Jump to content
Find Professionals    Deals    Get Quotations   Portfolios
Sign in to follow this  
rawmeat

Divorce Dragging, Please Help

Recommended Posts

I've an unbelieveable situation. Probably my initial thoughts was wrong, but I'm now stuck by some tricks being played on me.

I gave up on my 'wife' refuses to keep her promises to study for at least a diploma and started to spend all her time playing computer games, watching TV, surfing net, and buying branded stuff on her small salary. We went on to have our own boyfriend and girlfriend. This happened before our marriage, we found out about each other and realised that we still loved each other very much. So we made promises and got married. Now, this had happened again after marriage and baby, and it has come to a stage that we decided to file against each other for unreasonable behaviour (a lot more issues happened, e.g. neighbours, police, social workers were all called in to prevent disasters from happening)..

The divorce had been at deadlock because she had repeatedly refused to state what she wants, and rather simply reject all my proposals, and wanted to drag the divorce as long as she possibily can while claiming all lawyers expenses from me. She also painted the picture to my family that I had been unreasonable in my terms, etc...

Finally, she created another scene with my family and made specific demands. Like stated that she wanted to keep the HDB and refund me my CPF, custody, and stated how much she estimated to required to maintain a child.

My family who treated her better than me throughout our relationship and treated her like their own daughter (even better than her own mother), believed that she was sincere, and ask that for the benefit of my child, to give in and end the divorce before the child grows old enough to understand everything. (It's better for the child to know that his parents had divorced, rather than his parents are divorcing and fighting).

I gave in, and met all her demands, including giving 50% of the cost she estimated for the child maintenance, without any bargaining. But in addition, I wanted her to repay the loan taken from my family which was a significant sum.

All these in preparation for the first mediation session. I also offered to withdraw my application("reasons") for unreasonable behaviour, in effect, using her application solely.

Now, she's asking for 300% more in maintenance, not to repay my CPF, my family's loan, to pay for her lawyer fees, and on top of that, restrict my family and my access to the child to less than 2% of total time per week.

I felt cheated, she is simply asking for more money and tricking my family into believing her so that i go into the mediation on lower grounds. My lawyer is doing nothing as she maintained that she wrote the reply in accordance to my instructions and that she repeatedly asked if I was sure to offer such a good deal and whether she was really sincere when offering that to my family before she penned it.

The best part is that my family, who dotes her so much, believe that it was the doing of her lawyer, and she was really sincere in the offer, even after I showed them the lawyers' correspondence.

I don't mind dragging the divorce for years, even till my deathbed, but everyday spent is bringing agony to my parents who had been subjected all the abuses by her, and everyday when i see my child, i feel pain bringing him to this world. If I knew it was going to turn this way, I'll rather swallow my pride and remain married, turning a blind eye to her activities and tolerate all the abuses.

What can be done? Can she really and legally drag the divorce as long as she wants and bring pain to my child and family (and use that to hurt me?) and continue to use my child as a bargaining chip? Are there any laws to protect men against such abuse?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking for good contractors? Click here for your request

If not wrong, divorce can only drag max 4yrs?

and the cpf have to be paid.

the amt on child maintenance is either an amt agreed upon by both parties or maybe the court will work out a reasonable amt.

she can ask for the sky but if ur salary is only $x amt, u cant fulfil her "unreasonable" amt!

court will look into the jobs both held, who pay what, need to pay what and other information to derive on the amt de.

if judge give both joint custody with equal rights, failure to compel, the other party can sue de.

*someone i know gone thru such hassle and they had to switch from own lawyers to seeking legal aide help due to high legal costs.

however as all cases is different,process/result differ, is best u seek all advice from your lawyer.u paid her to advise u!

hope ur case get settled fast and spare everyone the agony!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own divorce case was dragged or contested for over 2 years. Like what the wife is asking, I am also asking for the 'sky'. Eventually, there will be pre-trial conferences and mediation session for lawyers from both parties to sit down and see if parties can reach a compromise on the distribution of matrimonial assets among other things. If you are fighting for children custody, it will be even 'torturing' as the social welfare workers will come anytime to conduct a 'spot' check. That was 17 years ago, hence not sure of the system now.

Like my case, I spend nearly $10K on legal fees but in the last lap of the process, I terminate the legal service and self-represented myself in court (including drafting and filing my own affidavit) to save on legal fees, as I am dragging it....to fight for more!! :sport-smiley-004:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont't worry about this or that.

woman generally ask for the sky, but you can ask for the moon and sun as well !

