XST v XSU

Facts

XST, the husband, a director in a bank, and XSU, the wife, a housewife who had been an air stewardess before the marriage, married on 23 December 2003. Interim judgment was granted on 28 December 2023. They have a daughter and a son, aged 20 and 18, and agreed on joint custody with care and control to the wife. In Divorce (Transferred) No 5187 of 2023, the High Court decided the division of matrimonial assets, child maintenance and spousal maintenance.

The disputes on the assets concerned two secondary mortgages on the matrimonial home, the husband's share in an Indonesian villa held through a company in which he was one of three equal shareholders, an equity vesting account, a car sold after interim judgment, a bonus paid after interim judgment, several of the husband's credit card debts, a bank account the wife held jointly with her son, and a Rolex watch the husband had given the wife. The husband sought a division in his favour; the wife asked for an adverse inference against him and for maintenance for herself and the children.

Issues

1. Whether the disputed assets and liabilities formed part of the matrimonial pool, and at what value.
2. What division was fair in this single-income marriage of 20 years, and whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the husband.
3. What maintenance the husband should pay for the children and for the wife.

Holding

The court ordered the matrimonial assets to be divided 60% to the husband and 40% to the wife, with the parties to agree consequential orders. It made no order for the children's monthly maintenance, ordered the husband to bear their education expenses, and ordered a lump sum of $144,000 in spousal maintenance. Costs submissions were directed within 10 days.

Reasoning

The court treated both mortgages as matrimonial liabilities because the wife showed no objection to them and no reason to think they were not used for the family. It accepted the wife's valuation of the Indonesian villa, since the husband could not say it could not be sold while letting it out for rent, and he showed no steps to obtain the missing building permit. The vesting account was valued from the husband's own statement. The car, sold after interim judgment, stayed in the pool, and the bonus was pro-rated for work done before interim judgment. Credit card debts incurred months after interim judgment were excluded, but an older instalment loan used for family bills was a liability. Half the joint account with the son was counted. The watch was a gift given in happier times and was not a matrimonial asset.

For a 20-year single-income marriage, longer than the range discussed in BOR v BOS [2018] SGCA 78, the court found 40% fair for the wife. No adverse inference was drawn, because the wife offered only a bare assertion with no substratum of evidence of concealment.

The husband's means far exceeded the wife's, so he was to bear the children's expenses in full. But neither side supported its figures for monthly expenses, so the court made no order and allowed the husband to agree sums with the adult children, who could apply for maintenance. For the wife, less than 10% of her claimed expenses were proved, she had some earning capacity and a large share of the assets, so a lump sum was ordered.

From the judgment