WNW v WNX [2013] SGHCF 54

Outcome: Appeal Allowed in Part, Dismissed in Part

Facts

1          The parties were married for almost 31 years. The Husband became the sole owner of the Matrimonial Flat by way of survivorship when his mother passed away two years after the date of IJ but before the AM Hearing was heard. The main question in the Husband’s appeal is whether 100% of the value of the Matrimonial Flat should be included in the pool of matrimonial assets for division, despite the parties having agreed on 50% under the Agreement at the Status Conference.

Court's Decision:

2          While s 112(10) of the WC provides an exception for assets acquired by way of inheritance, this exception does not apply where matrimonial homes are concerned. The parties had resided in the Matrimonial Flat since 1989, and raised their daughter in this flat. The Matrimonial Flat was therefore a matrimonial home.: at [27].

3          Parties’ agreement is but one factor in the overall assessment. It remains critical for the court to consider all the circumstances of the case when determining the proper weight to be given to such an agreement. After all, the court’s power to divide matrimonial assets originates not from the parties’ agreement, but from statute, in particular, s 112(1) of the WC. The overarching inquiry is whether the decision to include 100% of the Matrimonial Flat into the matrimonial pool was “just and equitable”.: at [31] and [32].

4          While an agreement can feature significantly in the court’s assessment of the proper division of matrimonial assets, this is only where such an agreement amounts to a comprehensive financial arrangement. Parties had simply not directed their minds to what would happen to the Husband’s entitlement to the Matrimonial Flat should the Husband’s mother pass away after the Agreement was entered into. This was not a term of the Agreement.: at [34] and [38].

5          Each joint tenant possesses a concurrent interest in the whole such that on the death of one of the joint tenants, the sole interest in the whole remains to the survivor; it is not the case that the deceased joint tenant’s interest passes to the survivor. The fact that the Husband’s mother had passed away only after the date of IJ did not change the conclusion that the Husband’s joint interest (and his interest as sole owner of the Matrimonial Flat upon his mother’s death) had already been earmarked for inclusion in the matrimonial pool as of the date of IJ.: at [43].

The full text of the decision can be found here. 

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.