SINGAPORE: A civil lawsuit brought by Chiang Hai Ding’s ex-daughter-in-law over the possession of a lineage shophouse in the Balestier conservation area was successfully resolved.
In court earlier this year, Ms. Sabrina Alberta Tan asserted that she and Mr. Chiang were the real useful owners of the property at 11 Martaban Road.
Before divorcing in late 2020, the pair got married in 2011. Disputes over whether to include the Martaban Road shophouse in the share of marital resources to be divided among them led to the cause.
Dr. Chiang purchased the property on their behalf, according to Ms. Tan, who argued that it should be in the lake. It was registered in Dr. Chiang’s name and bought in 2009 for S$ 2.1 million( US$ 1.54 million ).
The Chiangs, however, argued that Dr. Ching did not have a contract to hold the property on the couple’s representative.
Hoo Sheau Peng, a judge in the High Court on Thursday( Sept 14 ), upheld the father and son’s claim that the property was an outright gift from Mr. Chiang to Dr.
According to a court declaration made by Justice Hoo, Dr. Chiang & nbsp, who is now 85, holds 85.71 percent of the beneficial interest in the property on his son’s behalf.
Mr. Chiang had taken out a Randomness$ 1.28 million refinance loan and paid S$ 520, 000 toward the downpayment.
The judge determined that Dr. Chiang is the beneficial owner of the remaining 14.29 %, having contributed S$ 300,000 to the property downpayment because his son was short on cash.
Dr. Chiang served as Singapore’s adviser to more than ten nations, including the former Soviet Union, while serving for Ulu Pandan as the PAP MP from 1970 to 1984.
PLAINTIFF AND Plaintiffs ‘ Claims
Despite the fact that it was bought before their marriage, Ms. Tan & nbsp argued in her lawsuit that she and her ex-husband were the true beneficial owners because Dr. Chiang was supposed to hold it in trust for them.
She claimed that because they were unable to do so using their own names, they simply used Dr. Chiang’s name to buy the shophouse.
The couple paid S 306, 500 for a Housing and Development Board ( HDB ) apartment at Pinnacle @ Duxton around 2006. This served as their wedding venue.
According to Ms. Tan, in order to buy private property, they must first meet HDB’s five-year maximum ownership requirement.
Msc. Tan had two additional cases as well. First, she claimed that because the couple contributed to the downpayment and assumed responsibility for the loan, a resulting confidence developed in which they were the valuable owners of 11 Martaban.
She also argued that Dr. Chiang’s$ 300,000 product was given to them to help them pay off the downpayment when they ran out of money.
Next, Ms. Tan stated that if the court determined that Mr. Chiang’s contributions were made exclusively for himself and not on behalf of the couple, the trust that resulted would be entirely in his favor.
The principal argument put forth by Dr. and Mr. Chiang was that there was no contract for the home to be held by the partners on their behalf. They argued that the reason the shophouse was bought under his title was because he had always intended to own it.
According to their story, Dr. Chiang invests in real estate and informed his brother that he was considering purchasing a shophouse. Therefore, Mr. Chiang and Ms. Tan assisted in the search for 11 Martaban.
Since Dr. Chiang was ineligible for any institution loans, he agreed to take out the loan in his father’s name in order to help him realize his desire.
Profits from renting out the shophouse would be used to pay off the S$ 1.28 million loan.
THE JUDGE IS RUNNING
Justice Hoo ruled that Ms. Tan failed to provide any concrete proof of a plan for Dr. Chiang to keep the house in respect for them.
The judge discovered that despite Ms. Tan’s significant role in the search for a suitable shophouse to buy, there was no consensus among the events that 11 Martaban may be held for the pair.
Additionally, this alleged design was not supported by the property’s monetary contributions. This meant that her state of a productive trust with common intent for the couple’s benefit had to be rejected.
Justice Hoo claimed that Ms. Tan did not provide any concrete proof that Mr. Chiang made financial efforts on the child’s behalf. Additionally, Mr. Chiang was the only one who contributed to the mortgage’s payments and downpayment.
However, Ms. Tan didn’t seem to rely on Mr. Chiang to make payments on her behalf because she had already contributed directly to the couple’s Pinnacle @ Duxton apartment.
Justice Hoo even rejected Ms. Tan’s claim that Dr. Chiang contributed$ 300,000 to the downpayment as a product because there was no supporting documentation.
The judge also disregarded the Chiangs’ assertions that Mr. Chuang gave his parents, who owned a number of other qualities, the shophouse.
She also refuted the claim that Dr. Chiang had fantasized about owning such a house despite never staying in the shophouse and having no plans to do so.
Mr. Chiang was heavily involved in 11 Martaban and made a lot of decisions about the house without his family’s knowledge or consent. The judge noted that Dr. Chiang’s presence after the purchase was little.
However, Ms. Tan added that this was” not fatal” because she had to prove that Dr. Chiang was in possession of the property on their behalf.
Justice Hoo stated that the couple’s divorce proceedings should take into account whether Mr. Chiang is eligible for the pool of marital assets, which includes his helpful issue in 11 Martaban. If it belonged only to Dr. Chiang, it would not be a marriage property.
Attorneys Melanie Ho, Gavin Neo, and Jolyn Khoo from WongPartnership represented Ms. Tan. See Chern Yang and Charmaine Chan from Drew & amp, Napier, stood up for Dr. Chiang and Mr. Ching.