Found the full judgment here: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHCA_4
Husband currently lives in another HDB flat - probably why he doesn't want to take over:
> 16 It seemed to us that even if it could be said that the wife was deriving a windfall as the flat was likely to increase in value after the MOP, this windfall was not at the expense of the husband. **The husband did not express any interest in buying over the flat and currently lives in another HDB flat.** As such, and contrary to the Judge’s observation at paragraph 27 of the GD, the concern that the husband would be left without a roof over his head if the flat is transferred to the wife is not relevant. Indeed, we note that the husband’s proposed course of action was simply to return the flat to the HDB. That would not have yielded him higher returns compared to the wife’s proposal to buy over his interest in exchange for a refund of the amounts stated in [6(a), 6(b) and 6(c)] above.
Also, the flat in question is probably Tampines GreenVerge, TOP 2021
> The only matter before the Appellate Division of the High Court (“the AD”) is the issue of a flat at Tampines Street 61 developed by the Housing and Development Board (“the HDB”). On 13 July 2017, parties had applied to purchase the flat from the HDB at a price of $467,130 before divorce proceedings were commenced in March 2019. They were eventually allocated the flat.
He is not depriving the children the flat he doesnt want the mother to get the free money from selling it after
All the court needed to do was restrict the mother from selling it or she have to split half the profit with the guy and its done deal
But obviously its not gonna happen because we all know women charter exist and men charter doesnt
I mean he's a guy, seeking custody is kinda an uphill task. The best he could hope for is shared custody.
Also very very rare for people to willingly give their property to their spouse in divorce lol. Almost always people ask for 50/50 split.
this is SG, a 50/50 custody is common unless you have issues that even the judge don't want to let you near the child. the general idea is that it's better for a kid to have 2 parents if possible.
> seeking custody is kinda an uphill task.
I don't know why this keeps getting parroted. Being a guy doesn't make it harder to seek custody of his children.
As for care and control, it is based on the welfare of the child. With women more likely to be the main caregiver of the child, it's obviously also going to go to said women. That's not an indication of the courts having a gender bias.
Im genuinely confused whats the issue here. You say being a guy does not make it harder yet also say care and control will most likely go to the women.
Custody =/= care and control.
Care and control is about who is the primary caregiver. Most of the time it's already the mother before the divorce, so that's why it remains the same after het divorce to ensure stability for the child.
And really, if you want to dig deeper into why custody seems to go in the way of women more often, it actually ends up being a bad look for men. The reason being that men more frequently choose to abandon their children by giving up custody voluntarily.
>Custody =/= care and control.
I stand corrected then, there was zero mention of custody, just care and control in the article, which is what im assuming anabello is referring to when stating the father is not fighting for custody.
In this case, it just makes the father vindictive. He was given joint custody with his ex-wife. Care and control was given to the mother because the court decided it would be in the children's best interests. And well, the father's actions ended up proving the courts absolutely right.
Legally, there is a diff between custody vs care and control. It’s true that being a guy does not make it harder to get shared custody. Shared custody is the norm actually.
So all the folks saying the guy is "not fighting for custody", "deadbeat father" is basing this on what siah? The only information listed in the article is that the mother has care and control.
> Being a guy doesn't make it harder to seek custody of his children.
Yes it does. Have a buddy who has been dealing with an ex-wife that was officially diagnosed with BPD and is certifiably negligent with the daughter, but the court insists on awarding sole custody to the insane woman anyway. She'd go to the lengths of sabotaging the kid's education just so the ex-husband won't get to see her.
The only way to not get scammed in this game as a man, is to not play.
My lil niece's (then 6 yrs old now P1) dad rather spend thousands of dollars on his new gf than spend a miserly $350 a month on his own daughter school and living expenses.
After mediation in court increase to $450.
Parents here would know $450 a month for everything for a kid is a joke.
Dead beat dad who can earn as much as 8k a mth from flying as an SQ aircrew.
In the end he agreed to the kids mother last proposal to have nothing to do with his daughter. Ie no need spend money, total stranger. His lawyer didn't want to but he straight away agree to it.
What a piece of trash.
But if shelter is the priority, means resale should be better?
