BMM v BMN: Resulting Trusts, Gifts, and Proprietary Estoppel in Property Ownership Dispute

In the High Court of Singapore, BMM sought a declaration that BMN held her share of a property on resulting trust for him after their marriage was declared void. BMN sought a declaration that she held an equal beneficial interest in the property based on financial contributions, gift, or proprietary estoppel. The court, Foo Tuat Yien JC, found that BMM had sole beneficial ownership of the property based on the parties' common intention, allowing BMM's originating summons and dismissing BMN's.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Originating Summons No 240 of 2015 allowed; Originating Summons No 574 of 2015 dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case involving BMM and BMN disputing property ownership after their marriage was declared void. The court ruled in favor of BMM.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BMMPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualOriginating Summons No 240 of 2015 AllowedWonAlagappan s/o Arunasalam
BMNDefendant, PlaintiffIndividualOriginating Summons No 574 of 2015 DismissedLostLim Pei Ling June, Low Seow Ling

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Foo Tuat YienJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Alagappan s/o ArunasalamA Alagappan Law Corporation
Lim Pei Ling JuneEden Law Corporation
Low Seow LingEden Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. BMM bought the property before marriage in 1997.
  2. The property was transferred to BMN in 2001 after the parties married in 1999.
  3. The marriage was later declared void.
  4. The twins were discovered to be the biological issue of another man.
  5. All payments for the property were made by BMM.
  6. The parties kept their finances markedly separate.
  7. The parties never lived in the property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BMM v BMN, Originating Summons No 240 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 131
  2. BMM v BMN, Originating Summons No 574 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 131

6. Timeline

DateEvent
BMM bought the property.
BMM and BMN met in Singapore.
BMN was granted the decree nisi in respect of her divorce.
BMM proposed to BMN.
BMM and BMN married in the USA.
Decree absolute for BMN's divorce was granted.
BMM started working in Shanghai.
The twins were born.
The family moved to Shanghai.
Contract for the sale of the HDB Flat was entered into.
BMM was dismissed by E Bank.
The family moved back to Singapore.
BMM commenced employment with a different Bank.
Supposed contract for BMN to become a joint tenant of the property.
Completion accounts for the HDB Flat.
BMM transferred the property to be held by BMN and himself as joint tenants.
BMN closed her fashion business.
BMN stopped helping out at the Factory.
BMM reduced the monthly allowance he gave to BMN.
BMN started a new business.
BMM was posted to the USA for work; BMN and the twins moved with him.
BMM bought a property in Pasadena, California.
BMN signed an inter-spousal transfer deed.
BMN filed divorce proceedings in the USA.
BMM's suit against E Bank was dismissed.
BMN and the twins moved out of the family home.
BMM received advice from his Singapore solicitor.
BMM applied and was granted approval to amend the divorce proceedings to proceedings for annulment.
BMN surreptitiously ordered a DNA test.
The USA courts made an order annulling BMN’s and BMM’s marriage.
BMN breached that joint custody order by removing the twins from California to Singapore.
The Singapore courts recorded a consent order between BMN and her ex-colleague.
The Family Court ordered that the twins be returned to BMM, in the USA.
BMN was sentenced to jail for 52 days.
BMN decided to move back permanently to the USA.
BMN was arrested by the USA immigration authorities.
BMN's passport was confiscated by the USA immigration authorities.
BMN was adjudged a bankrupt in Singapore.
BMM was awarded US$86,882 by the Californian courts.
BMM filed OS240.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
The USA Juvenile Court ordered that the twins be placed in the home of BMN.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Beneficial Ownership of Property
    • Outcome: The court held that BMM had sole beneficial ownership of the property pursuant to the parties' common intention.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Resulting trust
      • Presumption of advancement
      • Common intention constructive trust
      • Proprietary estoppel
      • Mistake
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 1048
  2. Presumption of Advancement
    • Outcome: The court found that the presumption of advancement applied, but was rebutted by evidence of common intention.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
  3. Proprietary Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court did not rule on whether proprietary estoppel was raised, but observed that there was no clear representation or detrimental reliance.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Mistake
    • Outcome: The court found that the mistake regarding the validity of the marriage was not material.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 2 AC 108

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that BMN holds her share in the property on resulting trust for BMM
  2. Declaration that BMN and BMM each hold an equal beneficial interest in the property
  3. Declaration that BMN holds a beneficial interest in the property in a proportion calculated based on her various financial contributions

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration of Resulting Trust
  • Declaration of Beneficial Interest
  • Proprietary Estoppel

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Trusts and Estates
  • Family Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong MunCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited for the approach and principles in determining beneficial interest in property disputes involving unequal contributions and no declaration of trust.
Springette v DefoeUK Court of AppealYes[1992] FLR 388United KingdomCited for the principle that a discounted purchase price due to one party's tenancy can be considered a direct financial contribution.
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108SingaporeCited for the observations regarding the presumption of advancement in spousal context and the varying strength of the presumption.
Moate v MoateN/AYes[1948] 2 All ER 486N/ACited for the logic of extending the presumption of advancement to transfers by an intending husband to an intending wife.
Wirth v WirthHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1956) 98 CLR 228AustraliaCited for the principle that a transfer of property by a prospective husband to his intended wife raises a presumption of advancement.
Rider v KidderN/AYes(1805) 10 Ves 360; 32 ER 884N/ACited to show the conventional position that there is no presumption of advancement between cohabiting couples.
Soar v FosterN/AYes(1858) 4 K & J 152; 70 ER 64N/ACited to show the conventional position that there is no presumption of advancement between cohabiting couples.
Pettitt v PettittN/AYes[1970] AC 777N/ACited for the observation that the strength of the presumption of advancement should be considered as having diminished significance.
Low Gim Siah v Low Geok KhimCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 795SingaporeCited for the detailed consideration of the presumption of advancement and the varying strength of the presumption in different circumstances.
Neo Hui Ling v Ang Ah SewN/AYes[2012] 2 SLR 831N/ACited for the principle that where joint tenants have made unequal contributions to the purchase price of the property, they are presumed to beneficially own a share of the property proportionate to their respective contributions to its purchase price.
Pitt v HoltUK Supreme CourtYes[2013] 2 AC 108United KingdomCited for the principles regarding the equitable jurisdiction to set aside a voluntary disposition on the ground of mistake.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Inheritance Tax Act 1984United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Resulting trust
  • Presumption of advancement
  • Common intention constructive trust
  • Proprietary estoppel
  • Beneficial ownership
  • Joint tenancy
  • Matrimonial property
  • Void marriage
  • Financial contribution
  • Detrimental reliance

15.2 Keywords

  • property
  • trust
  • marriage
  • resulting trust
  • estoppel
  • singapore

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Property
  • Family

17. Areas of Law

  • Trust Law
  • Equity
  • Property Law
  • Resulting Trusts
  • Proprietary Estoppel
  • Family Law