http://www.straitstimes.com/archive/...house-20130108
Couple in 80s fight over $20m house
Published on Jan 08, 2013
By Selina Lum
WHEN a businessman bought a $1.78 million house in 1983, his wife provided $290,000 of her savings to pay for the property, which was purchased in her name only.
Now, Mr See Fong Mun and Madam Chan Yuen Lan, in their late 80s, are locked in a court battle over the ownership of the Chancery Lane bungalow, valued at about $20 million.
Among the issues before the court is each person's contribution to the purchase of the property, including whether the $290,000 was Madam Chan's direct contribution or a loan.
The couple's case was first heard at the High Court in September last year. Mr See, 85, who sued his wife of 55 years, had claimed that she was mentally incompetent. But the High Court found that Madam Chan, 88, was mentally capable of defending the suit. The actual trial to determine whom the house belongs to started yesterday.
Mr See, who ploughed the money he initially made from the rubber industry into the property market, claims that he is the true owner of the bungalow.
He married Madam Chan in 1957. She stopped working as a hairdresser after marriage. They have three children, two sons and a daughter, now in their 50s.
Mr See said he paid for all household expenses and gave his wife substantial pocket money.
In 1983, when he turned 55, he wanted to buy a bungalow with his CPF money. He said that he asked her to lend him her life savings to buy the house because he wanted to save on bank interest.
Madam Chan signed a legal document authorising him to deal with the house on her behalf. In 2011, she revoked his power of attorney, claiming that it was to prevent him from selling the house. Mr See sued his wife, asking the court to declare the move invalid. Both sides have fired accusations against the other. Mr See accused their younger son of "preying on his mother's pliable mind and emotional vulnerability to exact vengeance" for a major fallout between father and son in 2005.
Madam Chan suggested her husband may have been encouraged by their elder son to sue her. She accused them of fabricating documents, including a 1988 memo in which the children purportedly acknowledged Mr See as the sole owner of the house. And while Mr See said he took his former secretary as his mistress in 1988, Madam Chan said the affair started around 1979.
Her case is that when she agreed to buy the house, she was concerned about her future and that of her children in light of the affair.
[email protected]
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by proud owner
