Family fought over rag-and-bone man’s $4m house

The old adage that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure has never been truer than for a local rag-and-bone man who earned such a good living that he was able to buy four properties and raise 11 children.

Sadly, his inspiring tale also illustrates another, sadder truth: Nothing splits a family faster and with such rancour as a fight over money.

Our tenacious recycling business owner, who lived to the ripe old age of 98, was diligent in managing his cash and kept extensive records of all his transactions, including the pocket money given to his children over the last three decades.

But after his death in 2021, his assets became the centre of a nasty family fight with one of his sons suing for a share of his most valuable property – a house in the Bartley estate that is worth an estimated $4 million – despite the man’s careful planning.

He had begun investing in property in the 1980s when he was in his 60s and chose the unusual path of putting all the real estate in some of his children’s names as that would allow him to get longer loan tenures from the bank, given his relatively advanced age.

But there was little doubt that all the properties, which were mostly rented out, were his, as he engaged lawyers to prepare trust deeds to state that the children were holding them for him.

Even when he was in his 80s, he never lost the zeal to count every cent, evidenced by the fight he got into with the taxman because he was adamant in paying less property tax for his Bartley house.

As he was living there with his wife, he argued he should be entitled to owner-occupied concessionary rates, but he failed because the property was in the names of two of his sons, who also had their own homes.

But he refused to give up and eventually prevailed after writing to his Member of Parliament and getting his lawyers to prove that he was the actual owner due to the trust deed he had signed with his sons.

Here was clearly a man who took great pains to get the paperwork right, but this meticulous planning failed to prevent his children splitting into two camps as they fought over that same house after his death in 2021.

In his will, he left the house to only six of his children, but one of the two sons who had been holding it was not given a share.

This son, who was living in the house at the time, not only refused to budge, but also claimed that the whole house actually belonged to him. So two of his siblings, who were managing their father’s estate, had no choice but to take him to court.

High Court Judge Hri Kumar Nair ruled that the father never gave up ownership of the house and that the son had no share in it, even though he was listed as a legal owner. That meant the son had to vacate the house, which would be dealt with according to the father’s will.

Here are three points to note on how the elderly man’s planning had enabled him to retain ownership of the house.

Proper documentation of ownership

If you want to ensure that no one can challenge the ownership of your real estate, make sure you have ironclad documents to back you up.

This was what the father did when he asked his lawyer to prepare a “deed of trust” to record that the purchase price of the house and all the mortgage payments, legal costs and related expenses were paid by him.

The deed stated that while the two sons held the property in their names, they acted only as “trustees” for him and that they had to transfer the house to other chosen owners if the father directed them.

Also, if the father did not regard the house as his own, he would not have taken the trouble to ask for a reduction in his property tax and the taxman in turn would not have granted him the concession.

Proof of payment

The purchase price of the house in 1980 was $220,000 and the 10 per cent deposit of $22,000 was paid upfront by the father, whose name was on the receipt. Despite this, the son claimed that he gave the cash to his father.

But the other brother noted that there was no way he could have come up with the deposit as he was only 24 years old then, married with two young children on a gross salary of about $500 a month.

By 1985, his monthly income was around $1,100 and he claimed that he was able to invest in another property and the rental income from that allowed him to keep up monthly mortgage payments of about $480. But he was unable to produce any proof for his claim of the rental income or how he could support his family and manage all his expenses.

In contrast, his father kept detailed handwritten records of all the mortgage payments and related expenses for the house. Indeed, his books also showed that he gave pocket money to his children regularly.

For instance, between 1989 and 2018, he had given $41,000 to the son because he apparently was not astute in managing his finances.

Consistent way of planning

There are benefits in being consistently careful in your planning as it is convincing proof that you know what you are doing.

In this case, the family’s lawyer, Mr Victor Yip, pointed out that other than the house, all the other investment properties owned by the father were also bought in the same manner using trust deeds to make his other children hold the real estate for him.

Another sign that the father was the real owner of the house was that he acted as the guarantor for the loan taken out in his sons’ names. If the house belonged wholly to one of the two sons, it would be doubtful that the other son would have exposed himself to the liability of serving the loan.

In the end, the court ruled that the house belonged to the father and that it would be dealt with according to his will, so the son had to leave.

As in all family battles, the best outcome is not which party has won but whether they have resolved their differences and can reconcile as a family once again.

Justice Nair noted that the siblings in this case had grown up together in difficult circumstances and probably made sacrifices and helped one another over the past decades.

It was clear to the judge that goodwill and familial bonds still existed among them despite the squabbles. For instance, they came together to pay for home renovations their mother asked for when she was alive and almost all of them put aside their differences to reach an amicable solution when their father was still around.

Even in the current dispute, when the son who lost the case said he would need 60 days to leave, his siblings agreed without hesitation.

“There is no reason why they cannot come together after these proceedings to resolve their differences. Nothing, I am sure, would please their parents more,” Justice Nair added.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Why property investors can’t cry foul to back out of deals Public urged to be on guard as deepfake content will grow more sophisticated: Experts