Unwed elderly couple fought over $1.5m in joint account after break-up

The course of true love never did run smooth, said William Shakespeare, but the 50-year romance of an unmarried couple in Singapore almost did -- until the former lovebirds fought tooth and nail in the High Court over their $1.5 million life savings.

Their last tango had all the drama of a Shakespearean play, given the swings and roundabouts the relationship had endured over the years.

The 80-something lovers met in 1971 when the woman was working in a bank. Romance blossomed, and they eventually moved into a house they bought together in 1976.

But the happy union almost headed for the rocks when the woman learnt that the "swinging bachelor" who had wooed her was in fact married with children.

The discovery of his double life came as a brutal shock to the woman when, out of the blue, his wife and children showed up one day at the couple's love nest -- a house in Sennett Estate -- a few years after they started living there. Despite the sudden and unpleasant first encounter, all of them eventually lived under the same roof for a few years.

The woman finally called it quits in 2020. She took what she believed was hers from their joint bank account of about $1.5 million. While it is common for some estranged spouses to take everything, she withdrew only about $760,000, leaving the other half untouched for her former lover.

But it was love lost as far as he was concerned because he viewed her action as a betrayal of trust. He sued her for the return of the money, even though he was staying in a nursing home by then.

The High Court dismissed his suit and ruled that parties in a non-matrimonial relationship also have rights over their shared assets, based on their actual and indirect financial contributions.

Everything came down to the couple's house, which they had bought and co-owned until it was sold for about $4 million in 2011. While some of the funds were used to buy an apartment under the woman's name, it was not disputed that the $1.5 million left in the joint account was the remainder of the sale proceeds.

So the key question before Justice Andre Maniam when he heard the case in 2022 was who was the true owner of the house, as this would determine who had rights over the money in that joint account.

Although the woman did not have a spousal relationship that would be recognised in matrimonial disputes, the law could not ignore both her "direct and indirect" monetary contributions.

The house was bought in 1976 for $160,000 with money from the man's salvaging company, where she played a significant role after joining him as his partner even though she was not paid a salary.

Justice Maniam duly found that both were equal owners of the house and that since the money in the bank account came from the sale of the property, they continued to be "beneficial" joint account holders.

This meant the man had no right to demand that his former lover return the cash she had withdrawn -- it is legally hers due to her half-share in the house.

Here are three important points from the case governing property and bank accounts.

Contribution to family business

If you work in the family business but are not paid, it does not mean that your financial contribution is zero. By not taking a salary, you are actually helping the family save on costs, which could help the business grow.

This was the case when the woman started working for her then lover's company not long after he met her while she was employed at his bank branch.

She initially worked part time but later quit the bank job and worked full time, assisting in matters such as handling his correspondence, explaining English documents to him, and preparing accounting papers and cheques for signing, as well as accompanying him on business matters.

While the man sought to put down her work as "administrative", it was not disputed that she had worked without a salary. She also used her own savings to pay for company expenses, and borrowed from relatives to help the firm.

There was no doubt that she had a stake in the business because no employee would use their own savings to finance a firm or work for free.

Justice Maniam found that she had made both direct and indirect contributions to the man's company, and since the firm's money was used to buy their house, both were deemed to have contributed financially to the deal.

The house was listed in both their names during the purchase, so they were equal joint owners.

Conduct of the parties

If you are the king of your castle, you would likely behave like one and socialise with and befriend other home owners in your neighbourhood.

The woman proved that she was the true mistress of the house by getting a long-time neighbour to testify in court that she had been living there with her then lover as a couple long before the man's family showed up.

She was forced to do this because her former lover claimed that she had moved in after he and his family had lived in that same house.

The man argued that the whole house belonged to him and that her name on the title deed was just a formality. Despite his family complaining about his lover's name on the deed, he did nothing to change its ownership to just his name or that of his and his wife's.

Indeed, he continued to live with the lover as a joint tenant after his family moved out.

Justice Maniam noted that the man had named his then lover, not his wife, as a co-owner because they had intended to hold the house together from when it was bought.

"This is consistent with (his) inaction when confronted with his wife's and children's unhappiness regarding the manner in which the property was held," he noted.

Rights of joint account owners

If you have no intention of sharing the money in your bank, you should avoid opening a joint account with another person. Rules governing such accounts do not change just because you assume the joint account holder will not touch that cash.

The man argued that all the money was his and that his former lover's name was added only later. But bank records showed that the account was opened in both their names from day one.

Contrary to the man's claim that the woman's name was there as a formality, she had the same signing rights as him. Indeed, she instructed the bank to split the balance of about $1.5 million in half so she could withdraw the $760,000 that belonged to her.

Ironically, while the couple were not married, their respective rights to their combined assets were clear and easier to resolve than many matrimonial cases, which can be muddled by the parties' complicated relationships.

What this means is that when it comes to money matters, it pays to keep tabs on all your payments and contributions if you want to preserve your stake in any asset.

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

Couple agreed to split 50% of flat's value, but court says it must be 100% Former Court of Appeal judge L.P. Thean dies at 90