Affadvits are for people who can pay lawyers to write - words are cheap. and most of the time, they lied there.

In another words, the judges are very busy people so they will not read detail by details for each case. In a nutshell, judge look at high level view : home, child custody and maintenance. Once you settled with any of these 3 issuse, judge will not look at that issue again.

a) Home : no one can snatch your home, bro. As long as you pay with cpf and she also pay, then both will have that shares entitled. There is no way anyone can snatch your old age cpf. Very LIKELY, judge ask you to sell by certain dates and money goes back to respective parties.

b) maintenance : both will show salary slips + expenses. Even if any party inflate expenses, judge won't believe. That is because most of you staying in HDB flat, why expenses so high ? Don't worry, judge won't ask u to pay so much until u go broke.

c) child : *sigh*, this is always the problematic part. judge can only assign one parent to have the child to stay with family, but both parents have the right to access the child.

d) lawyer fee : both cannot claim from each other. This is a myth. If she can claim, why can't you claim ? Unless she commit adultery, u can claim for PI costs from her and her bf :-)

e) The reason you are frustrated because you cannot let go of the "yi gou qi". Also you get frustrated because your parents are indirectly involved. The judge will not bother of your parents feelings, so leave them out.

Here are some male strategies for you

1. If she say you beat her or threaten her, you go first to apply for protection order. The thing is both parties can do that. This is free protection order, make use of it.

2. spent time with your children. Be prepared that woman always has care for the children by default as she is the mother. You do not have to worry about her abusing children, because mother and father both love children (default comes in the blood). So if she wants to have it, give her. Then you instead ask for "time access" - which is usually weekends + a weekday and overnight at your home.

3. spend less on your affadvits which cost money.

4. change lawyer to those that wants to resolve issues rather than those who drag the case. Some lawyers agitate you until you keep on fighing, but actually you are losing money. Changing lawyers do not affect the chance or merits of case.

5. Do not get gf or seen with other gals during this period, otherwise she shoot you for adultery.

6. Get some handsome guys to approach your "wife" and trap her :-)

7. Learn these words by hard : what LAW stands for

Lawyer Always Win

Liar Always Win

Lady Always Win.

8. Get a GREAT lawyer ...what is the different between a Good lawyer and a Great Lawyer ?

Ans : A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge :-)

9. Ok last but not least, Pm me if u need a excellent lawyer that NEVER LOSE A SINGLE CASE FOR BOTH FEMALE / MALE CLIENTS over 20 years :-)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with what kalimantan mentioned...Lady Always Win.

In my final trial, the judge even asked the other party lawyer to give in to me! I contested the divorce not because I don't want to divorce, it was because of the unfair 'deal' offered by my ex or late hubby (died already). If one can proof that you contributed slightly more CPF for your matrimonial flat, the 50-50 share can be disputed!

For my case, as the judge saw me as self-represented, he also took pity on me and asked the other party to give in to my demand for 2/3 of the money in our fixed deposit joint account, although these were my ex money and he had offered to give me 50% because going by the book, I already owned 50% of the money in our joint name account!!!

For child below 7 years old, chances are the judge will give custody to the mother. If they are over 7 years old, like my case, the children can indicate their preference whom they want to go with after parents divorced. Like my case, my 2 older children prefered their late father, and hence, the children custody went into dispute and was contested! I also give up in the end, after years of debating and mediation sessions, to end the divorce process! Tiring indeed!!

Now, come to think of it, everything is pre-destined! I gave up the custody of 2 elder children but now, everything comes back to me! The father died exactly 10 years after we divorced.

Brother rawmeat,

Don't worry, you can play the game with her and let the court make the decision on your matrimonial assets, custody, and her maintenance.

Edited by mae29
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading yr story(assume as true and as straight as it is), I become wordless. Why woman loves to make man cries?

Why breaks the VOW once made in public, or in front of GOD. What's the meaning of the "ring" to both of u? Find chance to ask her and find out her intrinsic answers for these 2, so you can "let go" & "rest in peace".

A VOW is a covenant(not agreement)between 2 parties with witnesses presence which is supposed to be holy and unconditional. Still remember the content of the VOW?

Unconditional = she wants sky, give her sky. She wants moon, give her moon.

A ring is round - has no beginning and no ending, symbolising the LOVE between the 2.

