Introduction
In this month’s case study, we will look at a High Court case on a dispute between the Plaintiff and her daughter-in-law, the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s son or the Defendant’s husband (“ABC”) is not a party to the court proceeding. The dispute in the case arose over the sale proceeds of a condominium (“the Property”) and the amount of the nett sale proceeds in contention was for slightly over $955,867.84.

Facts Of [2015] SGHC 314
(a) The Plaintiff and the Defendant bought the Property in April 2003 for $630,000.00. They took a housing loan from the bank for $378,000.00.
(b) For the balance purchase price of $630,000.00 – housing loan of $378,000.00 = $252,000.00, it was in contention who paid for it.
(c) The transaction was completed in June 2003 and the Property was registered in both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s names as joint tenants.
(d) It was the parties understanding at the point of purchase that the Property was purchased for the benefit of ABC and that he would be fully responsible for the purchase of the Property.
(e) In 2011, parties severed their joint tenancy to hold the Property as tenants-in-common in equal shares and the Property was sold in 2013 for $1,210,000.00. The Defendant and ABC were of the view that both of them had bought the Property and they agreed to share the nett sale proceeds between them in equal shares and none to the Plaintiff.
(f) The Plaintiff however claimed for half share of the nett sale proceeds as she held half share in the Property as tenants-in-common.

Decision Of The Court
The main issue before the court was to determine the parties interest in the Property. Though both the Plaintiff and the Defendant held the legal interest in the Property in equal shares, the question was whether the beneficial interests were held in different proportions.

The relevant principles that the court needed to look into are as follows:
(a) Parties will be presumed to hold the beneficial interest in a property in proportion to their respective contributions to the purchase price.
(b) However, if there is an express or inferred common intention as to how the beneficial interest in the property will be held, then the parties will hold the beneficial interest in accordance with that common intention. The question to ask is whether a common intention in fact exists between the parties in this case.
(c) If there is insufficient evidence of the parties respective financial contributions or of a common intention, the beneficial interest will be held in the same manner in which the legal interest is held.

Plaintiff’s Submission
The Plaintiff’s case was that there was no clear evidence of direct financial contribution towards the purchase price of the Property or any common intention between the parties that the beneficial interest in the Property was to be held differently from the legal interest. Accordingly, the Plaintiff submitted that the parties held the beneficial interest in the Property in the same proportion as their legal interests and the Plaintiff’s claim was for half-share of the nett sale proceeds.

Defendant’s Submission
The Defendant’s case was that she had contributed to the entire purchase price and there was a common intention that she would hold the entire beneficial interest in the property and thus, the Defendant laid claim to the entire nett sale proceeds.

Court’s Decision
The court needed to look at 2 issues as follows:
(a) What were the Defendant’s financial contributions to the purchase price of the Property?
(b) Was there any common intention between the parties?
The Plaintiff’s claim to the half share of the Property rested on her legal interest in the Property which then meant that it was for the Defendant to prove that she paid for the entire purchase price of the Property as well as there was a common intention between parties that she were to hold the entire beneficial interest in the Property such that she should be entitled to the entire nett sale proceeds.
For the balance purchase price of $630,000.00 – housing loan of $378,000.00 = $252,000.00, the parties submitted the following as evidence of payments:
(i) $6,300.00 was paid by the Plaintiff’s daughter;
(ii) $32,750.00 was paid by the Plaintiff; and
(iii) $212,950.00 was paid by the Defendant.

Payment of $6,300.00
It was not disputed that the payment of $6,300.00 was made by the Plaintiff’s daughter but the Defendant claimed that she was the one who provided for this payment but the court held that this was nothing more than a bare assertion.
The Defendant did not keep any record of the amount allegedly given to the Plaintiff’s daughter and the Defendant did not ask the Plaintiff’s daughter to sign any receipt of this payment and as such, the court held that without any supporting evidence, the court found it hard to believe the Defendant and concluded that the Defendant had not proven her claim that the payment of $6,300.00 was made by her.

Payment of $32,750.00
It was not disputed that the payment of $32,750.00 was made by the Plaintiff but the Defendant again claimed that she was the one who provided for this payment. She alleged that she paid $8,820.00 and $29,860.00 on 2 different occasions to one of Plaintiff’s company and that was why the Plaintiff’s eventual cheque payment came from these funds.
Again, the court found the Defendant’s evidence hard to believe as the Defendant kept no records whatsoever on the 2 payments and concluded that the Defendant had not proven her claim that the payment of $32,750.00 was made by her.

Payment of $212,950.00 and the Mortgage Instalment
Again, the Defendant submitted that it was her who paid the $212,950.00 and the monthly mortgage instalment but without proper documentation and record, the court was not convinced.

The Defendant continued with her bare assertion that the Plaintiff knew and understood that she would have no share in the Property as the Property was meant to be for her and ABC as husband and wife. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove a common intention (whether expressed or inferred) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant would hold the entire beneficial interest in the Property. Most importantly during the trial, the Defendant did not even call her husband, ABC to give evidence on her behalf to strengthen her case given that ABC was a material witness for her case.

The court gave judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and dismissed the Defendant’s claim. The court ordered that $477,933.92 be paid from the nett sale proceeds of the Property to each party.

Conclusion
A very important learning point from this case is that parties will be presumed to hold their legal interest in accordance with their manner of holding and their beneficial interest in proportion to their respective contributions to the purchase price.
If there is an express or inferred common intention as to how the beneficial interest in the property will be held, then evidence needs to be produced to show that common intention between parties. If there is insufficient evidence, then the beneficial interest will be held in the same manner in which the legal interest is held.
If you have any queries on the above, please feel free to contact us. Thank you.