CLC v CLB [2023] SGCA 10

Outcome: Appeal Allowed.

Facts

1            The Husband received monetary gifts from his father and inherited substantial sums from the father’s estate (the “Gifted Monies”). On the Husband’s case, the Gifted Monies had flowed into several bank accounts and investment portfolios that were in his sole name (the “Disputed Assets”). The main issues on appeal were a) whether the statutory purpose and language of s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter provide support in determining, with reference to the intention of the donee spouse, whether an asset acquired by him by way of gift or inheritance has lost its character as such and may therefore be regarded as a matrimonial asset; and b) what s required to trace an asset, in particular money in a bank account, to an asset acquired by gift or inheritance, in particular where such money has been co-mingled with funds from other sources.

Court’s Decision:

2            Although s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter does not expressly provide for the intention of the donee spouse to bring non-matrimonial assets into the matrimonial pool, that does not preclude the courts from giving effect to such intention apart from the provision, in accordance with principles of property law. In other words, nothing in s 112(10) of the Women’s Charter excludes the right of a spouse to deal with his or her personal asset in any way he or she wishes to deal with it, including by bringing it into the family estate.: at [36].

3            Where one of the parties to the marriage has received a gift or inheritance but evinces an intention to deal with that asset by, for example, giving it to the other party or incorporating it into the family estate, it is not inconsistent with s 112 for the court to give effect to such intention.: at [64].

4            The question of the identifiability of an asset said to be acquired by gift or inheritance is one of evidence, i.e., the new asset should be traceable to the asset which constituted the original gift. The party who asserts that an asset has been acquired through gift or inheritance and is therefore not a matrimonial asset bears the burden of proving this on the balance of probabilities. On the other hand, where an asset is prima facie not a matrimonial asset (e.g., a gift), the burden then lies on the party asserting that it is a matrimonial asset to show how it was transformed.: at [65].

5            In tracing an asset to one acquired by gift or inheritance, the court will apply several principles. First, a party claiming that an asset has been acquired by gift or inheritance must adduce sufficient evidence to show linkage between a currently owned asset and an asset acquired by gift or inheritance. Second, equitable rules of tracing may guide the court in tracing an asset, such as particular monies in a bank account, to an asset acquired by gift or inheritance. Third, the court is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from evidence that is less certain or precise in order to do justice between the parties. Fourth, the question of the co-mingling of matrimonial assets and assets acquired by gift or inheritance is a question of the identifiability of the latter. Fifth, where an asset acquired by gift has been dissipated or consumed, it would naturally follow that it can no longer be traced.: at [71] to [77].

6            Where one of the parties to a marriage places monies derived from non-matrimonial assets into a joint account with the other spouse which can be separately operated by each of them, a rebuttable presumption indeed arises that the transferring spouse intends to share the said monies with the other. This is because during the pendency of the joint account, both parties would have access to the money without restriction. It would then be for the party contending that the presumption ought not to apply to explain the reason for the arrangement.: at [92].

The full text of the decision can be found here.

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.