When high-earning women take on ex-husbands in court

Men tend to be the main breadwinners in most families and they often fight tooth and nail to retain as much of the assets as possible in a bitter divorce. But two recent cases in Singapore show how high-earning women can fight their corner just as ferociously.

The women, both leading executives earning around $30,000 a month, ended up in court to stop their ex-husbands from getting more than their share of the family assets.

The two cases heard by the High Court recently involved the women squaring off against husbands who ran their own businesses

The women both earned substantially more than the men, paid for most of the household expenses and were their children’s main caregivers.

Indeed, the husband of one woman not only relied on his ex-wife for loans to fund his business, he also used her money to pay for his many extramarital flings.

Not surprisingly, as he spent most of his time away from the family, the court gave him only a 10 per cent share of the matrimonial assets and left the rest to the ex-wife.

In the other case, the man, who earned $5,000 a month, was awarded 30 per cent of the assets because the court found that his ex-wife had contributed more financially while also taking care of the family.

Although many people believe the matrimonial law – the Women’s Charter – favours wives over husbands because of its name, the reality is that the outcome of any asset division is based mostly on the evidence of each party’s contribution.

Moreover, as the law views marriages as equal partnerships, non-monetary contributions by housewives who spend more time taking care of their kids matter as much as the incomes earned by their husbands.

So if a wife is the main breadwinner as well as the children’s caregiver, her contribution will naturally be deemed to be a lot higher than the husband’s, as these two cases show.

Banker with multiple properties

One of the women has worked for a bank here for more than two decades, reaching a level where she was drawing about $30,000 a month, in addition to bank shares and bonuses tied to her yearly performance.

Her husband was not working at the time of the divorce, but he previously ran an IT-related business that was supported by the wife and her father. His income details were not disclosed in court papers, but he claimed that profits from the business paid for the family’s expenses.

The couple, who have two grown-up daughters, lived in an HDB flat but owned three private apartments in Singapore and another in Johor. Apart from the HDB flat, which was partially paid for by the husband, the wife paid for all the private properties.

Senior High Court Judge Andrew Ang noted that the wife effectively raised and financially supported her two daughters alone and that she also single-handedly paid for almost everything since day one of the marriage, including the wedding ceremony.

She also met the expenses related to her pregnancies and births of her daughters, the purchase and renovation of the matrimonial home, the daily upkeep of the family, her daughters’ education, allowances and family holidays.

“She also claims that, despite the fact that she and her father provided financial support to the husband for several of his business ventures, he would keep whatever he earned for himself, and spend it on his mistress instead of the family,” the judge said. He concluded that this was a marriage funded solely by the wife.

As the wife was the children’s main caregiver, the husband was given a score of only 20 per cent for his indirect contribution to the family. With the wife scoring 100 per cent of financial contributions, this meant that her ex-husband’s share of the family assets was about 10 per cent.

Two of the five properties were not up for division; the court ruled that the Johor condominium unit is owned by the wife, while one of the Singapore condo units is in her daughter’s name.

The HDB flat and two Singapore condo units – worth about $6 million in total – were contested, with the husband entitled to about $600,000. But as he had borrowed over $1 million from his ex-wife for his business, he was ordered to return over $400,000 after deducting his share of the properties.

Wife earns six times more than husband

In the other case, the wife is a business management director, earning about $30,000 a month, while the husband ran his own company, drawing $5,000 a month.

The couple, who have two children, lived in a private apartment valued at around $1.3 million.

The wife was clearly the main provider as cash and investments under her name alone totalled almost $5 million, while her ex-husband’s net worth was about $1 million, including his stake in his company.

She had more than $3 million in an investment account that she said should not be included in the matrimonial assets because it was set up solely to pay for their children’s overseas education and related expenses.

However, there was no evidence that she had used these funds for the children’s expenses since opening the account in 2014. There was also nothing to show that the account was a trust set up for the benefit of the children.

As a result, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck ruled that the money in the account should be added to other matrimonial assets.

After adding up the couple’s financial contributions, he ruled that the wife should be given a 76 per cent share while the husband got 24 per cent.

Judge Choo also weighted up the indirect contributions, ruling that the couple had contributed financially and non-financially to their family during the 21-year marriage despite their different earning capacities and career needs. That said, he found that the wife had paid more.

For instance, she put $100,000 into her ex-husband’s company and paid substantially more for the children’s education, tuition fees and other expenses. As a result, she was given a 65 per cent share of the indirect contributions, while the ex-husband got 35 per cent.

Taking the average of the two ratios, the final share worked out to be 70 per cent for the wife and 30 per cent for the husband. So she kept $4.9 million of their shared assets of about $7 million, while the husband was awarded $2.1 million.

The ratio also applied to the monthly expenses of both their children, which worked out to be about $6,500.

“Although the wife earns substantially more than the husband, it would be fair for the husband to bear about 30 per cent of the children’s maintenance ($1,932 per month), and the wife, who has a higher income, should bear the remaining 70 per cent ($4,510),” the judge said.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from these two divorce cases, it is that it pays to be the generous provider of the family.

Some spouses are known to take a calculating approach, even during their marriage, and often rely on others to pay for the bulk of the expenses. But doing so merely allows the one who pays more to earn more brownie points in the court if things go wrong.

So whether it is for better or for worse, it pays to be person who pays more.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Two lawyers suspended 3 years each for misleading court, wasting time of five judges ADV: Criminal Justice Forum: Discovery to Even the Playing Field