Wife’s share of assets bumped up to 35% in divorce due to husband’s lack of disclosure

AI generated

SINGAPORE – A man who was going through a divorce did not fully disclose his assets, including a $1.4 million payout he received upon leaving his firm, where he earned $73,000 a month as a partner.

More assets were uncovered after several rounds of a process in which his wife’s lawyers asked for documents and information.

In a written judgment on July 27, a High Court judge bumped up the wife’s share of the assets from 32 per cent to 35 per cent after concluding that the husband had not fulfilled his duty of full and frank disclosure.

Justice Hoo Sheau Peng said: “It is certainly troubling, and it cannot be ignored, that the net value of the matrimonial pool (excluding the wife’s assets) increased by about six times from the husband’s first declaration of his assets.”

The judge said it was undeniable that the 52-year-old man had means and was able to accumulate wealth during the marriage, which lasted nine years and five months.

“His conduct in the proceedings leads me to the view that the matrimonial pool is presently undervalued,” said the judge, adding that it was appropriate to apply an uplift of 3 per cent to the wife’s share.

The judge valued the matrimonial pool at $7.6 million, comprising the man’s assets worth $4.8 million, the wife’s assets worth $1.5 million, and joint assets worth $1.3 million.

The main joint asset – the matrimonial flat at The Pinnacle@Duxton, valued at $1.24 million – was ordered to be sold. The net proceeds from the flat are to be divided 65:35 in the husband’s favour.

Other than the joint assets, the wife is entitled to $2.2 million.

To achieve this, she retains her assets worth $1.5 million, while the husband has to pay her about $708,000.

The judge also awarded the wife, a cancer survivor, a lump-sum maintenance of $144,000, assessed at $6,000 each month for a period of two years.

The 55-year-old woman was diagnosed with endometrial cancer and underwent a procedure to remove the uterus and cervix in 2017.

The judge found that her earning capacity was severely hampered, taking into account her poor health, her age, and long hiatus from the workforce in a professional industry.

The couple, who were in a relationship since 2004, married in 2011. They have no children.

The wife filed for divorce in October 2020. An interim judgment was granted in May 2021.

The husband was the sole income earner. He was a partner at a firm identified only as EY before his employment was terminated on Dec 31, 2020.

From Oct 1, 2022 to Oct 31, 2025, he worked at another firm, identified as ST, and drew a monthly income of $21,000. He is currently unemployed.

The wife was unemployed throughout the marriage. She ran two businesses selling antiques and art pieces, from which she derived no income.

Up to the time the wife moved out of the matrimonial home in May 2019, the husband gave her a monthly allowance of $3,000 and provided her with credit cards.

The husband’s assets include his share of a shophouse, properties in the United Kingdom and Indonesia, the payout from EY, and a trust. He was represented by Drew & Napier’s See Chern Yang.

The wife’s assets include money in bank accounts and insurance payouts. She was represented by WongPartnership’s Gavin Neo.

The husband had initially declared that his “EY Capital Account” contained $142,000.

After the wife’s counsel requested the account statements, he eventually disclosed that he received a total of $1.4 million upon his departure from the firm.

The judge found that the sum is a matrimonial asset, but deducted certain outflows to avoid double counting.

Discretionary trust

Another asset that was contested was a discretionary trust that the husband set up in September 2015 to protect the family’s finances and shield his assets from creditors.

Managed by a professional trust company, the trust was valued at about $512,000 as at Dec 31, 2020.

The beneficiaries include the husband, the wife, the husband’s parents and the wife’s mother.

In a discretionary trust, the trustee has the discretion to decide when, how much and to whom financial distributions are made.

The man argued that the trust should be excluded from the matrimonial pool, as both the husband and the wife no longer own the trust assets.

The judge concluded that the husband retains control over the trust and may thus be treated as the owner of the assets.

She noted that the husband had appointed himself as the protector of the trust, and several of the trustees’ supposed discretionary powers are subject to his consent.

By his own account, the husband said he had told the trustees about the divorce, and that the trustees, being aware of the changes to the members of his family, would not have given any of the trust assets to the wife or her mother.

The judge said to exclude the trust from the pool would effectively allow the husband to shield marital gains and deprive the wife of her entitlement.

The judge added the value of the trust assets without unwinding the trust itself.