DBA v DBB [2014] SGHC(A) 12

Outcome: Appeal allowed in part.

Facts

1          Parties were married for 31 years and have three children in the marriage. The Wife had taken on more flexible but less well-remunerated work to care for the children. On appeal, the Wife argued that the Judge had erred in, among other things, classifying the marriage as a dual-income marriage, and in ordering that the CPF moneys utilised by the parties in purchasing the matrimonial home be repaid before distributing the sale proceeds in the division ratio ordered.

Court's Decision: 

2          The present case was a single-income marriage as the Husband was primarily the breadwinner and the Wife was primarily the homemaker for the majority of the marriage. The focus of the analysis is on the primary roles carried out by the parties in the marriage; a large disparity in income between the spouses does not in itself render the marriage a single-income marriage.: at [13]. 

3          Just because the main breadwinner was involved as a parent to some extent or contributed substantially to the financial welfare of the family, does not in itself render that party a primary or “joint homemaker”. The Husband’s non-financial contributions would be recognised when considering the proportions of division in the TNL context, but would not displace the finding that that the Wife was the primary homemaker in this marriage.: at [15].

4          The Judge should not have ordered that the parties’ CPF accounts be repaid from the gross sale proceeds before distributing the proceeds between the spouses. The consequence of such an order is that the parties will not be receiving the net proceeds in that ratio, as the amounts repaid into a party’s CPF account will effectively be an additional award to that party over and above the share of the proceeds awarded under the division ratio. at [32].

5         The husband’s submission that child maintenance obligations should be borne by parties in proportion to their share of the matrimonial assets was rejected. Considerations for division of matrimonial assets and maintenance are not the same although the division may affect the maintenance to be ordered.: at [39].

6         The Judge should not have reached a figure of less than $1,760 as the reasonable figure for [D’s] monthly expenses, as neither party submitted a figure below that. The Husband had submitted a figure of $1,760 while the Wife submitted the figure of $2,230.: at [38] and [39].

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.