Man with mistress gets a share of ex-wife's 2 houses

A recent court ruling on a divorce proceeding caught our attention and gave us a clearer idea of what is considered a matrimonial home. 

Filed for divorce after 31 years of marriage 

The parties, in this case, had been married for 31 years before the woman filed for divorce in 2019. The man is a banker, while the woman is a full-time homemaker. They have three children who are all over 21 years of age, so there are no issues of custody, care and control, or maintenance for them. 

So the case focuses on the division of the matrimonial assets and the woman's claim for maintenance.  

Here, we're going to focus on the properties deemed to be their matrimonial home. 

What is considered a matrimonial home? 

Under section 112(10) of the Women's Charter 1961, a matrimonial asset refers to 

1. any asset acquired before the marriage by one party or both parties to the marriage  

• ordinarily used or enjoyed by both parties or one or more of their children while the parties are residing together for shelter or transportation or for household, education, recreational, social or aesthetic purposes; or
• which has been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties to the marriage; and

2. any other asset of any nature acquired during the marriage by one party or both parties to the marriage

An asset acquired by way of gift or inheritance is excluded from the matrimonial asset unless it meets any of the following: 

• It is used as a matrimonial home.
• It has been substantially improved during the marriage by either or both parties. 

Properties that the man claimed to be their matrimonial home were gifts from his ex-wife's late mother 

At the centre of this case are two properties, referred to as the Crowhurst Property and the Bloxhome Property in the judgement. Both were gifted to the woman by her late mother and were later linked by a back-gate. 

Since they were a gift to her, the woman had argued that they should not be included in the matrimonial pool. She also said that the Crowhurst Property only became their home in 2004. She added that her ex-husband did not improve the home, and reduced its value instead by mortgaging it for loans. 

As for the Bloxhome Property, she claimed that it was mainly occupied by their older children, while the couple had mainly lived in the Crowhurst house. She added that although it was renovated in 2012 and 2018, the money had come from mortgaging the Crowhurst house. 

On the other hand, the man claimed that both should be considered matrimonial assets, adding that the Crowhurst house was in disrepair when they first moved in. The family had used the sale proceeds of their previous house, referred to as the Namly Property, to renovate it. 

He added that the Bloxhome house was given to the woman to provide more personal space for the family. The couple had merged the properties into a single matrimonial home, including having a common kitchen and dining area in the Bloxhome house and converting the kitchen in the Crowhurst house into study rooms. 

The judge ruled that the two properties are considered matrimonial assets 

The judge recognised that while both properties were gifts from the woman's late mother, both were used as the matrimonial home for the family. 

He highlighted that the family had actually moved into the Crowhurst house as early as 1994 (the couple were married in 1988). So they had been living in the house for 10 years before it was formally transferred to his ex-wife as a gift. 

On top of that, the Bloxhome house was given to the woman to benefit the couple and their children. The parties had also built a gate to join the house. Both houses eventually served as a matrimonial home for the couple and their children. 

So the judge included these two properties in the pool of matrimonial assets. 

Man has a mistress, but still gets 40 per cent share of the matrimonial assets including ex-wife's two houses 

The man was the main breadwinner, while the woman was a homemaker. The judge noted that typically in long single-income marriages, the court would go for an equal division of matrimonial assets. This was also what the man was contesting, while the woman had sought for an 80:20 division. 

At the same time, the judge recognised that the woman's contribution outweighed that of the man, as she was the primary caregiver of the family and had sacrificed her career in 1993 to raise the kids. 

On the other hand, the man was preoccupied with work and frequently travelled to Thailand. The judge added that "although it is unclear whether these trips were for legitimate business or 'business' with his mistress in Thailand". 

In addition, the man did not make full and frank disclosure of his matrimonial assets in Thailand. 

For these reasons, the judge ruled in favour of the woman, with the matrimonial assets divided 60:40. So the woman was entitled to keep around $5.2 million of the matrimonial assets, while the man was entitled to $3.5 million. 

How the Women's Charter plays into this case 

Since its implementation in 1961, the main aim of the Women's Charter was to protect women's rights. This includes ensuring that a married woman can own her own property. 

At the same time, there have been criticisms of its discrimination against men. Unlike women, men could only claim for spousal maintenance if they were incapacitated and could no longer support themselves, for example, due to an illness or disability. 

[[nid:440092]]

Nevertheless, this case has shown that through the Women's Charter, the courts aim to be gender-neutral when splitting matrimonial assets. 

Despite the two properties being gifts from the woman's late mother, the woman's contribution as the children's primary caregiver, and the man's extra-marital affair, the court still recognised the man's contribution to these houses as the sole breadwinner of the family. His contribution to renovating the houses, which was one of the criteria to meet for the houses to be considered matrimonial homes, led to him getting a share of these houses. 

This case also reminded us of a previous divorce case in which a woman had sought to get a share of her ex-husband's one-third share of a house in Bukit Timah. The one-third share was a gift from the ex-husband's father. 

However, unlike the current case, the house in question was the matrimonial home of her ex-husband's parents. Her ex-father-in-law had been the one paying for it. Plus, she and her ex-husband had not made any substantial improvements to the house. This was why she could not claim the house as a matrimonial home and get a share of it. 

This article was first published in 99.co.