SINGAPORE: An elderly couple turned to their eldest daughter for help with the outstanding mortgage payments for a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat, after the man's health started to decline in 2016.
The house was under her parents' names, and in 2017, the younger woman became a joint tenant, following HDB's approval.
About four years after her husband's death in 2018, the wife turned to the courts seeking to remove her daughter as a joint tenant and set aside the transfer of HDB flat ownership.
She had also wanted to add her eldest son, who had moved back home following the failure of his marriage, as a joint tenant of the flat.
In a High Court judgment published on Friday (Jan 17), Justice Valerie Thean dismissed the mother's bid entirely.
The couple bought the flat under their joint names for S$218,000 (US$159,000) on Mar 1, 1996. The man made a down payment of S$51,000, while the remainder was financed through a joint HDB mortgage.
The late husband, Mr Yusope, was a road sweeper for the National Environmental Agency (NEA) until he stopped working due to ill health in early 2018. His wife Mdm Che’som, now 68, had been a housewife since getting married in 1972.
Both husband and wife were largely conversant only in Malay, the court heard.
Their eldest daughter, Mdm Ain, has been a property agent for 23 years and is well-versed in HDB transactions.
The couple had asked Mdm Ain to help out with the mortgage in 2016 after Mr Yusope could no longer work full-time due to failing health.
Mdm Ain was staying in the flat at that time, having moved in following her second divorce.
She applied to HDB to determine her eligibility to take up a housing loan and on Jan 24, 2017, HDB sent a letter that was addressed to Mdm Ain and her parents.
The letter indicated an HDB loan for not more than S$42,900, to be repaid over 22 years with a monthly instalment of S$214 at 2.6 per cent annual interest.
On Feb 18, 2017, all parties signed the application for transfer of HDB flat ownership to add Mdm Ain as the joint tenant, alongside Mdm Che’som and Mr Yusope, at HDB's Bedok branch.
On May 3, 2017, the trio attended a second HDB meeting, during which they signed another set of documents comprising the instrument of transfer, the refinanced mortgage under the names of all three parties and the concessionary stamp duty form.
An HDB officer explained the contents of the documents to the couple in Malay on both occasions.
The family feud over the flat's ownership started in 2018.
Early that year, the couple’s eldest son, Is Haans, moved into the same flat after his marriage failed.
Mdm Ain remarried in May 2018 and her husband then moved in with her.
Mr Yusope died in September 2018. Mdm Che’som told the court that in May 2021 she had informed her daughter of her intention to add Mr Is Haans as a joint tenant of the flat.
However, Mdm Ain rejected this and quarrelled with her.
Her daughter also wanted to rent out the room that Mr Is Haans was living in and half of the room occupied by Mdm Che’som, but this was turned down.
After the argument, Mdm Ain and her husband moved out of the flat.
Mdm Ain offered a different version of the events that transpired, the court heard.
According to the daughter, her mother repeatedly requested that she agree to the flat's sale sometime from November 2018, but this was rejected.
Mdm Ain said Mdm Che’som hoped to sell the flat as she wanted to remarry a man who already owned his own HDB flat, while at some point, her mother also wanted to include Mr Is Haans’ name as a joint tenant.
After the quarrel in May 2021, Mdm Ain added that she and her new husband left the flat "in fear of being physically harmed".
She filed a police report on the same day, alleging that Mr Is Haans had forced her out of the flat.
Mdm Ain subsequently applied for a Personal Protection Order (PPO) and Domestic Exclusion Order against her brother, but both were rejected.
The court heard she has not stayed at the flat since moving out.
Mdm Che’som sought to have her daughter removed as the joint tenant, claiming there had been mistake, misrepresentation and undue influence.
She told the court that the couple had assumed their daughter's assistance would be to appeal to HDB for a lower mortgage payment, and there was "no intention" for Mdm Ain to be included as co-owner.
Mdm Che’som also contended that she did not understand the contents of the transfer application and completion documents when she signed them, and thought that they were only meant to reduce the monthly loan repayments to around S$200.
But Mdm Che’som admitted on the stand that HDB officers had gone through and explained the contents of the documents to her in Malay during both meetings.
However, she claimed her attention was instead on her husband as he was "having an asthmatic attack" and as such, she "did not focus" on their explanations.
"Therefore, despite the HDB officers’ explanations, she still did not understand the documents," the court heard.
Mdm Ain argued that her mother knew that her name was in the property and that it was intended for her name to be included.
Mdm Ain added that it was her late father who "planned for her" to take over the property and that her mother had been "aware and agreeable to this plan".
She said her parents understood the explanations made by the HDB officers during both meetings and at no point were questions raised.
"Therefore, Mdm Che’som should not be entitled to set aside or rescind the transfer," the court heard.
Justice Thean determined that Mdm Che’som understood the completion documents at the second HDB meeting, which ran counter to her claims of misrepresentation and mistake.
