SINGAPORE: The High Court has increased a woman’s share of her matrimonial home post-divorce, after factoring in about S$36,800 that she paid to renovate the flat.
The couple were married for about three-and-a-half years. They did not go through with the customary traditions of marriage, did not consummate the marriage and had no children, said the court in a judgment released on Monday (Feb 13).
They divorced in November 2022, and the only matrimonial asset for division was the matrimonial home.
The couple had purchased the Housing Board flat for S$370,000 in August 2019, using money solely from their Central Provident Funds.
They renovated the flat for S$76,762. Of this, S$40,000 was paid for by bank loans. Both parties argued about who paid the remaining S$36,762, with the woman saying she paid the entire sum and the man saying it was shared equally between them.
Earlier, the district judge of the lower court found that the woman had paid the sum of S$36,762, as her ex-husband produced no evidence for his alleged claim of giving cash to the woman.
The lower court ordered that the matrimonial flat should be divided at a ratio of 41.21 to the man and 58.79 to the woman. In making this decision, the district judge excluded the S$36,672 payment made by the woman.
He considered that the renovation was “a basic one which did not significantly alter the property”.
The woman appealed against the decision.
In his judgment released on Monday, Justice Choo Han Teck said the district judge had erred in excluding the renovation sum in his consideration.
“It is not uncommon for new couples to renovate their newly purchased properties to create a special matrimonial home for themselves,” said Justice Choo.
“Such renovations often involve substantial facelifts and customisation. This appeal is one such illustration – the cost of renovation (S$76,672) was 20 per cent of the purchase price of the flat (S$370,000). It would not be just and equitable for the court to ignore sizeable sums of monies expended to improve matrimonial assets,” he said.
THE EX-HUSBAND’S ASSERTIONS
In the appeal, the ex-husband had again asserted that the S$36,672 was not wholly from his ex-wife.
He gave no new evidence but repeated arguments from the lower court. In his case, he had claimed that he contributed cash of S$15,500. However, in the hearing, he said he passed his ex-wife cash of S$29,000.
“Given the lack of a consistent position and cogent evidence, I am unable to accept the husband’s arguments on appeal,” said Justice Choo.
He ordered that the wife’s payment of S$36,762 be counted towards her direct financial contributions. This brings the direct financial contributions of the couple to S$63,622 by the man and S$127,515 by the woman, translating to a ratio of 33.29 to 66.71 respectively.
Justice Choo said that although the court can vary the weight accorded to direct and indirect contributions, he said the indirect contributions to this marriage were minimal.
The couple had disputed whether they had lived together, but Justice Choo said this factor was ultimately immaterial.
He said the couple was unable to get along from the start, “and the consortium of marriage failed before it even had the opportunity to form”.
“The husband himself admitted before me that they tried to live in the flat during the five months of renovation, but the dust and noise eventually forced them to leave,” said Justice Choo. “I thus give no weight to indirect contributions.”
He allowed the woman’s appeal and ordered that the matrimonial home be sold after the minimum occupancy period has elapsed. After this, the proceeds are to be divided in the ratio of 33.29 to the ex-husband and 66.71 to the ex-wife, after paying off related expenses.