Property Legal Brief: When Joint Tenancy Becomes Disjointed

The Courts have been called upon again to resolve property disputes among family members in Ng Lai Kuen Priscilla Elizabeth (and Ors) and Ng Choong Keong Steven [2023] SGHC 343. This time, it is a commercial property which was held under a joint-tenancy by the late Mr Ng and his son, Steven, and Steven’s three elder sisters have claimed for a share.

For context, when a property is held in a joint tenancy, the right of survivorship applies i.e. when one co-owner dies, the surviving co-owner automatically takes sole ownership of the whole property. On the other hand, there is no right of survivorship for property held under a tenancy-in-common i.e. should one of the property owners die, his share will not go the surviving owners.

Background:

The property was held in joint tenancy since November 1995, with a loan taken in the names of the late Mr Ng and Steven. The late Mr Ng paid the entirety of the purchase price, and also the upkeep and maintenance of the property. When the loan was fully paid in May 2016, the late Mr Ng did not procure a total discharge of the bank’s security, and neither did he change the property’s manner of holding.

Mr Ng passed on in December 2016, and his spouse took over the business which operated from the property. The property was upkept and maintained by Mr Ng’s spouse until her passing on 1 August 2017. The sisters took over the business and also the upkeep and maintenance of the property.

Steven played no part in the business, and understandably, did not contribute to the upkeep and maintenance of the property.

In January 2018, Steven received a letter from HDB informing him that he had become the sole owner of the property. In the same month, the sisters approached Steven to procure his confirmation that he would share the net proceeds equally among the four siblings in the event the property was sold. Steven disagreed, and took the position that he was the sole and absolute owner under the joint tenancy. Two months later, Steven secured a total discharge of DBS’s security interest in the property, and recovered the original title.

In November 2019, Steven informed his sisters of his intention to sell the property, and that prompted the sisters to lodge a caveat against the property. The grounds for the caveat were that Steven was holding the property on trust for the late Mr Ng. The sisters sued Steven in February 2020.

The Court’s decision:

The High Court was called upon to decipher the actual intention and wishes of the late Mr Ng regarding the treatment of the property after his demise; whether the property was to go to Steven or to be preserved for the family/the business for the benefit of his spouse/family.

At the conclusion of the trial, the High Court held that Mr Ng did not intend for the property to be owned solely by Steven. Instead, Steven had in law and in fact, held his interest in the property on resulting trust for the late Mr Ng. This in turn, resulted in each of the four siblings being entitled to a 25% share of the beneficial interest in the property.

This would mean that the sales proceeds of the property are to be divided among the siblings in four equal shares, and any decision on the sale of the property must also be agreed upon by the siblings.

Take-aways

We have written at least three articles touching on property disputes involving HDB inheritance, claims of legal interest in a private property, and division of property in divorces. What is clear from the articles is that such claims of rights and entitlement will require the Courts to consider all relevant facts and circumstances. Objective evidence (i.e. written documentation such as the property title deeds, and communications (including recorded conversations)), though persuasive, is not the sole determinant of a dispute, as it will be considered in totality and together with other evidence.

This case is perhaps clearer than the others, because Steven did not contribute to the purchase/instalment payments of the property. He also did not contribute to the upkeep and maintenance, where such payments were borne by his late father, and thereafter his late mother, and then his sisters.

All things considered, would a clearly worded and property executed will¹ by the late Mr Ng confirming the right of survivorship, or a deed of gift or trust evidencing the intention of the late Mr Ng to hold the property on trust for Steven’s benefit change the outcome of the dispute? The answer is probably “YES”, but this question will be best answered by legal professionals. The next article will examine another case where the person stated as the sole owner in a property’s title deed was ordered to move out of the property by the Courts.

About the writer

Heng Eam joined PropNex Realty Pte Ltd in March 2021, and is presently the Assistant Director for the Legal and Compliance Department. A lawyer by training, he was called to the Malaysian Bar in 2005. From 2007, he practiced law in Singapore for several years before being called to the Singapore Bar in 2014. He then served as legal counsel for another real estate agency, from 2015 till 2021. Besides his specialisation in litigation, he also provides legal counsel for corporate regulatory issues such as the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), as well as advises clients on employment, property, and landlord and tenant disputes.

[1] In a joint tenancy, the contents of the Will will not affect the right of survivorship under a joint-tenancy.