She doesn't seem treasure what she's having - you've responsibility to wake her up! To lead her but not to dump her one side. I must admit, woman's heart is the most difficult to understand by men, tot husband and wife is "flesh within flesh".

Tell you a true story, I've been married for 18yrs, 1 boy now 16 and 1 girl now 14, went through 1 pre-marriage conunselling course, and 2 post marriage course thus far. My wife is 5 yo lesser than me, her only younger sister who is 10yo lesser than her, also kena divorce (drag ~ 2 yrs)with a PSLE girl this yr. I've strongly opposed to their marriage some 12 yrs ago, but i'm just a BIL. Before she get married, she was staying with me & MIL. MIL still staying with me. I know her since she was 6 yo.

This SIL and her daughter (my niece)frequented my place often. Niece stays overnight here on sat & sun....

Do you like crying? Let your heart cry out loud! Remember to find out her "weight" on the 2 questions. Let your love to her remains forever - unconditional, the most beautiful thing in the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with what kalimantan mentioned...Lady Always Win.

Generally, it works under the charm of Women Charter.

But not every time women wins.

20 September 2011

Judgment Reserved

District Judge Colin Tan:

Introduction

1 This was an application to vary a consent order in respect of the division of the parties’ matrimonial flat in their divorce proceedings.

2 The parties were divorced in 2008 and a consent order was made specifying, inter alia, how the matrimonial flat was to be divided.

3 Subsequently, in 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application to vary the consent order such that she would be entitled to a substantially larger share of the matrimonial flat. I dismissed the Plaintiff’s application and I now set out herein the grounds of my decision.

Background

4 The Plaintiff filed a Writ for Divorce in September 2008. The parties subsequently reached an agreement on the ancillary matters and a draft consent order was filed. In December 2008, Interim Judgment was granted and an order in terms of the parties’ draft consent order was made.

5 The relevant portions of the consent order provided as follows:

a that the Defendant be granted sole custody and care and control of the parties’ children; and

b that the Plaintiff’s share of the matrimonial flat be transferred to the Defendant, and that the Defendant repay to the Plaintiff’s CPF account the monies utilised for the purchase of the flat together with accrued interest.

6 In June 2010, the Plaintiff applied to vary this consent order. The Defendant consented to the application and an order in terms was granted. The relevant changes made were as follows:

a the Plaintiff would now have sole custody of the children (although the issue of care and control was not specifically addressed, there did not appear to be any dispute that the Plaintiff subsequently had care and control of the children); and

b the Plaintiff and the children would be permitted to reside in the matrimonial flat until such time that the Plaintiff’s share in the flat was transferred to the Defendant.

7 Subsequently, in April 2011, the Plaintiff again applied to vary the consent order. This time, however, the Defendant did not consent to the application.

8 The Plaintiff sought an order that the matrimonial flat “be sold on the open market and after the repayment of the outstanding loan, the reimbursement of the CPF contributions of the Plaintiff and Defendant’s CPF account plus accrued interest, all costs and incidentals and balance cash if any to the Plaintiff”.

9 Based on the Plaintiff’s own figures, the proposed variation meant that the Plaintiff’s share of the flat would leap from about $14,000 to about $187,000.

The Law

10 Section 112(4) of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) states that:

“The court may, at any time it thinks fit, extend, vary, revoke or discharge any order made under this section, and may vary any term or condition upon or subject to which any such order has been made.”

11 It was not disputed that the court had the power to vary an ancillary matters consent order. The only question before the court was whether or not the consent order in the current case ought to be varied.

12 In DX v DY [2004] SGDC 239, District Judge Lim Hui Min stated:

“To apply by way of a summons-in-chambers for the August 2003 order to be varied in respect of the ratio of division of the flat is a back-door route to an appeal—which he must not be allowed to take. Parties ought to have certainty in their lives. In this regard, orders of court in respect of the ancillary matters, and particularly in respect of the division of assets, should not be lightly disturbed. Such orders for the division of assets should only be varied if they are unworkable, or if they contain lacunae—i.e. they did not provide for a particular situation or contingency, which has now arisen. This is not the case here. The August 2003 order is perfectly workable. No unexpected turn of events has arisen, such as a compulsory acquisition of the flat, or an en bloc sale. Any changes in the parties’ own circumstances—for example, losing a job, winning the lottery, starting a new family, being hurt in a car accident, and so on—would not be relevant to an application to vary an order for the division of assets.”

