Google search ¡¡¡°2015 Family Law ¨C Matrimonial Assets ¨C Division indirect contribution site:singaporelaw.sg¡±

http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/high-court-judgments/15924-arx-v-ary-2015-sghc-55

¡¡

ÆÞ×Ó£ºÖ±½Ó¹±Ï×27-30%£¬¼ä½Ó¹±Ï×20-23% £­¡·Æ½·Ö

¡¡

46¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡As far as indirect non-financial contributions were concerned, the defendant claimed that she took care of the household and all the needs of the children, albeit with the assistance of the maid.^{[note: 14]}¡¡The defendant also highlighted that the plaintiff was absent from the household for about 40-45% of the time due to his work commitments and that she was the sole caregiver of children during those periods.^{[note: 15]}¡¡In support of her position that she made greater indirect contributions towards the household and children, the defendant highlighted various episodes where she had to tend to the medical needs of the children and helped them with their homework without any assistance from the plaintiff.^{[note: 16]}¡¡The defendant gave examples of her active involvement in the school-related activities of the children,^{[note: 17]}¡¡and highlighted the efforts she took to manage the healthcare needs of the plaintiff. Lastly, it was pointed out that the defendant¡¯s indirect contributions had increased since the separation, as she had to singlehandedly managed the family, and especially so after the plaintiff relocated to live and work in Hong Kong.^{[note: 18]}¡¡The boys stayed home with the defendant until they enrolled for boarding school in Malaysia. The elder son, A, went to boarding school in August 2013 and he was joined by his brother, B in September 2014.

47¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡A related and general theme that featured across the submissions made on behalf of the defendant was the lucrative career she had given up to become a homemaker, and it was this sacrifice of her career that allowed the plaintiff to achieve his current financial success.^{[note: 19]}¡¡It was also specifically highlighted that her assistance to the plaintiff during the early years of the marriage, when the plaintiff was a student, was a factor that the court should consider under s 112(2)(g) of the Act in favour of the defendant.^{[note: 20]}

56¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Having assessed the evidence and submissions of the parties, I was satisfied that the defendant did contribute to the household and welfare of the children especially since the plaintiff was travelling (40-45% of the time) and that she stopped working so as to focus on the family. I also found that she was able to highlight clear examples of her indirect contributions as the caregiver of the children. In this regard, her participation in the school-related activities of the children was noted.

THD¡¡v¡¡THE¡¡[2015] SGFC 136

there was a dispute in respect of the sum of $340,000 which had been withdrawn by the Wife from her bank accounts in the months preceding the granting of the Interim Judgement.

11¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡In this regard, it was undisputed that the Wife had made cash withdrawals of $210,000 on 6th March 2013 and $130,000 on 6th November 2013 for the purpose of creating two trusts in favour of the daughter [Note 1]. The Wife explained that she had taken these steps to ¡°bypass the probate process¡± in the event of her untimely death. The Husband contended that these amounts should be included into the matrimonial pool as the Wife¡¯s assets.

12¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡The Husband¡¯s counsel referred to the commentary made by Professor Leong Wai Kum in Elements of Family Law in respect of the unreported case of¡¡CH v CI¡¡[2004]SGDC 131 where she commented at page 584 in respect of insurance policies as follows:

¡°Where no irrevocable trust has been made, the court will have full powers to order as it sees fit of this matrimonial asset¡­.. where an irrevocable trust is made to benefit some other person, the value of the policy will be among the other assets in the basket of ¡°matrimonial assets¡± but again in its consequential order to achieve the proportions of division, the court will ensure that the spouse-policy holder will obtain this asset so that she will then take whatever steps she sees fit with regard to whether to change or terminate the trust created.¡±

13¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡While the above comments were made strictly in respect of insurance policies, the general principles observed in my view apply equally to the current situation. Regardless of whether the trust was revocable or irrevocable, it was clear that these amounts should be included as assets in the basket of matrimonial assets. I also found the timing of the creation of these trusts, one shortly before and one shortly after the commencement of divorce proceedings on 14 June 2013, telling. It was on this basis that I accepted the Husband¡¯s position and considered that this sum of $340,000 should be included as part of the matrimonial assets. As the Wife had provided no details as to whether the trust was irrevocable or revocable and I was mindful to consider that it would be best in the circumstances if this sum is attributed to the Wife in making my final consequential orders to achieve the proportions of division of the matrimonial property.