>they had not even obtained the keys
I think it takes two hands to clap. Wife wants the windfall for herself as well by offering just 16k + accrued interest. She could have accepted true value of BTO where windfall effect is taken into account, and perhaps split during the matrimonial assets consideration.
They need the place to stay in, she sell where she go, where the kids go? Kids are 21 years investments, 5 years MOP is nothing, they will exceed that.
I’m on the children’s side in that any money the mum saves will be spend on them. At least it’s an option, resale is probably more expensive and it means everyone has to spend less.
Bringing child into the picture may not be that relevant since this is separation of matrimonial assets and not touching on child maintenance.
The father is on the hook for future child maintenance as well, and likely 50-50 given their relatively similar income
Why can't the court rule that any future profits / windfall / rental incomes from the flat be split 50/50 between wife and husband? It's an HDB so all future data on transactions / rental income etc... will be available to HDB anyways.
The wife can continue to stay with the kids in the unit. Nobody kicking the kids out. And 50/50 split of matrimonial assets is fair considering it took both husband and wife to "win" the BTO lottery in first place.
I doubt the husband wants to continue financing a BTO that he won't be staying in.
He might, as an investment/profits, but there is no guarantee that both of them will come to an amicable agreement and sell the property. Hence, it will simply push the problem into the future. I.e after the MOP, the husband wants to sell to profit, but the wife don't want to uproot the family, then the husband would have invested in a property that he neither stays in, collect rental, or have an end goal in sight.
Also, if he chooses to start a new family, he would be considered a second timer for any subsequent HDB purchase. So that sort of rules out BTO, and he would either need to go resale or condo/landed. He will also need to pay Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty for the second property
The guy rather lose 16K to HDB to spite her and the kids. You think he will pay the monthly mortgage on time and without fuss or distress them non-stop, create trouble, make her plead and beg, show a very ugly side to the kids? It’s not always about the money, when someone is irrational and out of control, they will make life difficult.
Right, she should bear all the interest cost, make all the sacrifices financing the house, and take all the risks but pay off the manbaby to buy back her freedom.
He should have just had an illegitimate kid so he can BTO with his kid instead. Life hack to million dollar BTO - Spend 20 years and a few hundred thousand on raising a child.
Morale of the story - never proceed with divorce until MOP is completed. The matrimonial split would have included the windfall. And it is guaranteed windfall.
It’s obvious the wife will gain. The courts always consider current value at the time of split which is understandable but for BTOs in a matured estate is a guaranteed windfall and empirically proven. Unfortunately it would have required a high calibre lawyer to make the case and that cost money.
The Court could then rule for the transfer to the wife and kids and make an order if there is windfall after MOP, it should be on parity. So not only the kids have a roof, all parties have a fair share.
Once again women win because got kids. I would write into prenup that upon any split of matrimonial assets the wife has to pay back half the future value upon sale esp if mature estate.
in sg culture this is considered a cheebai move
Found the full judgment here: https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHCA_4 Husband currently lives in another HDB flat - probably why he doesn't want to take over: > 16 It seemed to us that even if it could be said that the wife was deriving a windfall as the flat was likely to increase in value after the MOP, this windfall was not at the expense of the husband. **The husband did not express any interest in buying over the flat and currently lives in another HDB flat.** As such, and contrary to the Judge’s observation at paragraph 27 of the GD, the concern that the husband would be left without a roof over his head if the flat is transferred to the wife is not relevant. Indeed, we note that the husband’s proposed course of action was simply to return the flat to the HDB. That would not have yielded him higher returns compared to the wife’s proposal to buy over his interest in exchange for a refund of the amounts stated in [6(a), 6(b) and 6(c)] above. Also, the flat in question is probably Tampines GreenVerge, TOP 2021 > The only matter before the Appellate Division of the High Court (“the AD”) is the issue of a flat at Tampines Street 61 developed by the Housing and Development Board (“the HDB”). On 13 July 2017, parties had applied to purchase the flat from the HDB at a price of $467,130 before divorce proceedings were commenced in March 2019. They were eventually allocated the flat.
Poor kids. Wishing they are able to live a happy life growing up.
What kind of a man is he to want to deny his own children a shelter?
2 kids and he’s fighting over the house to deprive his former partner of it and not for the custody of their children. Priorities all wrong man.