13 In Tan Huan Eng Agnes Florence v Trevor Symes [2005] SGDC 83, District Judge Lim Hui Min stated:

“It is important that the process of applying to vary a maintenance order should not be used as a back-door way to appeal the ancillary matters order, as this would subvert the whole court system. For this reason, in my view, the burden of proof is on the party applying to vary the ancillary matters order (or a subsequent variation order), and that burden of proof is very high.”

The Plaintiff’s application

14 The matters relied on by the Plaintiff, as laid out in her affidavit filed on 4th April 2011 (“Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit”), were as follows:

a that she had been harassed by loan sharks and she found it intolerable to reside in the matrimonial flat (paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit);

b that the HDB had written to the Defendant to warn him that they might compulsorily acquire the flat due to arrears in instalment payments (paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit);

c that she was suffering from severe depression and a knee injury caused by the Defendant (paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit); and

d that the Defendant was not paying maintenance on time (paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit).

15 Subsequently, in her second affidavit filed on 22nd June 2011 (“Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit”), the Plaintiff stated that her application for variation was “because of a change in circumstances”.

16 In addition, the Plaintiff also raised a number of new matters in this affidavit. These new matters were as follows:

a that she had, in July 2008, agreed to (i) the divorce, (ii) giving the Defendant “custody” of the children, and (iii) “to walk out of the marriage and home empty handed” because the Defendant had threatened that if she did not agree to these he would not give her any money for the children’s maintenance (paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit);

b that the Defendant had outstanding debts, and she cited the sums of $159.28 and $967.50 due to the Inland Revenue Authority and xxx Town Council respectively (paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit);

c that the Defendant was an undischarged bankrupt (paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit);

d that the expenses for the children would increase over the coming years (paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit); and

e that as she had cared for the family for 20 years, she was entitled to a share of the sale proceeds of the flat (paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit).

17 In paragraph 10 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit, she listed the following figures in regard to the matrimonial flat:

a

“estimated cost” of flat

(it appeared from the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit that she was referring to the projected sale price rather than the cost of the flat)

$350,000

b

outstanding loan

$113,000

c

Defendant’s CPF contribution

$50,000

d

Plaintiff’s CPF contribution

$14,000

e

cash to be paid to Plaintiff upon sale

$173,000

The variation sought by the Plaintiff

18 Based on the Plaintiff’s own figures (at paragraph 10 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit):

a the net value of the matrimonial flat was approximately $237,000 (i.e. $350,000 less the outstanding loan amount of $113,000);

b under the consent order, the Plaintiff’s share (based on the refund to her CPF account) was about $14,000 (i.e. about 6%); and

c in her current application, the Plaintiff sought to have the flat sold and she wanted the entire net sales proceeds after the requisite refunds to the parties’ CPF accounts, thus resulting in her obtaining a total of $187,000 (CPF refund of $14,000 and $173,000 in cash) (i.e. about 79%).

19 It therefore appeared that the Plaintiff was seeking a 13-fold increase in her share of the matrimonial flat.

Matters relied on by the Plaintiff

20 In considering the matters relied on by the Plaintiff, I was mindful of the considerations laid out in DX v DY, in particular:

a that there should be finality in ancillary matters proceedings and orders for the division of assets should not be lightly disturbed;

b that orders for the division of assets should be varied if they were unworkable or contained lacunae; and

c that changes in a parties’ circumstances (while relevant in regard to maintenance) would normally not be relevant in regard to variation of an order for the division of assets.

Harassment by loan sharks

21 In paragraph 9 of the Defendant’s affidavit filed on 13th June 2011 (“the Defendant’s Affidavit), he stated that he was aware of the “mischief committed by the loan sharks”. As such, I was prepared to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that she had been harassed by loan sharks.

22 However, I also noted the following:

a the latest incident relied on by the Plaintiff had occurred in January 2011 (paragraph 5 of the Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit filed on 4th April 2011); and

b the only police report exhibited by the Plaintiff (exhibited as an unnumbered page marked as exhibit CPC-3 of the Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit and again at page 5 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit) was one that had been filed in April 2008.

23 It would be reasonable to expect the Plaintiff to have cited incidents of harassment during the period from January 2011 to March 2011 if any such incidents had occurred. Since no such incidents had been cited, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that there had probably been no harassment during that period.