She said she was not convinced by Mdm Che’som, noting that there were two meetings with HDB where explanations were given by an HDB officer in Malay.
Mdm Che’som herself accepted in cross-examination that key information, including the nature of the transfer, the purpose of the completion meeting and the financial plan, were relayed to her in Malay, Justice Thean added.
"I am thus satisfied that such an explanation had described had been rendered at the second HDB meeting, and that Mdm Che’som was sufficiently capable to understand what was explained to her," the judge said.
Her ruling was backed up by the testimony of a family friend, Mdm Norlina Zainol, who was called as a witness by Mdm Ain.
In her written statement, Mdm Norlina testified that during an encounter in 2018, Mdm Che’som had told her and her mother that she was relieved her daughter had taken over the mortgage of the property and Mdm Ain was now a co-owner.
While Mdm Che’som's lawyer sought to highlight inconsistencies in Mdm Norlina’s account - such as the location of the meeting and a difference in Malay language interpretation - the judge found the witness and her testimony to be credible.
She had noted the close relationship between the witness, and Mdm Che’som and her family, and that Mdm Che’som did not dispute the existence of nor offer a different version of the conversation.
"Mdm Norlina’s testimony contributes to my finding that Mdm Che’som has not proven that she did not understand what was signed," Justice Thean said.
She also noted that Mdm Che’som's written statements and during cross-examination were not consistent.
Justice Thean pointed out that the plaintiff, in her written statement, did not mention her husband's purported asthmatic attacks had occurred during the meetings with HDB.
"In my view, these are material facts that a reasonable person would have included in the affidavit to explain why she did not understand the HDB officers’ explanation, and undermines the credibility of her account."
The judge added it was "rather coincidental" that Mr Yusope would suffer an asthmatic attack during both HDB meetings when the Malay officer was explaining the transaction.
"Despite this coincidence of trauma, neither incident was detailed in Mdm Che’som’s affidavits," Justice Thean said.
As for Mdm Che'som's other contestations, the judge dismissed there had been any misrepresentation by Mdm Ain, as the former could not prove that she did not understand what was being signed.
Justice Thean was also of the view that the arrangement was such that Mdm Ain was to live with her parents, take care of them and their joint family property.
The facts were also insufficient for Mdm Che’som to prove on the balance of probabilities that she was unduly influenced, she added, prompting her to strike out the plaintiff's claim.
Continue reading...
The house was under her parents' names, and in 2017, the younger woman became a joint tenant, following HDB's approval.
About four years after her husband's death in 2018, the wife turned to the courts seeking to remove her daughter as a joint tenant and set aside the transfer of HDB flat ownership.
She had also wanted to add her eldest son, who had moved back home following the failure of his marriage, as a joint tenant of the flat.
In a High Court judgment published on Friday (Jan 17), Justice Valerie Thean dismissed the mother's bid entirely.
Related:
THE CASE
The couple bought the flat under their joint names for S$218,000 (US$159,000) on Mar 1, 1996. The man made a down payment of S$51,000, while the remainder was financed through a joint HDB mortgage.
The late husband, Mr Yusope, was a road sweeper for the National Environmental Agency (NEA) until he stopped working due to ill health in early 2018. His wife Mdm Che’som, now 68, had been a housewife since getting married in 1972.
Both husband and wife were largely conversant only in Malay, the court heard.
Their eldest daughter, Mdm Ain, has been a property agent for 23 years and is well-versed in HDB transactions.
The couple had asked Mdm Ain to help out with the mortgage in 2016 after Mr Yusope could no longer work full-time due to failing health.
Mdm Ain was staying in the flat at that time, having moved in following her second divorce.
She applied to HDB to determine her eligibility to take up a housing loan and on Jan 24, 2017, HDB sent a letter that was addressed to Mdm Ain and her parents.
The letter indicated an HDB loan for not more than S$42,900, to be repaid over 22 years with a monthly instalment of S$214 at 2.6 per cent annual interest.
On Feb 18, 2017, all parties signed the application for transfer of HDB flat ownership to add Mdm Ain as the joint tenant, alongside Mdm Che’som and Mr Yusope, at HDB's Bedok branch.
On May 3, 2017, the trio attended a second HDB meeting, during which they signed another set of documents comprising the instrument of transfer, the refinanced mortgage under the names of all three parties and the concessionary stamp duty form.
An HDB officer explained the contents of the documents to the couple in Malay on both occasions.
Also read:
TUSSLE OVER FLAT
The family feud over the flat's ownership started in 2018.
Early that year, the couple’s eldest son, Is Haans, moved into the same flat after his marriage failed.
Mdm Ain remarried in May 2018 and her husband then moved in with her.
Mr Yusope died in September 2018. Mdm Che’som told the court that in May 2021 she had informed her daughter of her intention to add Mr Is Haans as a joint tenant of the flat.
