Unwed couple, both 50, go to S'pore court over their S$1.65 million condo home after they break up

An unmarried French couple who are Singapore Permanent Residents, both 50, went to court in Singapore over the division of proceeds from the sale of their S$1.65 million home, which they bought when they cohabited in Singapore.

After being in a romantic relationship since 2005 and raising two children together in Singapore, the couple called it quits by December 2018.

The woman had wanted to sell the house they bought together in 2011 for equal shares, but the man disputed this, arguing that the sale proceeds should be divided proportionally based on their financial contributions to the home.

While they started out splitting the mortgage payments evenly, the man, who paid for the upfront costs, eventually footed a larger share of the bill when the woman was retrenched in mid-2018.

Cohabited and raised two children

The man, the vice-president of a software company, and the woman, an author, are French citizens and Singapore PRs, according to the high court judgment.

They began a romantic relationship in 2005.

In 2010, they moved to Singapore and had two children over the years, one born in 2012 and the other in 2015.

The two were unwed throughout their relationship.

In December 2011, they bought a condominium unit for S$1.65 million and were registered as joint tenants.

To finance the purchase, the parties took a joint mortgage loan of S$1.32 million from the bank in both names.

The woman, who is the claimant in the dispute, was working at a research centre at the time.

She said she was earning less than the man while working there.

The man, who is the defendant, paid all the upfront costs, which included five per cent of the purchase price, part payment of the purchase price, conveyancing fees and stamp duties.

From May 2012 to mid-2018, both parties contributed equally to mortgage payments.

The woman was retrenched in mid-2018 and stopped paying her share of the mortgage.

Relationship broke down by December 2018

According to the high court judgement, their relationship broke down by December 2018.

The woman claimed that they had been spending less time together and sleeping separately in the four years leading up to December 2018.

According to the man, they broke up because the woman met someone else in June 2018 and began a romantic relationship with the third party in September that year.

In April 2019, the man moved out of the condo unit in question, while the woman continued residing there for the next three years.

She eventually relocated back to France in May 2022, and the man moved back into the condo unit sometime after.

On Sep. 26, 2024, the woman filed an application for the sale of the property, with the net sale proceeds to be divided equally between her and the man.

The man filed a counterclaim on Oct. 17, 2024, arguing that the net sale proceeds should be divided proportionally in the ratio of 16.3:83.7, in accordance with their alleged financial contributions to the property.

The man also wanted the woman's title and interest in the property to be sold to him.

Agreed to split equally

According to the woman, it has always been their intention for the property to be held equally, citing a 2019 affidavit written by the man, which states that they have "undivided ownership in an equal manner" of the "family home".

She also pointed to a will executed by the man around June 2016, which she claimed provided for all the man's assets to be bequeathed to her upon his death.

She also argued that their agreement to split the mortgage payments equally corresponded to their agreement to hold the property in equal shares.

She contended that during their time together, their relationship was "akin to that of husband and wife". They cohabited for years, raised two children together, and even indicated that they were "married" under common law during their PR applications.

Countering these, the man argued that they never agreed to have "unconditional equal ownership" and that calling the property their "family home" was merely a factual description.

He also countered that their relationship was "not akin to husband and wife", but co-parents.

The man also said that the will which the woman referred to was never signed or executed and called her references to it "bare assertions" without substantiation.

The man emphasised that although they split the mortgage payments equally for the first six years, he had paid for the upfront costs of the property.

No evidence of proportional split agreement

In his judgment, contrary to the man's claims, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck found that there was no evidence of an oral agreement for ownership to be split according to the share of financial contributions.

He noted that the duo's relationship was "nothing like a business investment" and the property was not a "co-investment between business partners".

"They were romantic partners who cooperated in running a household together," Choo wrote, adding that he found that the parties had intended to hold the property in equal shares.

He also sided with the woman on the fact that the man had agreed to pay for the mortgage without expecting repayment for the six months after she was retrenched in mid-2018, as they were still in a romantic relationship during this period.

However, he noted that this did not continue after their breakup in December 2018, pointing to an email from the man dated Aug. 1, 2019.

This email made it clear that the man was not making the mortgage repayments on the woman's behalf as "gifts" and stated that he intended to claim them back, Choo wrote in his judgment.

Between Jan. 2, 2019 and Oct. 1, 2024, the man paid a total of S$283,813 in mortgage instalments.

Choo ruled that the property be sold and that the man be given "sole conduct of the sale", considering that he has been handling the mortgage repayments, is still residing in Singapore, and the woman has relocated to France.

He also ruled that the man shall have the first option to purchase the woman's interest in the property.

Additionally, he ruled that the woman shall reimburse the man for her share of the mortgage payments made after they broke up, this being half of what he has paid since Jan. 2, 2019.

All proceeds from the sale, as well as the costs and expenses involved, shall be split equally between the man and woman, Choo ruled.

Top image via Canva