24 Similarly, it would be reasonable to expect the Plaintiff to file (and to exhibit in her affidavits) police reports if serious incidents of harassment had occurred. Since the only police report exhibited was the one filed in April 2008, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that any harassment after April 2008 was probably (from the Plaintiff’s perspective) not serious enough to merit filing a police report.

25 In the light of the above, I was of the view that there was a serious doubt as to whether the harassment by the loan sharks was as intense as the Plaintiff appeared to be claiming.

26 In any case, even taking the Plaintiff’s case at its strongest, being harassed by loan sharks after a divorce was, in my view, not a matter which justified varying a consent order on the division of a matrimonial flat.

Warning from the HDB to the Defendant

27 The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had been warned by the HDB that it might compulsorily acquire the matrimonial flat due to arrears in payments (paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit). The Defendant, on the other hand, claimed that the outstanding arrears had been settled (paragraph 10 of the Defendant’s Affidavit).

28 The consent order stated that the flat was to be transferred to the Defendant and that the Defendant was to make a repayment to the Plaintiff’s CPF account. Based on the Plaintiff’s figures (paragraph 10 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit), this repayment would be in the region of $14,000.

29 Assuming that the Plaintiff’s allegations were true, the loss caused by a compulsory acquisition would fall on the Defendant and the Plaintiff would still be entitled to her CPF repayment. Therefore, such a compulsory acquisition ought not to adversely affect the Plaintiff.

30 As such, I was of the view that the alleged warning from the HDB was not a matter which justified varying the consent order on the division of the matrimonial flat.

Plaintiff’s depression and knee injury

31 The Plaintiff alleged that she was suffering from depression and also from a knee injury caused by the Defendant (paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit).

32 At pages 6 and 7 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit, she exhibited letters from her doctor in support of her claims regarding her medical condition.

33 The first letter from the Plaintiff’s doctor (exhibited at page 7 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit) was dated 4th January 2007 and it described the Plaintiff’s knee condition.

34 The second letter from the Plaintiff’s doctor (exhibited at page 6 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit) was dated 15th June 2011 and it stated that the doctor had seen the Plaintiff on 26th March 2008 and that the Plaintiff had been diagnosed to have depression.

35 Given that the knee condition and depression were noted by the Plaintiff’s doctor on 4th January 2007 and 26th March 2008 respectively, these were not new matters but were instead matters known to the Plaintiff before she agreed to the consent order in December 2008.

36 In Tan Huan Eng Agnes Florence v Trevor Symes, District Judge Lim Hui Min stated:

“Parties should also prepare their cases for the ancillary matters hearing thoroughly. After the ancillary matters are heard, it would be inappropriate for them to file a variation application in order to bring up submissions and evidence which they could have brought up at the ancillary matters stage. If such a situation were allowed to arise, there would be no finality in the ancillary matters, and little incentive for parties to prepare their cases thoroughly, as they would know that they can always have multiple bites of the cherry.”

37 In the current case, the Plaintiff was aware of her knee condition and depression before the consent order was granted and I was therefore of the view that she ought not to be able to rely on these matters for the current variation application.

38 In any case, even if the Plaintiff’s knee condition and depression were to be considered, I was of the view that these pre-existing medical conditions did not justify varying the consent order to grant the Plaintiff a larger share of the matrimonial flat.

Defendant’s failure to pay maintenance punctually

39 The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant had failed to pay maintenance punctually (paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit).

40 The law is clear about the Plaintiff’s rights in regard to maintenance. It is also equally clear that re-dividing the matrimonial flat is not a remedy for failure to pay maintenance punctually.

41 As such, I was of the view that the Defendant’s lapses in the payment of maintenance did not justify varying the consent order to give the Plaintiff a larger share of the matrimonial flat.

Plaintiff’s allegation that her consent had been procured by duress

42 The Plaintiff’s allegation, as stated in paragraph 3 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit, was as follows:

“In July 2008, I agreed to the Defendant’s decision:-

(a) to proceed to file a divorce suit

(b) to give him custody of the three children

© to walk out of the marriage and home empty handed as I was threatened by the Defendant that if I did not agree to (a), (b) and ©, the Defendant will not give me any money for the children’s maintenance.”

