Property Legal Brief: Siblings Tussle Over Rag-And-Bone Mans Property

Yet another property dispute, and this time the co-owner of a property’s title deed was forced to vacate a property at Jalan Bunga Rampai as a result of his father’s will and also trust. This is the tale of the Ang siblings suing each other for the property of their late father, Mr Ang – a rag-and-bone man – which unfolded in Ang Hua Heng and Anor vs Ang Hwa Khong Daniel [2023] SGHC 283

In 1980, Mr Ang’s son, Daniel chanced upon a property for purchase at Jalan Bunga Rampai (the “Property”). Daniel was acquainted with its owner who was facing financial difficulties then. A deal was struck for the purchase of the Property in the names of Hua Heng (Daniel’s brother) and Daniel.

Five years later, a deed of trust was signed by Hua Heng and Daniel which: (i) recorded the purchase price for the Property, including all instalments and legal costs and disbursements, which were paid by Mr Ang, (ii) Daniel and Hua Heng as “the Trustees”, and (iii) Mr Ang as “the Beneficiary”. The trust went on to declare that the Trustees:

“are holding the Property “in [sic] trust for the Beneficiary” and that the Trustees “will at the request and costs of the Beneficiary convey [the Property] to the Beneficiary or to such person or persons at such time and in such manner or otherwise deal with the same as the Beneficiary shall direct and appoint”.

This is the father’s trust; he asked for and engaged lawyers to create it.

The Property was leased out until 1992, when Mr Ang and his wife moved into the Property. They lived there until their passing in 2021 and 2019 respectively. Mr Ang’s will bequeathed the Property to six of his children but excluded Daniel, who was occupying the Property at the time of the trial. That lead to the High Court suit with Hua Heng arguing for the father’s trust to be enforced, and Daniel seeking a declaration to be the sole beneficial owner of the Property.

Daniel’s contentions

The father’s trust was heavily challenged by Daniel who said that it was a sham document and failed to satisfy legal requirements. Daniel also claimed that he purchased the Property entirely with his money. He also sought to replace the deed of trust with constructive trust and resulting trust[1]

Daniel failed in this regard because of the clear and express wordings of the deed of trust.

Daniel also sought to argue that he paid for the Property and that Mr Ang was a “rag-and-bone” man who lacked financial ability and stayed in an “attap” house.

Mr Ang diligently kept detailed hand-written records (the “Records”) of payments made by him including mortgage repayments and the property tax of the Property. Cheque payment details and payment dates, and monies paid to his children were also similarly recorded.

All these proved to be a bane for Daniel’s argument. Evidence also showed that Mr Ang owned at least four properties; and the “attap” house was actually a three-storey landed property.

Mr Ang also kept documents and records pertaining to the Property, consistent with his control and ownership over the Property. He also negotiated with IRAS relating to owner-occupied concessionary tax rates, consistent with Mr Ang’s ownership of the Property.

The Court’s decision 

At the conclusion of the trial, the High Court Judge held that the beneficial interest in the Property belongs to the late Mr Ang, and Hua Heng and Daniel were holding it in trust under the deed of trust. Daniel who was living at the Property at the time of the trial, was also ordered to give vacant possession of the Property to the claimants.

Take-aways

Most may think it taboo to plan for “bad things” such as death or losing mental capacity, but in reality, the lack of or no planning may result in more “bad things” and ugly family disputes. But planning is only the first step; letting your loved ones know of your intended plans should also be done because should any issues arise, you will still be around to resolve them.

Besides the above, are there anything else to take note of?

This case demonstrated the importance of having proper documentation and also records, as they form objective evidence which the Court will give more weight to as compared to verbal testimony made during the trial. The same goes for contemporaneous written communication between parties because they are relevant to determining whether a certain intention were actually formed by the deceased in such disputes.[2]

Therefore, documents such as wills and trusts, and also the manner of holding of properties, should be expressly clear and consistent in order to avoid disputes. Should there still be a dispute, the duration of such legal battles may be shortened or even resolved out-of-court.

In this case, the will bequeathed the Property to six siblings excluding Daniel, but Daniel was stated as a co-owner in the title deed. In the deed of trust, Daniel was named a Trustee. In hindsight, if steps were taken to (1) have the Property transferred to the six siblings by Mr Ang under the deed of trust during his lifetime, and for (2) a documentation to provide Daniel the right to occupy the property, that could perhaps avoid the legal battle between the siblings.

Now how to get these done? The writer has no suggestion on how step one is to be done, but for step two, the writer strongly recommends for lawyers to be appointed to advise you and plan accordingly.

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.