Category: The Brief

Beyond the legalities of the Hague Convention: the distress of mothers fleeing Singapore with their children

ABOUT PRACTICEFORTE’S PROJECT RELOCATION

Started in July 2017 by the Family Division of PracticeForte Advisory, this project is an initiative to make legal help more accessible to spouses in overcoming the legal challenges to obtain court consent to return to their countries of origin with their children for the welfare of the children.

Project Relocation is part of PracticeForte Advisory’s ongoing efforts ot further our twin pillar focus of “Building Peace, Building Expertise”.

ABOUT PRACTICEFORTE ADVISORY

PracticeForte Advisory is a network of independent professional advisory firms comprising, amongst others, lawyers, mediators, accountants, forensic experts and others.  This niche group of professional advisory firms are banded together under the brand name: PracticeForte Advisory.

ABOUT PRACTICEFORTE FAMILY DIVISION

PracticeForte Family Division comprises of specialist practitioners of Family Law including lawyers focused on matrimonial issue, mediators trained in resolving all family concerns: parenting coordinators to assist parents in their co-parenting journeys, counsellors and therapists.

Article By: PracticeForte Advisory Affiliate Ms. Susan Tay of OTP Law Corporation.

Explaining Fair and Equitable Division of Matrimonial Assets-Global Assessment Method for Long, Single-Income Marriage

Just when we thought the law is fairly settled after ANJ v ANK [2015] SGCA 34, our apex court concludes in a recent case of TNL v TNK [2017] SGCA 15 that the approach in ANJ will not work for a single income family as it tends to favour the working spouse over the non-working spouse. In the ANJ approach, financial contributions are given weight in both steps. To recollect, the steps stated in the ANJ approach are as follows:

1st Step, work out the proportion of direct contributions (cash paid directly toward the acquisition of assets)

2nd Step, work out the proportion of indirect contributions (contributions other than in the 1st step including non-financial ones)

3rd Step: average the ratio and then

I have then proposed a 4th Step as follows:

4th Step: if applicable, a non-mathematical balancing tweak to accommodate special elements like very long marriage, exceptional size of asset pool and extra-ordinary efforts in the acquisition and nature of indirect contributions  as well as adverse inference.

The apex court in TNL illustrates how the ANJ approach in a single income family will not be in line with “the court’s philosophy of marriage being an equal partnership.”

“Under Step 1, the working spouse in a Single-Income Marriage would be accorded 100% (or close to 100%) of direct contributions. He or she would also be accorded a substantial percentage under Step 2 solely on the basis of his or her indirect financial contributions, and this could well be the case even if he or she made little or no non-financial contributions. On the other side of the equation, this means that the non-working spouse is, in this sense, doubly (and severely) disadvantaged.”

This court is decisive in not ascribing any mathematical formula therefore for the 2nd Step. It also dismisses any attempts at sub-dividing the indirect contributions at the 2nd Step 2 to financial and non-financial as there is no legal basis for doing so.

“In the nature of things, for the court to ascribe a ratio in respect of the non-financial or indirect financial contributions of the parties, the court is clearly not indulging in any mathematical calculation because often there is very little concrete evidence to be relied upon. Contributions in the form of parenting, homemaking and husbandry, by their very nature, are incapable of being reduced into monetary terms. No mathematical formula or analytical tool is capable of capturing or accommodating the diverse and myriad set of factual scenarios that may present themselves to court as to how the parties may have chosen to divide among themselves duties and responsibilities in the domestic sphere. It is in making this determination that what is known as the broad brush approach would have to come into play. What values to give to the indirect contributions of the parties is necessarily a matter of impression and judgment of the court. In most homes, even in a home where both the spouses are working full time, in the absence of concrete evidence it is more likely than not that ordinarily the wife will be the party who renders greater indirect contributions. That said, even in a home where the wife is a full-time homemaker, it would be an exceptional home where the husband renders no indirect contribution at all. What values to attribute to each spouse in relation to indirect contributions would be a matter of assessment for the court and in that regard broad strokes would have to be the order of the day. In seeking to arrive at a ratio that represents both parties’ comparative indirect contribution towards the family, the court must, in the final analysis, exercise sound discretion along with a keen emphasis on all the relevant facts of each case. [emphasis added]”

This case is about a long marriage of 35 years in which the parties play traditional roles i.e. husband was the sole breadwinner and a wife who gave up her job to take care of 3 children through top their adulthood.

