USB v USA: Division of Matrimonial Assets After Short Marriage with Long Cohabitation

In USB v USA, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard cross-appeals regarding the High Court's decision on the division of matrimonial assets following a divorce. The parties had a short marriage of five and a half years preceded by a 12-year cohabitation. The key legal issue was the identification of matrimonial assets and the application of the structured approach. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, adjusting the valuation of two properties and modifying the final amount the Wife had to pay the Husband.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Cross-appeals regarding the division of matrimonial assets. The court clarifies the law on identifying matrimonial assets and applying the structured approach.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
USBAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial
USARespondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal dismissed in partLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Debbie OngJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Navin KangatharanJosephine Chong LLC
Chong Siew Nyuk JosephineJosephine Chong LLC
Yeo Fang YingJosephine Chong LLC
EstherJosephine Chong LLC
Chew Wei EnEversheds Harry Elias LLP
Koh Tien HuaEversheds Harry Elias LLP
Carrie GillEversheds Harry Elias LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Husband and Wife were married on 23 February 2011 and divorced on 16 August 2016.
  2. Prior to the marriage, they cohabited for approximately 12 years.
  3. The Wife owned 17 properties, some held through companies, as of the divorce date.
  4. The Husband is a lawyer, and the Wife is a senior marketing director.
  5. The Wife is more financially astute and made successful real estate investments.
  6. The disputed properties were purchased before the marriage but had outstanding mortgage payments during the marriage.
  7. The matrimonial home, Sunrise Close Property, was purchased before the marriage but used as the matrimonial home.

5. Formal Citations

  1. USB v USA and another appeal, , [2020] SGCA 57

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Marriage occurred
Interim judgment of divorce granted
Hearing date
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Identification of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court clarified the principles for identifying matrimonial assets, including the treatment of pre-marital assets and mortgage payments made during the marriage.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Inclusion of pre-marital assets
      • Valuation of assets
      • Treatment of mortgage payments during marriage
  2. Division of Matrimonial Assets
    • Outcome: The court affirmed the application of the structured approach to short marriages and clarified that contributions during cohabitation should not be considered.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Application of the structured approach
      • Weightage of direct and indirect contributions
      • Consideration of cohabitation period
  3. Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure
    • Outcome: The court reiterated the importance of full and frank disclosure and the potential for adverse inferences for non-compliance.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Adverse inference for non-disclosure
      • Scope of disclosure obligations

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Division of Matrimonial Assets
  2. Appeal of High Court Decision

9. Cause of Actions

  • Divorce
  • Division of Matrimonial Assets

10. Practice Areas

  • Divorce
  • Family Law
  • Matrimonial Asset Division

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
ANJ v ANKCourt of AppealYes[2015] 4 SLR 1043SingaporeCited for setting out the structured approach to division of matrimonial assets.
USA v USBHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHCF 5SingaporeCited as the decision being appealed against.
JAF v JAEHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 717SingaporeCited regarding the relevance of pre-marital contributions in division of assets.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited for the principle of according primacy to the text and statutory context of legislation.
TNC v TNDHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1172SingaporeCited for the term 'quintessential matrimonial assets'.
BPC v BPBCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 608SingaporeCited for the principle of identifying the material gains of the marital partnership.
TQU v TQTCourt of AppealYes[2020] SGCA 8SingaporeCited regarding the burden of proof for transforming a gift into a matrimonial asset.
UYQ v UYPCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 551SingaporeCited as a reminder that parties should not take an overly mathematical approach.
TNL v TNKCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the holding that the structured approach does not apply to long Single-Income marriages.
Lock Yeng Fun v Chua Hock ChyeCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 520SingaporeCited to discourage the proposition that equality of division is the starting point or the norm.
ATE v ATDCourt of AppealYes[2016] SGCA 2SingaporeCited for assigning a higher weightage to direct contributions in a short marriage.
UDA v UDBHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 1433SingaporeCited for the procedural differences between a civil trial and an ancillary matters hearing.
X v KDistrict CourtYes[2003] SGDC 320SingaporeCited for the point that cross-examination is not commonly permitted in ancillary matters hearings.
UYP v UYQHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHCF 16SingaporeCited for the flexible approach to evaluating evidence in family proceedings.
UJF v UJGHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 178SingaporeCited for the flexible approach to evaluating evidence in family proceedings and for declining to take pre-marriage circumstances into account.
BG v BFHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 233SingaporeCited for the duty of full and frank disclosure.
NK v NLHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 743SingaporeCited for the duty of full and frank disclosure and for the ideology of marriage as an equal co-operative partnership of efforts.
Koh Kim Lan Angela v Choong Kian Haw and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 491SingaporeCited for the interpretation of 'joint efforts' under s 106(5) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed).
TND v TNC and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] SGCA 34SingaporeCited for the principle that appeals will not be sympathetically received where the result is a potential adjustment of the sums awarded below that works out to less than 10% thereof.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Matrimonial assets
  • Structured approach
  • Direct contributions
  • Indirect contributions
  • Cohabitation
  • Full and frank disclosure
  • MP value
  • Disputed Properties
  • Matrimonial pool
  • Weightage
  • Short marriage

15.2 Keywords

  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Singapore
  • Family Law
  • Property Division
  • Cohabitation
  • Women's Charter

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law95
Matrimonial Assets95
Division of Matrimonial Property90
Divorce70

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Divorce
  • Matrimonial Assets
  • Property Law