, the family had designated her eldest daughter more than her only child as the executor of her will.
The judge said that although the mother’s care of her youngsterscannot be convincing as to how her husband intended to treat them, it served as a foundation for inferring what the father intended.
He claimed that the kid was not involved in managing the company. After the father passed away in 2016, his wife, not his brother, became the sole owner of the company.
The judge said,” This adds significant color to the family’s good motives.”
He rejected the father’s protest and made a decision in the daughters ‘ favor.
Mr. Ng is contesting the ruling in an appeal.