However, Mdm Ain rejected this and quarrelled with her.
Her daughter also wanted to rent out the room that Mr Is Haans was living in and half of the room occupied by Mdm Che’som, but this was turned down.
After the argument, Mdm Ain and her husband moved out of the flat.
Mdm Ain offered a different version of the events that transpired, the court heard.
According to the daughter, her mother repeatedly requested that she agree to the flat's sale sometime from November 2018, but this was rejected.
Mdm Ain said Mdm Che’som hoped to sell the flat as she wanted to remarry a man who already owned his own HDB flat, while at some point, her mother also wanted to include Mr Is Haans’ name as a joint tenant.
After the quarrel in May 2021, Mdm Ain added that she and her new husband left the flat "in fear of being physically harmed".
She filed a police report on the same day, alleging that Mr Is Haans had forced her out of the flat.
Mdm Ain subsequently applied for a Personal Protection Order (PPO) and Domestic Exclusion Order against her brother, but both were rejected.
The court heard she has not stayed at the flat since moving out.
Related:
MUM'S ASSERTIONS
Mdm Che’som sought to have her daughter removed as the joint tenant, claiming there had been mistake, misrepresentation and undue influence.
She told the court that the couple had assumed their daughter's assistance would be to appeal to HDB for a lower mortgage payment, and there was "no intention" for Mdm Ain to be included as co-owner.
Mdm Che’som also contended that she did not understand the contents of the transfer application and completion documents when she signed them, and thought that they were only meant to reduce the monthly loan repayments to around S$200.
But Mdm Che’som admitted on the stand that HDB officers had gone through and explained the contents of the documents to her in Malay during both meetings.
However, she claimed her attention was instead on her husband as he was "having an asthmatic attack" and as such, she "did not focus" on their explanations.
"Therefore, despite the HDB officers’ explanations, she still did not understand the documents," the court heard.
Related:
DAUGHTER'S STANCE
Mdm Ain argued that her mother knew that her name was in the property and that it was intended for her name to be included.
Mdm Ain added that it was her late father who "planned for her" to take over the property and that her mother had been "aware and agreeable to this plan".
She said her parents understood the explanations made by the HDB officers during both meetings and at no point were questions raised.
"Therefore, Mdm Che’som should not be entitled to set aside or rescind the transfer," the court heard.
Related:
JUDGE'S RULING
Justice Thean determined that Mdm Che’som understood the completion documents at the second HDB meeting, which ran counter to her claims of misrepresentation and mistake.
She said she was not convinced by Mdm Che’som, noting that there were two meetings with HDB where explanations were given by an HDB officer in Malay.
Mdm Che’som herself accepted in cross-examination that key information, including the nature of the transfer, the purpose of the completion meeting and the financial plan, were relayed to her in Malay, Justice Thean added.
"I am thus satisfied that such an explanation had described had been rendered at the second HDB meeting, and that Mdm Che’som was sufficiently capable to understand what was explained to her," the judge said.
Her ruling was backed up by the testimony of a family friend, Mdm Norlina Zainol, who was called as a witness by Mdm Ain.
In her written statement, Mdm Norlina testified that during an encounter in 2018, Mdm Che’som had told her and her mother that she was relieved her daughter had taken over the mortgage of the property and Mdm Ain was now a co-owner.
While Mdm Che’som's lawyer sought to highlight inconsistencies in Mdm Norlina’s account - such as the location of the meeting and a difference in Malay language interpretation - the judge found the witness and her testimony to be credible.
She had noted the close relationship between the witness, and Mdm Che’som and her family, and that Mdm Che’som did not dispute the existence of nor offer a different version of the conversation.
"Mdm Norlina’s testimony contributes to my finding that Mdm Che’som has not proven that she did not understand what was signed," Justice Thean said.
She also noted that Mdm Che’som's written statements and during cross-examination were not consistent.
Justice Thean pointed out that the plaintiff, in her written statement, did not mention her husband's purported asthmatic attacks had occurred during the meetings with HDB.
"In my view, these are material facts that a reasonable person would have included in the affidavit to explain why she did not understand the HDB officers’ explanation, and undermines the credibility of her account."
The judge added it was "rather coincidental" that Mr Yusope would suffer an asthmatic attack during both HDB meetings when the Malay officer was explaining the transaction.
"Despite this coincidence of trauma, neither incident was detailed in Mdm Che’som’s affidavits," Justice Thean said.
As for Mdm Che'som's other contestations, the judge dismissed there had been any misrepresentation by Mdm Ain, as the former could not prove that she did not understand what was being signed.
Justice Thean was also of the view that the arrangement was such that Mdm Ain was to live with her parents, take care of them and their joint family property.
The facts were also insufficient for Mdm Che’som to prove on the balance of probabilities that she was unduly influenced, she added, prompting her to strike out the plaintiff's claim.
Related:
Continue reading...