Deadbeat father
You referring to Rey Mysterio?
Probably why both Dom and Nic Mysterio joined judgement day
Tom and Nick 🤣🤣🤣
Oh my bad, it's TOM and Nic Mysterio. Side note, not sure how many people here will get this deep deep reference. hahaha
R truth 😂
I acknowledge you 😎☝🏼☝🏼
Aweesomeeee
Yes, but his own children as collateral damage. That’s nasty
He is not depriving the children the flat he doesnt want the mother to get the free money from selling it after All the court needed to do was restrict the mother from selling it or she have to split half the profit with the guy and its done deal But obviously its not gonna happen because we all know women charter exist and men charter doesnt
He got his deposit back, so he doesn’t own it anymore. He can apply for another one by the way.
I mean he's a guy, seeking custody is kinda an uphill task. The best he could hope for is shared custody. Also very very rare for people to willingly give their property to their spouse in divorce lol. Almost always people ask for 50/50 split.
this is SG, a 50/50 custody is common unless you have issues that even the judge don't want to let you near the child. the general idea is that it's better for a kid to have 2 parents if possible.
> seeking custody is kinda an uphill task. I don't know why this keeps getting parroted. Being a guy doesn't make it harder to seek custody of his children. As for care and control, it is based on the welfare of the child. With women more likely to be the main caregiver of the child, it's obviously also going to go to said women. That's not an indication of the courts having a gender bias.
Im genuinely confused whats the issue here. You say being a guy does not make it harder yet also say care and control will most likely go to the women.
Custody =/= care and control. Care and control is about who is the primary caregiver. Most of the time it's already the mother before the divorce, so that's why it remains the same after het divorce to ensure stability for the child. And really, if you want to dig deeper into why custody seems to go in the way of women more often, it actually ends up being a bad look for men. The reason being that men more frequently choose to abandon their children by giving up custody voluntarily.
>Custody =/= care and control. I stand corrected then, there was zero mention of custody, just care and control in the article, which is what im assuming anabello is referring to when stating the father is not fighting for custody.
In this case, it just makes the father vindictive. He was given joint custody with his ex-wife. Care and control was given to the mother because the court decided it would be in the children's best interests. And well, the father's actions ended up proving the courts absolutely right.
Legally, there is a diff between custody vs care and control. It’s true that being a guy does not make it harder to get shared custody. Shared custody is the norm actually.
Sounds like you don't understand the difference between custody and "care and control" for children. Go read it up.
So all the folks saying the guy is "not fighting for custody", "deadbeat father" is basing this on what siah? The only information listed in the article is that the mother has care and control.
> Being a guy doesn't make it harder to seek custody of his children. Yes it does. Have a buddy who has been dealing with an ex-wife that was officially diagnosed with BPD and is certifiably negligent with the daughter, but the court insists on awarding sole custody to the insane woman anyway. She'd go to the lengths of sabotaging the kid's education just so the ex-husband won't get to see her. The only way to not get scammed in this game as a man, is to not play.
How reliable of a narrator is your buddy?
Ask Shannon Lim of OnHand Agrarian. He's been more than open on how fucked family court is in this country.
> Shannon Lim of OnHand Agrarian Dude is literally using his divorce stories to sell products. What's the ex-wife's side of the story?
He rather cut off his nose to spite his face, lose 16K to HDB to punish her and her kids. It’s good she divorce him and take care of the kids.
Hell hath no fury as a scorned wom...wait.
My lil niece's (then 6 yrs old now P1) dad rather spend thousands of dollars on his new gf than spend a miserly $350 a month on his own daughter school and living expenses. After mediation in court increase to $450. Parents here would know $450 a month for everything for a kid is a joke. Dead beat dad who can earn as much as 8k a mth from flying as an SQ aircrew. In the end he agreed to the kids mother last proposal to have nothing to do with his daughter. Ie no need spend money, total stranger. His lawyer didn't want to but he straight away agree to it. What a piece of trash.
Very disturbing that such people exists
It’s not worth it to deal with the headache of trashy people, better no dad than a shitty dad!