The decision by the court of appeal in TNL by upholding the below judge’s decision of an almost 50-50 split (more precisely 49.4:50.6) is yet another such decision favouring equal division of matrimonial assets in a long marriage. The court in TNL alluded to how different considerations would apply to a short single income family but stopped short of saying how, proposing to leave the issue to be dealt with in the appropriate  cases.

Conclusion:

In a long single income marriage, the court favours an equal distribution of matrimonial assets. There may be exceptions to this case for example where the asset pool is a sizable one (e.g. Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appeal [2011] 2 SLR 1157 where the asset pool was worth S$69m and was largely acquired through the extra-ordinary effort of the husband and the court gave 65:35 in favour of the husband) but such exception tends to be rare and unique.

It is nonetheless the author’s view that the ANJ formula with the author’s proposed 4th Step can still work for long marriages in a single income family as the 4th Step is precisely designed for extra-ordinary elements like the one in TNL where the marriage lasted over 3 decades with only 1 breadwinner.

Article By: PracticeForte Advisory Affiliate Ms. Susan Tay of OTP Law Corporation

This is the first of 2 articles to help explain how our courts distribute matrimonial assets fairly and equitably after a marriage ends. Part 1 focuses on dual income families where both spouses worked during the marriage and contributed financially to the acquisition of their matrimonial assets.

We cannot deal with this subject without dwelling into the 2015 court of appeal case of ANJ v ANK [2015] SGCA 34. In ANJ, the couple who were married for 9 years, both worked and contributed financially toward the acquisitions of their matrimonial assets. They had 2 young children, 12 & 8.

This case seals our apex court’s increasing preference for not looking at contributions by ex-spouses at a purely mathematical level toward each and every category of assets. It formulates what it calls a global assessment method by recognising the couple’s total contributions, both direct (toward purchase price) and indirect (all other contributions including efforts) and then attributes the apportionment to the pool of matrimonial assets without classifying the assets into different categories. Once and for all, the apex court states unequivocally, its rejection of what it calls the “uplift” method commonly used by the lower courts.

What is the “uplift” method?

Contributions used to be assessed this way:  1st, the proportion of the direct financial contributions by each party is determined. This is a very straight forward calculation of how much cash the parties have contributed towards acquisition of matrimonial assets (usually the biggest asset is the matrimonial property).  We give a simple illustration where both husband and wife contributes equally, halving everything down the line i.e. 50:50. Next we have the non-financial contribution. The uplift method happens when the court say, decides to give the wife an extra 5% because of her indirect contributions. The ratio according to this uplift method becomes 55:45 in favour of the wife. The flaw of this method becomes apparent when mathematically, one realises that this actually penalises the husband by 10% because the ratio of 55:45 means the husband suffers a further 5% drop from his 50% entitlement while the wife gains the 5%. The apex court proffers that the correct ratio in our illustration should have been 55:50 and not 55:45.

The global assessment method remedies this by giving a 2nd equation to the formula.  It proposes to deal with contributions this way (using our illustration):

1st Step:
work out the proportion of direct contributions (cash paid directly toward the acquisition of assets) which in our example is 50:50

2nd Step:
work out the proportion of indirect contributions (contributions other than in the 1st step) for example 55:45 in favour of wife

3rd Step:
add the 2 ratios and then half it which will then work out to be 52.5 : 47.5

By using the formula, the court “put financial and non-financial contributions on an equal footing, as opposed to the traditional “uplift” approach that places direct financial contribution as the foremost consideration.” This formula which the court calls the structured approach is aligned with s 112 of the Women’s Charter which does not give pre-eminence to any of the factors enumerated in that section.

However, this structured approach must also accommodate the broad brush approach of balancing certain elements which are just as important.

“There are instances where one component necessarily assumes greater importance than the other on the facts and correspondingly greater weight should be attached to that component as against the other. In cases that fall within the latter category, the court should tweak or calibrate the “average ratio” in favour of one party to reflect what would be a just and equitable result in the circumstances of each case”

The court then went on to give 3 such elements:

• The length of the marriage. Long marriages means indirect contributions in general tend to play a more significant role as opposed to say, a short, childless marriage.
• The size of the matrimonial assets and its constituents. If a large pool of matrimonial assets is acquired through the extraordinary efforts of 1 party, then direct contributions will be given more weight as against indirect contributions.
• Extent and nature of indirect contributions as not all indirect contributions are equal. E.g., having a domestic helper may mean that the weight accorded to the parties’ indirect contributions in the homemaking and caregiving are reduced. On the other hand, homemakers who have painstakingly raised children to adulthood, especially where such efforts have entailed significant career sacrifices on their part may be given weightier considerations.

