Property Legal Brief: Will Your Kin Keep Their Head When You've Lost Your Mind?

“Who wants to live forever?” Yes, no, maybe. I don’t know; but if asked “who wants to lose their mind?” the answer will be a clear no! One may also ask what is the worst which could happen? Well, either all your family members will come together and take care of you, or they will fight for the right to take care of you, and your properties.

This article examines the 2023 case of WLR & Anor v WLT & Anor [2023] SGHCF 24 where three children of a wealthy widow, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease embroiled themselves in High Court proceedings over who should be appointed as deputy/deputies[1] over the widow’s affairs and property (comprising 17 physical properties, about $4 million in cash, and some $1.3 million in joint bank accounts with her late husband). The children will be referred to as the 2^nd Son, 3^rd Daughter and Youngest Son in this article. The eldest child is not involved in the proceedings.

The 3^rd Daughter applied for herself to be appointed as the deputy, together with a professional deputy as the co-deputy. She also applied for a lawyer to be the successor deputy to the co-deputy. The 2^nd Son objected to the application, and applied for a professional deputy and accountant to be appointed instead. The Youngest Son applied to be jointly appointed as co-deputy with the 3^rd Daughter. All these applications will hereinafter be referred to as the “Deputyship Applications”.

A Lasting Power of Attorney executed in 2019 (the “LPA”) by the widow was also in issue; the 2^nd Son applied for the LPA to be revoked on the basis that the widow lacked capacity when it was executed (the “LPA Revocation Issue”).

For the Deputy Applications, the 2^nd Son, the 3^rd Daughter and the Youngest Son cited evidence to support their application and also shoot the others’ applications down. Questions, narratives, evidence and labels came to fore. Some notable ones were: mommy was a traditional housewife or shrewd businesswoman who took care of the business and the family; mommy was a “quick tempered, impatient and a vengeful woman” who “married for monetary reason”; mommy’s diary entries (which could have been examined against mommy’s will) showed she was involved in the family business; the 2^nd Son opening the letter box at mommy’s home daily; and the 3^rd Daughter exhibited “mercenary conduct”.

These also came to fore: allegations of espionage via iPhone 8 Plus planted in the late daddy’s room; legal letters sent by 3^rd Daughter to late daddy dearest alleging him of misconduct leading to the 3^rd Daughter being kicked out of his home and her employment being terminated; the widow’s distrust of her 2^nd Son and his wife; the widow suing her late husband’s estate for unpaid salary, loans and director’s fees; the 3^rd Daughter isolated mommy from other family members including mommy’s sister who were denied the opportunity to celebrate mommy’s 84^th birthday; the 2^nd Son alleging the 3^rd Daughter, who took care of mommy of failing to administer her medication; and hosted gatherings in breach of Covid-19 government regulations then.

Also presented: pictures of holidays and various outings with mommy and the Youngest Son; the Youngest Son fetching mommy to the nursing home four days a week and send her home three days a week; the Youngest Son stayed with mommy until she had fallen asleep; the Youngest Son should never brought mommy to medical appointments; the Youngest Son was involved in multiple large group gatherings at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic; and the Youngest Son is not competent to manage mommy’s property because he only worked in Christian and non-profit organisations.

After hearing parties, the High Court Judge appointed the 3^rd Daughter and Youngest Son’s deputies over the widow’s personal welfare and property affairs, and they are to act jointly in all matters.

For the LPA Revocation Issue, the High Court Judge held that the widow lost her mental capacity before the LPA was executed, and it was therefore liable to be set aside.

If one lesson can be gleaned from this case, it is not the importance of preserving or collecting evidence to score points in competitions with players vying for titles in four award categories (in no particular order), (1) “Most Capable Manager of Mommy’s Welfare and Property Portfolio”; (2) the title “The Most Filial Child”; (3) the title of “Most Dedicated Driver to Ferry Mommy to-and-fro Nursing Home”; and (4) “Most Doctor Visits with Mommy”.

Instead, if there was proper planning, the competition may well be changed to a collaborative work arrangement with intelligent solutions, such as the taking turns to take care of mommy, and also hiring helpers and medical professions to care for mommy dearest at the comfort and familiarity of her home.

About the writer

Heng Eam joined PropNex Realty Pte Ltd in March 2021, and is presently the Assistant Director of PropNex’s 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.