1. A recently concluded divorce case gave me a good boost in confidence. The outcome of the Ancillary Matters (“AM”) Hearing was exactly as the position I had advised my client to take. My advice was grounded in principle and reasonableness. Unfortunately, the same was not true for the other side, who rejected our reasonable Offer to Settle (“OTS”) to their own detriment.
2. In this case, I represented the Husband / Father (“H”) in divorce proceedings with his ex-wife (“W”). H was a foreigner but had grown up studying in Singapore whereas W was a Singapore citizen. They had a child, who thankfully was not the centre of any dispute. In fact, parties settled all the AMs at CFRC (i.e. Child Focused Resolution Centre) Mediation, except for the Division of the Matrimonial Flat.
3. The dispute revolved solely around the parties’ HDB Flat. Under relevant Regulations, the flat was under W’s sole name, but the bulk (i.e. almost all) of the finances, with the exception of about S$2,000.00 and the CPF Housing Grant, came from H. Particularly, H’s father helped H with a lump sum for the purchase of the flat.
4. Long-story short, using simple calculations based on established legal principles, W’s share in the flat was calculated to be about x% At CFRC Mediation, in an effort to come to an amicable resolution, and on my advice, we offered x+5% to W. Much to our shock, W rejected our proposal, insisted on x+35%, and refused to come for a 2nd Mediation. Thus, we had no choice but to contest this issue. A cost-benefit analysis was done, and it was calculated that the benefit (i.e. realistic value of awarded share) far outweighed the cost (i.e. my professional fees) to my client.
5. Being pro-active, after the 1st Affidavit of Assets and Means (“AOM”) was filed and we (H and I) reviewed the parties’ relevant positions, on my advice, we made an OTS to settle the matter for x% In very basic terms, under the relevant Rules, if W eventually did not get a result that was better than my OTS, then we could ask for higher costs. The rationale is easy to understand – i.e. to encourage parties to take a reasonable position and settle as early as possible, to avoid unnecessary litigation.
6. Lo-and-behold, 2 further Affidavits and 1 AM Hearing later, the Court decided the AMs and awarded x% to W. Initially the Court wanted to order “each party is to bear their own costs” (*a common frustration for family proceedings, which is a story for another day), but I pointed out our OTS. After reviewing our OTS and comparing it to the Order of Court, the Court awarded costs to my client.
7. According to H, W’s sister’s boyfriend told him that W’s lawyer had initially advised W that she could get 100% simply because she was Singaporean. If this were true, such advice would not be supported under the law, which looks at parties’ contributions towards a particular matrimonial asset. To add fuel to this fire, was the history of W’s mother instigating W to bully H (*who was a rather timid person). Unfortunately, this led to unnecessary litigation.
8. As a lawyer, I did my job and advised my client on reasonable positions to take at each stage of the proceedings. Ultimately, I am glad that this worked in my client’s favour. By adhering to principles, as opposed to pulling numbers out of thin air, I was able to advise my client on a reasonable position to take. Much appreciation to my client for putting his trust in my professional advice. The costs awarded to my client sent a strong message to W that the law would not support her if she took unreasonable positions. From W’s conduct, I expected her to create some problems in the sale of the flat, but H reported to me that the sale went smoothly.
9. At JinHuang Legal LLC, we believe that a good outcome begins with good decisions, and our professional advice helps our clients make such good decisions. Hopefully, H putting his foot down where it mattered, was a sufficient deterrent to W from engaging in further conduct detrimental to all parties.
10. Got a legal issue that you need assistance with? Contact our Managing Director Mr Teo Jin Huang at 94763230 (call / WhatsApp / text) or by e-mail at lawyer@jinhuang.sg.