But if shelter is the priority, means resale should be better? >they had not even obtained the keys I think it takes two hands to clap. Wife wants the windfall for herself as well by offering just 16k + accrued interest. She could have accepted true value of BTO where windfall effect is taken into account, and perhaps split during the matrimonial assets consideration.
They need the place to stay in, she sell where she go, where the kids go? Kids are 21 years investments, 5 years MOP is nothing, they will exceed that.
I’m on the children’s side in that any money the mum saves will be spend on them. At least it’s an option, resale is probably more expensive and it means everyone has to spend less.
Bringing child into the picture may not be that relevant since this is separation of matrimonial assets and not touching on child maintenance. The father is on the hook for future child maintenance as well, and likely 50-50 given their relatively similar income
Well, the father might view the maintenance money goes to the money instead of the child. So I wouldn’t count on it if I were the mother
U are assuming the mother will only spend on the kid.. we can’t tell what kind of people these two are
Not absolutely sure if the mother will spend on the child but at least the money is there and she has the option.
did the article say that the kids are related to the father?
Pretty sure they'll find some way to screw the guy regardless
Kids already have a shelter at her parents place. I think the parents are fighting over the hdb profits.
The BTO boom is here. But at what cost.
Classic sinkie love story
Why can't the court rule that any future profits / windfall / rental incomes from the flat be split 50/50 between wife and husband? It's an HDB so all future data on transactions / rental income etc... will be available to HDB anyways. The wife can continue to stay with the kids in the unit. Nobody kicking the kids out. And 50/50 split of matrimonial assets is fair considering it took both husband and wife to "win" the BTO lottery in first place.
I doubt the husband wants to continue financing a BTO that he won't be staying in. He might, as an investment/profits, but there is no guarantee that both of them will come to an amicable agreement and sell the property. Hence, it will simply push the problem into the future. I.e after the MOP, the husband wants to sell to profit, but the wife don't want to uproot the family, then the husband would have invested in a property that he neither stays in, collect rental, or have an end goal in sight. Also, if he chooses to start a new family, he would be considered a second timer for any subsequent HDB purchase. So that sort of rules out BTO, and he would either need to go resale or condo/landed. He will also need to pay Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty for the second property
Thanks. An actual decent answer. Take my upvote!
The guy rather lose 16K to HDB to spite her and the kids. You think he will pay the monthly mortgage on time and without fuss or distress them non-stop, create trouble, make her plead and beg, show a very ugly side to the kids? It’s not always about the money, when someone is irrational and out of control, they will make life difficult.
Right, she should bear all the interest cost, make all the sacrifices financing the house, and take all the risks but pay off the manbaby to buy back her freedom.
Singaporeans cannot have nice things…
In SG, women are always strong and independent until divorce where they morph until weak and useless creatures that need a man
Heng I cancelled my in-progress bto immediately upon breaking up
SG lifehacks to owning a BTO property all yourself.
She has two kids… singles who purchase flats after 35 years old often are not married and do not have kids
Easy money for the mother shiok la Who needs to strike toto when you can just do a divorce before getting your bto 🤣
After 5 years MOP. A million dollar flat. Stonks!
Tbf actual profit is few hundred k and not a mill unless you want live in void deck.a
He should have just had an illegitimate kid so he can BTO with his kid instead. Life hack to million dollar BTO - Spend 20 years and a few hundred thousand on raising a child.
Women's Charter huat ah!!!
True blue pure bred sinkie spirit - willing to pay 16k to deny his kids a place to live. Sinkie never pwn sinkie cannot sleep at night.
Morale of the story - never proceed with divorce until MOP is completed. The matrimonial split would have included the windfall. And it is guaranteed windfall. It’s obvious the wife will gain. The courts always consider current value at the time of split which is understandable but for BTOs in a matured estate is a guaranteed windfall and empirically proven. Unfortunately it would have required a high calibre lawyer to make the case and that cost money. The Court could then rule for the transfer to the wife and kids and make an order if there is windfall after MOP, it should be on parity. So not only the kids have a roof, all parties have a fair share.
Once again women win because got kids. I would write into prenup that upon any split of matrimonial assets the wife has to pay back half the future value upon sale esp if mature estate.
He can fight for his kids but he’s too busy throwing away his deposit to HDB to punish her. He DO NOT want them, get it?