Latest news with #MohamedFaizal
Singapore Law Watch
9 hours ago
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
When a dual-income, no-kids couple fight over $2.3m cash
When a dual-income, no-kids couple fight over $2.3m cash Source: Straits Times Article Date: 22 Jun 2025 Author: Tan Ooi Boon Man tries but fails to deny ex-wife share of commission earned for brokering a company takeover. There's usually plenty of money to fight over when Dinks – dual income, no kids – couples split up, but a Singapore pair took that to a new level when they fought over even the $15,000 spent on their pampered dogs. The dog fight was just a sideshow; the real battle was over savings in excess of $2 million. The conflict – sadly all too common among divorcing spouses, no matter what money is at stake – became a sort of legal benchmark here because it is rare for the High Court to hear cases involving such couples, especially when large sums of cash are involved. Their occupations were not disclosed in the court ruling but all attention was on the $2.8 million in sales commission the husband earned for brokering the takeover of a company. That sum alone, which attracted income tax of over $500,000, dwarfed all other assets they owned during their relatively short union of about eight years. The couple, who lived with the husband's parents, had other combined assets of about $900,000, which included a $132,000 net gain from the sale of their HDB flat. They had married in 2011 but barely a year after that, there were signs that not all was well, with allegations of infidelity and a general drifting apart. In 2020, the wife moved out and, in 2022, they filed for divorce. During the hearing for the division of assets, the Family Justice Court looked only at the couple's financial contributions, as they did not have any children. The husband had close to $3 million in his name while his ex-wife's assets amounted to $213,000, so the division ratio was about 93 to 7 in the husband's favour. When the case came before High Court Judge Mohamed Faizal, he saw no reason to adjust this ruling. But he noted that even in the case of a childless marriage, a spouse's indirect contribution must still be considered, otherwise the efforts in caring for each other would be rendered 'worthless'. 'Even in the context of a childless marriage, the parties would have ordinarily invested deeply in each other's personal and professional growth,' he said, adding that the law would 'honour the shared journey and investment made as a partnership'. In the end, the division ratio for the couple was adjusted to 85 to 15, which doubled the wife's initial share. Here are three points relating to matrimonial assets that all couples should know. Proof of income and expenses With a windfall as high as $2.8 million, it was only human that the husband would claim the money was not entirely his in order to prevent his ex-wife from having a share. He said the commission was earned by 'a group of people' who brokered the deal. To prove his point, he retained only $50,000 and transferred the rest of it to a friend. If this was true, it would not make sense to declare the bulk of the commission to the taxman as his own income, which attracted a levy of over $500,000. If the sum was earned by a group of people, they would collectively pay a lot less tax if they each declared their share of the commission to the taxman. Not surprisingly, Judge Faizal did not believe the husband's story, especially when the documents he submitted to support his claim were seen 'as poor, at best'. 'He was only able to produce an undated letter entitled 'Invoice', where he stated that all the commission was to be paid to him, without reference to anyone else.' As a result, about $2.3 million of the commission was added to the pool for sharing, after paying tax. The wife could also not prove her claim that $15,000 was paid to a pet clinic to treat their dogs. She had withdrawn about $42,000 from their joint bank account after the sale of their HDB flat and claimed that part was spent on the dogs. As she could not produce receipts, it was presumed she spent the whole amount on herself. Living in parents' home When a couple live in a home owned entirely by one of them, both are likely to have shares in the property, which will be viewed as their matrimonial home. But living in a residence belonging to a set of parents will not transform this property into a couple's matrimonial home as the assets are not theirs in the first place. Even if they have contributed to renovating their bedroom, for example, it is still hard for an ex-spouse to make a claim on the in-laws' property. At most, the sum spent would be considered in the matrimonial division. In this case, the wife had no claim on her former in-laws' property as she was living there as a tenant who was also served by their domestic helpers. But she could stake a claim to a private apartment that her ex-husband bought as an investment because this was done during their marriage. Contributions in childless marriages As the law views a marriage as a partnership, the successes and achievements attained in a Dinks marriage should not be seen as the result of one spouse's hard work and effort, but a collective effort of both parties. As Judge Faizal put it: 'This can manifest in a multitude of ways, from one partner taking on more domestic responsibilities to allow the other to excel in their career, to providing important emotional support to each other when facing the many hurdles of life.' So in this instance, he found that a 50-50 ratio for indirect contributions would be appropriate, as both sides also did their part before the marriage broke down. That said, such contributions would not be viewed as having the same weightage as financial contributions, especially for short marriages. Judge Faizal cited two previous cases and noted that the court gave a 50 per cent weightage for a childless marriage that lasted over 11 years, and a 25 per cent weightage for one of five years with one child. As the couple were effectively together for about eight years, he said a 20 per cent weightage for indirect contributions would not be at odds with the precedents and was also appropriate on the facts. So after considering the overall contributions, he adjusted the wife's earlier share of about 7 per cent to 15 cent. Since the total value of the matrimonial assets, which included the sales commission, was about $3.2 million, the wife would be entitled to about $480,000 and the husband $2.72 million. While a divorce may be a painful experience for estranged spouses, the law strives to be fair to all parties by compensating the efforts that both sides have invested in their marriage. Tan Ooi Boon is the Invest Editor of The Straits Times Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Straits Times
10-05-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
When a friend borrows over $500k but refuses to pay it back
High Court Judge Mohamed Faizal noted that this was a case involving one friend's seemingly endless generosity and misplaced trust that was callously exploited by the other. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO Tales of people taking advantage of their friends when it comes to borrowing money are all too familiar, but what makes this case stand out is the eye-watering amount involved – $500,000. This saga of betrayal began, as so many do, with a sob story: A corporate consultant (we shall call her Nancy) saw her business partner (Susan) seemingly sad and distressed at the office one night. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