43 I found it difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s evidence on this issue for the following reasons:

a The Plaintiff only mentioned these threats in her 2nd Affidavit. If such threats had indeed been made, it would have been both reasonable and logical for the Plaintiff to have mentioned them in her 1st Affidavit and to have relied on the issue of duress to support her application. As such, the fact that such serious and weighty allegations were only mentioned in the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit caused me to question if these allegations were genuine or merely inserted later in order to bolster the Plaintiff’s case.

b Secondly, the fact that the Plaintiff only raised these allegations some 3 years after the alleged event made it even more difficult to accept that the allegations were genuine.

c Lastly, the Plaintiff was represented during the divorce proceedings and it was difficult to accept that the Plaintiff, who had the benefit of legal advice, could be so easily coerced.

44 As such, I was of the view that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that her agreement to the draft consent order had been procured by duress.

Plaintiff’s allegations that the Defendant had outstanding debts and was an undischarged bankrupt

45 The Plaintiff made a number of allegations about the Defendant’s outstanding debts (paragraph 7 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit) and also alleged that the Defendant was an undischarged bankrupt (paragraph 8 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit).

46 I was of the view that the Defendant’s personal debts and status as a bankrupt were not relevant to the issue of whether the consent order on the division of the matrimonial flat should be varied.

The projected increase in the children’s expenses

47 The Plaintiff stated that she expected the children’s expenses to increase over the next 5 to 8 years (paragraph 9 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit) and she also stated that she wanted a lump sum cash payment from the sale proceeds of the flat for the children’s education.

48 There is a clear distinction between the division of matrimonial assets and the payment of maintenance.

49 The Plaintiff’s application was for a variation in the division of the matrimonial flat. As such, her request for a “lump sum cash payment” from the proceeds of the sale of the flat for the children’s education was inappropriate as it was essentially a request for maintenance.

50 The anticipated increase in the children’s expenditure, while undoubtedly relevant in an application for an increase in the amount of maintenance payable, was, in my view, not relevant to the issue of whether or not to vary an earlier consent order on the division of a matrimonial flat.

Plaintiff’s contributions over the past 20 years

51 The Plaintiff stated that as she had cared for the family for the past 20 years, she was entitled to a share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial flat.

52 The Plaintiff’s contributions during the marriage must have been known to her when she agreed on the terms of the consent order in 2008.

53 In Tan Huan Eng Agnes Florence v Trevor Symes, it was held that it would be inappropriate to base a variation application on evidence and matters known to the applicant at the time of the ancillary matters hearing.

54 The Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel at the material time, ought to have raised the issue of her contributions to the marriage before the consent order was made.

55 It was not acceptable for the Plaintiff to agree to a consent order specifying the terms of division of the matrimonial flat and then 3 years later come back to court to ask for a larger share on the basis of her contributions during the marriage.

56 As such, I was of the view that the Plaintiff ought not to be able rely on her contributions during the marriage to justify varying the consent order.

Change in circumstances

57 In paragraph 2 of the Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit, she stated that her application was based on a change in circumstances.

58 However, it was difficult to ascertain from the Plaintiff’s affidavits what the actual change of circumstances was. Much of what the Plaintiff relied upon (e.g. harassment by loan sharks, depression and knee injury, and contributions during marriage) were not new matters and were known to the Plaintiff before the consent order was made. Other matters which were new (e.g. possibility of the HDB acquiring the flat, Defendant’s failure to pay maintenance punctually, Defendant’s debts, projected increase in children’s expenses) were matters that were either not relevant or matters which the Plaintiff, in the circumstances, ought not to be permitted to rely on.

59 In addition, I noted that in DX v DY, District Judge Lim Hui Min had held that a change of circumstances is not relevant in regard to a variation of an order for the division of matrimonial assets.

60 As such, I was of the view that the argument on “change in circumstances” as put forward by the Plaintiff did not justify varying the consent order.

Other matters

61 The Plaintiff also mentioned a number of other matters (e.g. that she no longer wished to live in the matrimonial flat) in her affidavits but I was of the view that these matters did not justify varying the consent order to give her a larger share of the matrimonial flat.

Conclusion

62 In the light of the above, I was of the view that the Plaintiff had failed to provide sufficiently compelling reasons and evidence that justified a variation of the consent order in question.

63 I therefore dismissed the Plaintiff’s application.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) Home : no one can snatch your home, bro. As long as you pay with cpf and she also pay, then both will have that shares entitled. There is no way anyone can snatch your old age cpf. Very LIKELY, judge ask you to sell by certain dates and money goes back to respective parties.

--> unless you choose to give up your cpf share (as told by hdb officer day i got my hdb keys whhahaa.. my hb bth me ..)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×