Is this tweaking not already done at the 2nd Step? The author’s view is that ANJreally works for most standard circumstances like the couple’s in ANJ. This tweaking may, in our view be workable if a further step can be implemented to the formula for extraordinary circumstances like very long marriage or large matrimonial assets or exceptional efforts by one spouse. We call this the 4th Step, the non-mathematical tweak for broad brush balance.  In this way, we can also apply this Step 4 to cases where the court wants to draw adverse inference against one party for not being forthright about their disclosures and is suspected to be hiding assets.

Conclusion:

ANJ is the culmination of decades of attempts by the court to come to a just and fair way to distribute assets between ex-spouses who started their married lives without calculating their contributions down to the last cent. In fact, most couples just do not even count their contributions at all. E.g. couples pooled a total sum of S$x, half of which went to buying their home, the other toward a family car.  Some of these assets flourish (like the value of their matrimonial home) and some will continue to depreciate (like the family car). In the global assessment method, it does not matter whose money went where. The pooled assets are then divided according to the ratio (after adjustments) that the courts considered as the respective spouses’ financial and non-financial contributions, tweaked in a non-mathematical balance for the 3 elements and for any adverse inference to be drawn.

Article By: Wan Cheng & Elodie

Wan Cheng (“Wan”) and Elodie are a bi-national couple who had met through their love of sports. Elodie who’s French, worked in Indonesia for 3 years before a new work assignment brought her back to Paris.

Although it was already possible for same-sex couples to be “PAC-sed” (pacte civil de solidarité or civil solidarity pact) in France since 1999, the legalization of same-sex marriage in France in 2013 and the timing of Elodie’s new job assignment accelerated Wan’s decision to quit the teaching service and move away from Singapore to build her life together with Elodie in Paris where they both have been living now for the past 4 years.

A month ago when they were in our office, I  had asked if Wan was keen to contribute to OTP’s blog to share why her wife and she had decided to get their Lasting Power of Attorney (“LPA”)  done. Wan agreed to write the article without a moment’s hesitation.  We are really happy to now share their story. – Susan Tay, OTP Law Corporation.

LPA and A Written Will

Knowing that it will be unlikely for same-sex marriages to be legalized in Singapore during my lifetime, I felt compelled to share my experience with other same-sex couples who are still undecided or unaware of the importance of the LPA and a written will. Upon reflecting what we had gone through ourselves, we had realized that the entire process itself was not as clear-cut as we had imagined. After numerous intense conversations on this issue, we had finally come to an agreement that we needed to proceed with the LPA application despite not living in Singapore so as to get some legal clarity and recognition of our relationship status.

On paper, I am a typical Singaporean who is currently married to a foreigner and living overseas at the present moment. And like many Singaporeans as well as the millions of foreign spouses currently living outside of their country of birth, we all face similar difficulties on migration issues as well as challenges in language, climate and cultural differences.

But unlike those typical bi-national marriages, my marriage is currently only recognized in 22 countries, in which Singapore is not one of them. So unlike the millions of married foreign spouses, my wife and I, as with many other married bi-national homosexual couples from countries that do not recognize same-sex marriages, have the extra challenge of having to straddle between different national laws as well as cross-country jurisdictions.

Therefore it is very obvious why my wife and I had opted to apply for the LPA and make our wills even though we are not currently living in Singapore. In terms of legal protection, we essentially have few rights as a couple concerning all our assets (in and outside of Singapore) and how legal and medical decisions are to be taken in the event of any unforeseen circumstances outside of France (my wife is French). But our decision regarding the LPA and written wills was not merely to acquire legal protection in both our countries of birth, it was also to make it known to our families on how we had wanted our estates to be managed should the unexpected occur.

Having already experienced a lot of difficulties getting my family to accept my wife, I did not want to take any chances on potential disputes that might arise should I no longer be around. But more importantly, I felt it was important for me to provide for my wife some level of legal protection in my birth country, which does not recognize our marital status.

