Other Matters
“Matrimonial assets are divided equally between parties”
One common misconception people have is that the Courts will usually divide assets equally between parties. However, an equal division of matrimonial assets is not the case in most matrimonial disputes.
In Singapore, the Court has the power to order a “just and equitable” division of the matrimonial assets. In doing so, the Court will typically consider the following matters (this list is not exhaustive):
Apart from the factors listed above, the Courts will typically look to parties’ roles throughout marriage, as this is one of the key factors in determining the approach to take in exercising the Court’s powers. In BPB v BPB [2019] 1 SLR 608, the Court held that it must first enquire whether the marriage is a dual-income marriage or a single-income one. Once this issue is determined, the Court will be able to determine whether to apply a structured approach (where both direct financial and indirect contributions are considered) or lean towards an equal division of assets (unless the matrimonial pool is extraordinarily large).
In most cases, both parties will be actively working throughout their marriage in order to earn sufficient income to contribute to their family’s or household expenses. The High Court has held that the Court should focus on parties’ capacities to contribute, rather than their actual contributions. This would allow the Court to give due recognition to one party in a situation where the other party is able to contribute (but decides not to). In these cases, parties’ marriage will be considered a ‘dual-income’ one.
In assessing whether a marriage was a ‘single-income’ one, the Court will also consider the proportion of time both parties worked during the marriage. While the length of time one spends employed during the course of marriage is important, it is also crucial to focus on the actual roles played by both parties (relative to one another).
“I can get a bigger share of the matrimonial assets if I prove adultery”
In matrimonial disputes, it is inevitable that there may be allegations made by either party against one another for infidelity. Such accusations will often involve a barrage of emotions as one party may feel betrayed by the acts of the other (whether proven or not). While it is indeed unfortunate when adultery is proven, it is unlikely to affect the Court’s exercise of its powers under section 112 of the Women’s Charter (as mentioned above). However, proving adultery would allow one to get a divorce.
Proving adultery would allow the Court to grant the divorce. However, it is unlikely to get the spouse who proves it a larger share of the matrimonial assets. This is because .
It is important to bear in mind that while it may seem unfair or unreasonable for a cheating spouse not to be penalized by the Court, this is not to say that parties’ misconduct throughout marriage will be overlooked by the Court.
In fact, the truth is that misconduct and lack of contributions by either party will always be considered. For example, a spouse may engage in misconduct by dissipating his/her monies (i.e., transferring large sums of monies out to deplete assets in his/her sole name). If proven, the Court has the power to claw back the monies dissipated.
While uncommon, the Court has also ascribed negative contributions against spouses who have behaved extremely unreasonably (e.g., harm caused). In such cases, the spouse’s share of the matrimonial assets would be reduced. In the case of Chan Tin Sun v Fong Quay Sim [2015] SGCA 2, the wife was found to have poisoned her husband over a year of the marriage. Due to the physical harm caused to her husband, the Court of Appeal reduced her share of the matrimonial assets by 7%.
We also recently obtained a 5% reduction for our client against the husband in XDZ v XEA [2024] SGFC 90. In that case, the Court agreed with our submissions that the husband’s contributions ought to be reduced due to his extreme misconduct towards the family. The Court found that he had seriously harmed their children’s wellbeing by:
“I can exclude my property purchased in my own name before marriage”
The truth to this answer is: it really depends.
Under section 112(10) of the Women’s Charter, a matrimonial asset is defined as:
but does not include any asset (not being a matrimonial home) that has been acquired by one party at any time by gift or inheritance and that has not been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties to the marriage.
Hence, it is likely that an asset belonging to one party will be considered a matrimonial asset in the situations below:
On the flipside, it is unlikely that the assets in question below will be considered matrimonial assets:
That said, the Court will always consider each case on its facts.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice. If you have any legal issues which require advice, please contact us to arrange for a free consultation.
Get in Touch
Our team of Singapore family and divorce lawyers is happy to assist you if you have any queries. Do feel free to reach out via WhatsApp for a free consultation and timely, supportive legal advice. We ensure that you are kept informed and supported throughout your experience with us.
