Three sisters sue younger brother over property left by father, win equal shares

The only son argued that the Veerasamy Road property, which was used for the family business for years, was his as the sole surviving joint tenant after his father died.

SINGAPORE: Three sisters sued their younger brother for their share of a property that had been used to run the family's hardware business since 1985, after their father died and left his only son as the sole surviving joint tenant.

Mr Ng Choong Keong Steven said he was the sole and absolute owner of the property in Veerasamy Road, when his three older sisters asked if he would share the net sale proceeds of the property equally among the four siblings.

He also claimed that he was his father’s “favoured child” and that his father had intended him to gain the property, which was worth about S$500,000 (US$373,000) in 2019.

In a judgment released on Wednesday (Dec 6), Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy accepted the sisters' case that their parents had treated all four children equally, regardless of sex.

"I find that both parents did not favour the defendant, as their only son, over their daughters as may have been typical for parents of their generation and culture," said Justice Coomaraswamy.

He found that the property was held in equal shares for the four siblings, and made orders in the event that the sisters wish to buy their brother's 25 per cent beneficial interest in the property.

The judge also ordered Mr Ng to pay his sisters costs of S$149,000 as they had won the case.

THE CASE

The sisters who mounted the suit are: Ms Ng Lai Kuen Priscilla Elizabeth, Ms Ng Lai Fong Charmaine and Ms Ng Lai Har.

Elizabeth, the oldest, is the administrator of the estate of her father, the late Mr Ng Kah Weng, who died in 2016. Elizabeth is also the executor of the estate of her mother, who died in 2017.

The Ng patriarch was the sole proprietor of a hardware business operating at a property in Veerasamy Road from 1985 until his death.

From 1985, the business operated from the property under one-year leases from the Housing Board (HDB), until HDB made an offer in 1995 to sell an 89-year lease of the property to the late Mr Ng at a discounted price of S$403,400 under its Sale of Tenanted Shops Scheme.

The Ng patriarch accepted the offer, executing the loan, security and conveyancing documents for the purchase, along with his only son in September 1995.

Mr Ng and his son then became joint tenants for the property. The late Mr Ng paid the entire purchase price for the property, even though he and his son were joint borrowers for the loan from DBS.

When he was alive, Mr Ng paid entirely for the upkeep and maintenance of the property and did not pay any rent to his son for occupying the property.

He finished repaying the DBS loan in May 2016. When he died several months later, in December 2016, his wife took over the business and continued to run it from the property with two of her daughters' help.

In August 2017, the mother also died and left a will dividing her estate equally among her four children.

After their mother died, the three daughters helped to run the business and took over the payments needed to maintain the property.

In January 2018, the son received a letter from HDB saying the board had updated its administrative records to reflect that he was now the sole owner of the property.

HDB told the son that he may wish to consult a solicitor for advice on any legal steps to be taken at the registry of titles arising from Mr Ng's death.

In January 2018, the sisters approached their brother seeking confirmation that he would share the net sale proceeds of the property equally among them.

For the first time, their brother took the position that he was now the sole and absolute owner of the property as the sole surviving joint tenant.

In March 2018, the son secured the formal and total discharge of DBS' security interest in the property and recovered the original certificate of title from the bank.

He obtained a valuation of the property in October 2019 and found that it was worth just over S$500,000. He told his sisters a month later that he intended to sell the property.

The sisters then took court action to claim their interest in the property.

Their brother brought a counterclaim, seeking damages from his sisters and a declaration that he was the sole beneficial owner of the property.

THE DECISION

Justice Coomaraswamy said the central issue was whether the late Mr Ng had the intention to benefit his son at the time the property was purchased.

As Mr Ng was no longer alive to give direct evidence and there is no other objective evidence to prove his intention, the judge said it was appropriate to rely on presumptions and circumstantial evidence to determine his intention.

According to the son, his father had announced his intention to benefit him with the right of survivorship in August 1995, shortly before the son was to marry.

"After we finalised the wedding arrangements, my father said that he was purchasing the property and both of us will ‘join name’. It was his intention that I would inherit the property because I was his only son," testified the younger Mr Ng.

"I was also getting married and he would have intended to provide for me and my new family as well. As far as I know, my father had similarly inherited everything my grandfather owned," said the younger Mr Ng.

The son's case was that he was his father's favoured child as the only son. He said his father bought an insurance policy, nominating him as the beneficiary but none of his sisters.

The judge rejected the son's case that he was the favoured child. Instead, he relied on the testimony of the son's ex-wife.

Justice Coomaraswamy also said it was far more likely that the late Mr Ng intended the property to continue to be a permanent and stable location where the business could continue to operate.

The judge said it was unlikely that the father intended for the property to pass solely and absolutely to his son when he died. Instead, the father’s intention was likely for the property and business to support his widow after his death rather than his son.

As to why the father had named his son as a joint tenant despite knowing the legal consequence if he had no intention to benefit his son with the right of survivorship, the judge accepted the sisters' arguments that this was to get better terms for the loan from DBS.

The son was the youngest child of the family with a stable job and a sufficiently high salary at the time, said the judge. Having his son as a joint borrower would allow the father to secure a loan from DBS at a lower interest rate and on a longer tenor.

The circumstances also gave rise to the inference that the late Mr Ng had no intention to benefit his son with the right of survivorship.

Justice Coomaraswamy pointed to how the mother had left her assets to her four children in equal shares as an indication of how the parents treated their children.

"If anything, the mother's conduct showed an intention to favour the daughters over sons in that the mother left the family home to a daughter," said the judge. 

On top of this, the mother had appointed her eldest daughter to be the executor of her will, rather than her only son, said Justice Coomaraswamy.

While the mother's treatment of her children cannot be conclusive as to how her husband intended to treat them, it was a basis from which to draw an inference about the father's intention, said the judge.

He said the son was not involved in running the business. After the father died in 2016, it was his widow and not his son who took over the business as the sole proprietor.

"This adds important colour to the father's likely intentions," said the judge.

He ruled in favour of the sisters and dismissed the son’s counterclaim.

Mr Ng is appealing against the decision.