Fortunately, once we had decided to go ahead with the application, it was just a matter of finding the right person to get the entire thing done. We had some lawyer friends recommend Susan to us who turned out to be such a godsend and was extremely helpful during our application process. I have to say, now that our wills are done and the LPA application currently in process, it just feels like a weight is finally been lifted off our shoulders.

The Society on LGBT

I had always thought that most people who cohabitate would be for the idea of creating some sort of legally binding or mutual agreement in the event that they split up. But through my research and conversations with various couples, I had realized that while many couples, both straight and same-sex do consider legal protection as an important component of their relationship, not many actually pursue legal solutions to protect themselves.  In fact, most people whether they are single, attached or married, do not proactively seek to educate themselves about the rights and benefits of being in a relationship. Even straight couples sometimes make wrong assumptions about the kind of protection regarding their personal assets and parental rights before and after marriage.

The sad truth is that our behaviors are biased towards ingrained societal expectations on the different kinds of committed relationships.

Firstly, society perpetuates the idea that platonic relationships are of lesser importance than romantic relationships. Many Singaporean same-sex couples tend to fall into this category especially for those who are still not out to their families. Our society’s refusal to legally acknowledge same-sex marriage means gay people often subconsciously perceive their own relationships as less legitimate than their straight counterparts. Having been denied access to subsidized public housing and many other social benefits reserved exclusively to straight married Singaporeans, many cohabitating same-sex couples simply do not see the need to draw up legal agreements as they feel that they hardly have any rights to fight for.

Secondly, the idealized concept of romantic relationships often means that couples tend to overlook or opt not to consider the more pragmatic aspects of being in a relationship, i.e., planning for an exit strategy in the event the relationship falls apart or taking the necessary steps to plan their estate in the event of unforeseen circumstances. And to make matters worse, the negative perception of divorce in our society also means that separation issues are often not brought to light. Without actually knowing the difficulties that couples have to face when they split up, how are we able to anticipate and inform ourselves of the kind of protection we will need?

While we all desire for relationships that are healthy and equitable to both parties, we must also remember that the reality is different for various types of couples. And even within couples, power status is often not the same. Hence, it is even more vital for couples with significant imbalance of power to consider the different types of protection they will each require when the relationship breaks down. As such, it is crucial for all committed couples (straight, same-sex and those with vested interests) to seek for clarity and protection of their assets and personal interests.

At the end of the day, the one thing that really keeps a strong relationship going is trust. But to have trust, you must first be honest with one another. When my wife and I made the decision to apply for the LPA and make our wills, we had to be consciously honest with one another. We had to be honest about our thoughts on difficult issues like separation and death, about our personal wealth and re-examine our relationships with our families.

Looking back, the path to obtaining legal protection is only one part of the story. The truly important thing that we have taken away from this experience was the trust and commitment we further made towards one another.

Singapore may still be miles away from legally recognizing same-sex partnerships but there are ways in which you can protect yourself and your loved ones. Start talking about this issue with your friends and family members. More importantly, seek professional advice on the type of legal options that best suit you and your partner. Together, we can all move our community towards more legal protection and hopefully more legal recognition in the future.

Authored by Wan Cheng & Elodie

An Interview With PracticeForte Advisory Affiliate Ms. Susan Tay by Emelia Kwa.

Q: You have accumulated over a decade’s worth of experience in matrimonial litigation. What motivated you to delve into such a specialised field of practice, and did you ever consider practicing corporate law instead?

A: I actually started doing matrimonial litigation by chance. My very first litigation case after I became my own boss was a matrimonial case. It started when a friend of a friend approached me for help in her divorce. After that I realised that it was rewarding in a way other cases are not – you’re helping someone in something that’s close to their hearts, and it’s extremely gratifying. I do a bit of corporate law so I know the difference as well.

Although I enjoy embarking on new areas of work because it makes life exciting- you get to chart a new path in unknown waters, I am a firm believer in the 10,000 hour rule. That is how much time you need to put in to become a master in whatever you do. If I diversify my work too much, I will not be as good as I can be.

Q: When looking to recruit young lawyers to join your team, what do you look for in a CV? Essentially, how can an applicant stand out amongst the rest.

A: I’m not exactly the best person to ask since I want to meet and talk to everyone who applied to our firm. I call applicants up for an interview without looking at their CVs 1st. It is only just before the interviews that I look at their CVs. I’m flattered that these applicants are interested in our firm and I want to talk to every one of them. Alas, time does not permit (and I am sadly missing out on an important thing in life like just having a chat with someone and getting to know them).

