Foreign wife fails to turn up for $10m divorce hearings
Tan Ooi Boon for The Straits Times
A Taiwanese woman who wed a Singapore millionaire almost 20 years her senior after a whirlwind romance might meet most definitions of "gold-digger", especially when she asked for "an expensive house" soon after.
But the twist to this unusual love story was her surprise decision to be a no-show during their divorce hearings, when they eventually split up, and this meant she lost her right to a slice of her ex-husband's $10 million assets.
The case highlights the importance of respecting the law and following the proper procedures if you are caught up in a dispute, especially one involving millions of dollars.
The union must have looked like a match made in heaven for the 40-year-old woman when she married the man, who earns about $60,000 a month. But it lasted barely four years, with her being away most of the time.
The woman was expected to fight for a share of her husband's assets, which exceeded $10 million.
In view of the large sums at stake, the Family Justice Court even transferred the case to the High Court so that her interests would be safeguarded. After all, even a modest share of 3 to 5 per cent for the short marriage could well translate into $300,000 to $500,000.
But she did not bother to take part in the various mediation sessions and hearings; she even rudely logged out midway through one online mediation session via Zoom and failed to return.
Not surprisingly, she was awarded only a token sum of $5,000 as "a clean break".
This case provides a good lesson on why you need to adhere to the correct process in a dispute. In an adversarial system where two parties are given equal opportunities to present their cases, the one who chooses not to follow the rules will almost certainly be the loser.
So it is common for creditors to obtain summary judgments against debtors who fail to defend lawsuits. Similarly, if one spouse fails to show up for the hearing on asset division, the other party is likely to walk away with the lion's share.
The no-show foreign wife
The husband, a 58-year-old Singapore widower with two adult children, met the woman through a dating agency in Taiwan.
After the initial long-distance courtship over the span of about a year, he persuaded her to move to Singapore and they eventually got married a month later, in December 2019.
The man held a senior position in his company and drew an annual salary of close to $800,000. His new wife had a bachelor's degree in costume design but was not working at the time.
She told her new husband she was bored in Singapore and wasn't keen on doing any housework. So she returned to Taiwan barely six months later, promising to come back in a couple of months but did not.
When her husband begged her to come back, she asked him to buy her a luxurious house in Taiwan. He did not accede to her request but made "a weak compromise" by transferring two sums of money to her totalling $19,300.
She returned five months later, in March 2021. But the man's elation lasted barely a month as his bride proved difficult to live with, persisting in finding fault with him and making numerous demands for money, albeit without success.
In May 2021, she went back to Taiwan and ceased communication with him.
About two years later, the husband filed for divorce. She made a feeble attempt to challenge the divorce application, but did not file proper documents to support her case, even though she was given time to do so.
When it was time to fight for her share of the assets, plus maintenance, she again chose to send e-mails, ignoring the rules on submitting sworn statements, despite court officials offering to help her.
Although it was clear that she was keen to get some money out of the brief union, her conduct showed otherwise as she repeatedly failed to show up for hearings, either in person or via Zoom.
She did appear at the eleventh hour to discuss her entitlement in November 2023, but with informal self-generated statements.
When asked why she did not get the documents affirmed by a Commissioner for Oaths, she gave an "incredible" excuse that she could not find one.
So the court gave her a final extension to do so within a month but she again did not comply with the order.
High Court Judge Choo Han Teck noted that the husband had assets worth over $10 million, including a $4 million house. Even after considering loans and his children's share of the assets, the net value was a still sizeable $6.5 million.
But given that the foreign wife chose to not even be present, the judge ruled that there was "nothing that can be awarded to her".
After considering her monthly allowance of $400 to $800 during her stay in Singapore plus the $19,300 that was sent to her, Justice Choo awarded her another $5,000 to wrap up the case.
The husband had said in his statement that he had longed for a supportive and peaceful relationship in his "sunset years" after being widowed, and this short-lived marriage had caused him much grief.
But Justice Choo had this advice for him: "58 is hardly sunset; it is more like mid-afternoon, so there should be no rush in looking for wife No. 3."
The no-show ex-husband
In another case involving a no-show spouse, a married man who planned to marry his girlfriend hatched a scheme to take over his HDB flat where he lived with his wife.
He borrowed about $200,000 from his girlfriend and deposited it in his wife's CPF account, effectively refunding the amount that had been withdrawn to pay the mortgage.
He then told his wife to use the funds in her CPF account to pay off the outstanding loan on the flat.
It was not clear how he could own the whole flat by doing so. But all was well until the wife found out about his mistress and filed for divorce at the Syariah Court.
Although the man wanted to stake a claim to the matrimonial home, he strangely chose not to attend all the hearings.
Not surprisingly, the court ordered that the flat be sold but awarded the entire sales proceeds to the wife.
When the husband realised his blunder, he filed an application to change the order.
The court did not change its ruling but instructed the wife to return $125,000 that was used to pay off the HDB loan.
The man's new wife was unhappy with this decision and took the case to the Appeal Board as she wanted her $200,000 back.
But the outcome turned out to be worse: The board restored the original ruling that gave 100 per cent of the flat to the ex-wife and told the new wife to file her claim with the civil court.
So all three ended up at the High Court over the $200,000 that had been given to the ex-wife.
In the end, the new wife succeeded in her claim to get her money back but the twist was that it was her husband who had to refund the sum of money.
The court found that the ex-wife was innocent in the whole saga as she had merely followed her then husband's "puzzling plan" for their HDB flat.
The message from these two cases is this - it does not pay to disrespect the rules and directions of the court to attend hearings because doing so means giving up your rights to properties and cash.
