Introduction

 In this month’s case study, we will look at a High Court case on a dispute between a grandmother, the Plaintiff and her grandson, the Defendant over a five-room Housing Development Board flat (“the HDB Flat”) that they owned together.

The Plaintiff contends that they both held the beneficial interest in the HDB Flat in equal proportions whereby the Defendant contends that his beneficial interest in the HDB Flat amounts to 94.36%.              

Facts Of [2018] SGHC 53

• The opportunity to purchase the HDB Flat arose in 2006, when the HDB Flat was occupied by the Plaintiff and her late husband and was compulsorily acquired under the HDB’s Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (“SERS”).
• The Plaintiff and her late husband were given an option to purchase a bigger flat. They chose this option but were worried that they would not be able to obtain a mortgage loan for the bigger flat because of
  their age and irregular income. To obtain the mortgage, the Defendant, who was earning a regular income, was included in the flat application as joint tenants.
• The HDB Flat was bought at a price of $321,240.35 and was registered in the names of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s late husband and the Defendant as joint tenants.
• The parties were jointly liable for the mortgage of $288,200.00. The initial payment for the HDB Flat came up to $33,040.35, out of which $15,867.65 came from the Defendant’s Central Provident Fund Board (“CPF”) account, $410.00 came from the Plaintiff’s CPF account and the remaining $16,762.70 came from the compensation received by the Plaintiff and her late husband under the SERS.
• The issue before the court was to determine the beneficial interests in the HDB
• As the HDB Flat was held in joint tenant, the Plaintiff alleges that there was a common intention for the Plaintiff and the Defendant to hold 50% each of the beneficial interest in the HDB Flat. The Defendant disputes the existence of such a common intention and contends that the beneficial interest in the HDB Flat should be computed according to the parties’ contribution to the purchase price of the HDB Flat.

 Decision Of The Court

The court had to deal with differing facts from both parties, some of which are as follows:

• The Plaintiff alleges that she and her late husband lent the Defendant a sum of $16,000.00 to top up his CPF account, thus enabling him to make payment of $15,867.65. The Defendant disputes the existence of such a loan.
• The Plaintiff alleges that she and her late husband lent the Defendant a sum of $20,000.00 for the renovation of the HDB Flat. Again, the Defendant disputes the loan.
• The Plaintiff alleges that there was an agreement that the Plaintiff and her late husband were to occupy the master bedroom of the HDB Flat, and that the remaining rooms were to be rented out by the Defendant. The Plaintiff claims that the rental income from the HDB Flat was intended to be taken as her contribution towards the mortgage repayments. Again, the Defendant disputes this fact and claims that the agreement was for him to be solely responsible for the mortgage repayments and in return, the Defendant gets to enjoy the rental income of the HDB Flat.

The court looked at the alleged loans given by the Plaintiff and her late husband to the Defendant and is of the view that those loans were not given. The only evidence which the Plaintiff has adduced is an account allegedly drawn up by the Plaintiff’s late husband in the Hindi and/or Punjabi language. There are multiple difficulties with this evidence. First, the account did not make any reference to the Defendant. Second, the account is dated in December 2009 which is after the payment from the Defendant’s CPF in November 2009. If the loan is for the Defendant to top up his CPF account, how can the loan be given only after the payment has been made? Further, the Defendant’s CPF statements do not reflect any such top-up. As such, the court do not think that the loans were given.

The court also do not accept the Plaintiff’s contention that there was an agreement that the rental income from the HDB Flat would be taken as the Plaintiff’s contribution towards the mortgage repayments. The court notes that the mortgage was to be for a period of 30 years and at that time, the Plaintiff is already in her late 60s and her late husband is in his late 70s and as such, it is implausible that the parties would have agreed for the mortgage liability to be borne equally between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The court held that the parties wished for the HDB Flat to devolve to the Defendant upon the death of both the Plaintiff and her late husband as the Defendant is the one solely responsible for the mortgage repayments.

In conclusion, the court held that there was not a common intention between the parties to hold 50% each of the beneficial interest in the HDB Flat and given that there was no common intention, the beneficial interest in the property has to be determined from the respective contributions of the parties towards the purchase price of the HDB Flat. The Plaintiff and her late husband’s contribution come up to $17,172.70 ($410.00 plus $16,762.70) while the Defendant’s contribution comes up to $324,817.65 ($288,200.00 plus $15,867.65 plus $20,750.00 for renovation of the property). This gives the Defendant a beneficial interest of 94.98% in the HDB Flat and the Plaintiff 5.02%.

Eventually, the parties agreed to have the Plaintiff’s share sold to the Defendant at market price, according to the proportion that the court determines.