In general, I tend to look for students from SMU and NUS first. In their CVs, I will like to see their CCA and whether they do community work. Grades are not that important to me (you are already “A” students if you get into law) – I’ll rather look at what you do outside of studies. So far all the CVs we’ve received are mostly the same, and only one or two write about what motivates them. I am of course also curious why they picked our firm.

We have a policy of accepting all interns who apply if the timing suits. The firm takes one at a time at this moment so every month, we have slot only for 1. From these interns, we then determine whether they have a place with us either for a training contract (TC) or for other kinds of collaboration. OTP Law Corporation is part of an affiliation called the PracticeForte Advisory. There are therefore many opportunities for law undergraduates or young lawyers to work with the firm and the group (e.g. research, writing articles etc).

I look for attitudes rather than knowledge – these are things that you can only find out after working with people for some time. I look for persons who are interested, curious, determined, industrious, careful and have strengths that I lack. No need for all in one though.

As for TCs, here is my 2 cents worth on how to get them. At the moment, there are more trainees than TCs. Yet, if you are willing to think out of a box, not only will you get a TC, you may be able to choose who you want to train with. If you know lawyers (note: lawyers, not firms) who are good mentors, approach them and request that they train you. Let them know why. Of course, be prepared to apprentice for free, get your foot in the door. Generally, if your mentors are good and responsible lawyers, and they think you have learnt well and can even help them in their practice, they’ll definitely pay you for your work, even if you were given a TC on the basis of working for free. In this way, you are also likely to eventually work in an environment that suits you. Don’t be afraid of being your own boss either. For people who already have a history with a particular firm, don’t be afraid to go back to the firm if you need help, especially if you’ve done well. I believe that if fresh graduates are willing to think out of the box and persevere, they will find a way to survive.

Q: I note that you are an active member of AWARE pro bono sessions. During a recent coffee chat at SMU, I had the opportunity to ask Mr Derek Kang (president of CLAS) on whether young lawyers were actively taking up pro bono cases. He mentioned that not many of them did as their bosses discouraged them from doing so, or were only permitted to handle a single pro bono case a year. Why did you start doing pro bono and what advice do you have for young lawyers who may wish to pursue such volunteerism?

A: If I may use the parlance of the young, it is a lame excuse to say “bosses don’t encourage”. Pro bono is a must do. I started doing pro bono 10 years after practice – I started by joining committees. My first experience did not meet with my expectations, probably because I was too naïve and had expectations on what it must be like. I quit after a year. Later on the Law Society started Project Law Help and my firm joined. We were paired with a nursing home. I wanted to do more than just give legal advice over the phone. I got my partners to go down to the nursing home and met with the people there. We also organized a can food drive and they gave us a simple but heartwarming lunch in their canteen. I believe that the non-legal aspect of pro bono should also play a part if it is within your capabilities. Pro bono isn’t taxing – the person I liaised with in the nursing home called maybe once in two months to ask for advice. While I can understand that young lawyers will want to give their new job their all since they’re still fresh in the careers, I don’t think pro bono will take up a lot of their time.

In 2012, I started counselling at AWARE. By this time, I was fairly experienced in family law and therefore counselling matrimonial legal issues came easily. Although it is a few hours’ work a day in every month, it is something that I’m familiar with. Moreover, the gratification you get from just spending 20 minutes giving someone who needs legal advice is priceless. For me, pro bono actually gives meaning to the profession. You won’t know this until you do it.

Having said all that, I will have to add that giving legal advice when you are inexperienced is not advisable. I think that you need at least 4-5 years’ experience doing what you’re specialised in before you can start. You can tell the organisations you’re volunteering with, your areas of practice and only dispense with advice in that area. Accumulating life experience also helps – you develop a way of handling “difficult” cases e.g. times when clients are depressed or suicidal. Ultimately, when giving legal advice, you will need to remind your client that you’re there to answer their legal questions and you’re not their marriage counsellor (for matrimonial issues) or doctor.

There are two beneficiaries when pro bono work is done: the recipient and you yourself.

This interview was conducted in connection with a project for SMU.

Article By: Leon Vincent Chann, ex-intern and current 3rd year NUS Law Student.

The recent Singapore Court of Appeal case of ARX v Comptroller of Income Tax [2016] SGCA 56 sheds light on legal professional privilege (“LPP”), more specifically legal advice privilege, accorded to in-house counsels. The SGCA extensively discussed this issue and concluded that in-house counsels are indeed accorded LPP – via the common law before the 2012 amendments of the Evidence Act (Cap 97) and via both statutory and common law after the 2012 amendments. This article will firstly look at the requirements for the privilege to be attached to communications between in-house counsels and their clients, the requirements for the communications to be privileged and the exceptions to the privilege.

Requirements

The starting position is not the title that in-house counsels carry but the very fact that they possess professional legal expertise per the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). For the communications between the in-house counsel and his client to be privileged, the in-house counsel must further be consulted in his capacity as a legal adviser, and the communication must be confidential. What this means is that administrative matters are not privileged unless they are legal in nature. It thus follows that publicly available information cannot be privileged.

History

Prior to the 2012 amendments to the Evidence Act for LPP, in-house counsels were already protected under the common law. This is because of the crucial need to allow for “full, free and frank disclosure” between clients and their in-house counsels. It would be entirely artificial to say that this privilege is not accorded to in-house counsels when they are exercising the same function as advocates and solicitors in law firms. The SGCA in ARX held that this common law rule was not inconsistent with the Evidence Act.

That said, what the 2012 amendments did was to codify in-house counsels’ LPP within the Evidence Act when Minister for Law K Shanmugam and MP Hri Kumar Nair spoke in Parliament, to cement the point that LPP in the Evidence Act would apply “equally” to in-house counsels. The exceptions embodied within the Evidence Act would also equally apply to in-house counsels – where communications are in furtherance of an illegal purpose, where the in-house counsel has observed facts showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment, and where the client waives the privilege.

Exceptions

Illegality as an exception

It is self-explanatory that where communications evince illegality, the communications would no longer be privileged because it would be unconscionable and an abuse to the system to allow the communications to remain privileged. When one wants to rely on LPP, he cannot behave improperly. To allow the privilege in such situations would be tantamount to encouraging the wrongdoing. Therefore, in-house counsels should cease to act for the client if there is evidence of such wrongdoing according to rule 10 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015.

Waivers as an exception

Express waivers are without a doubt the clearest way for privilege to be lifted on communications. Most useful to note will be the concept of implied waivers which has long been murky. The SGCA in ARX laid down the test as whether it is consistent and fair, in light of the whole case, for the full disclosure of the document after considering what has already been revealed. This is a fact-sensitive and objective exercise of discretion by the courts. A waiver would not be easily implied because the LPP is meant to benefit clients and to protect the confidentiality of communications. In addition, the courts have the discretion to look behind the communications to ascertain if the privilege was rightly asserted by the party. Lastly, the client may not pick and choose what to disclose or not disclose to their advantage.

Conclusion

LPP has been revered and would continue to be upheld with utmost importance in future. It would seem that the courts would be open in time to come to recognise newer situations where LPP may be of concern where it facilitates business. In the meantime, in-house counsels can have a peace of mind in knowing that they are no different from their counterparts in law firms in terms of privilege when providing legal advice to their clients.

by Leon Vincent Chan, ex-intern and current 3rd year NUS Law Student.

Article By: PracticeForte Advisory Affiliate Ong Ying Ping

Q: If a married couple with no children were co-owners of an HDB flat and one spouse passes on, how should the family members of the deceased spouse go about laying claim to the flat against the surviving spouse? Can they even do that?

A: That depends on whether the HDB flat was owned under joint tenancy or tenancy-in-common. Under joint tenancy, each co-owner’s share is undivided. Put another way, that owner’s share cannot be willed away. Thus, should one of the co-owners pass on, his/her interest in the flat would automatically be passed on to (lawyers call this “vested in”) the surviving co-owner. This is known as the right of survivorship.

On the other hand, under tenancy-in-common, the right of survivorship does not apply. When a co-owner passes on, his/her interest in the flat will be distributed according to what is stated in his/her Will. In the absence of a Will, the state steps in, and the deceased co-owner’s interest in the flat will be distributed to the beneficiaries in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act.

Therefore, depending on the nature of the tenancy, the family members of the deceased co-owner may or may not be able to register co-ownership of the HDB flat. Situations like these also highlight the importance of creating a Will. While one is still alive and of sound mind, it would be wise to consult a lawyer to do so.

Author Ong Ying Ping
Source https://www.facebook.com/oypesq.sg/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf