S'pore couple disputes S$12,433 monthly mortgage of home over 10 years after divorce

A couple who divorced and reached a settlement in 2013 ended up back in court in 2023 after issues arose regarding the monthly mortgage payments for their matrimonial home.

According to court documents, in 2013, the couple agreed to keep the property until the youngest of their three children turned 21 in 2031.

The mortgage payments were split equally until the ex-wife's ordinary Central Provident Fund (CPF) account ran dry.

The husband, who had since remarried, began footing the S$12,433 mortgage alone.

The financial strain led him to file two applications in 2023 to vary the consent order granted during their divorce proceedings.

The judge said the difficulties and disputes in this case largely arise from the 18-year time period between the order and the eventual selling date of the matrimonial home.

Divorced in 2013

The couple married on Sep. 24, 1997 and have had three children aged 20, 17 and 14 years of age in 2024.

The interim judgment of divorce and consent order on ancillary matters was granted on Apr. 22, 2013.

The consent order stated that the couple would have joint custody of their children, with the ex-wife having care and control.

The consent order also provided that the ex-husband pay the ex-wife S$2 million in maintenance, S$1 million for her and another S$1 million for their three children.

Of note was a clause that stipulated that the family would continue to reside in the matrimonial home, which could only be sold on the open market after the youngest child turned 21.

S$12,433 mortgage dispute

Justice Ong noted that the consent order did not cover the mortgage payment.

The couple agreed to foot half of the home's mortgage, with each party's monthly sum being S$6,216.50 from January 2013 to April 2016.

However, the parties faced financial issues after the ex-wife, who made "regular and equal contributions to the mortgage loan repayments from her CPF funds", had depleted her ordinary CPF account until only S$716.02 was left. She stopped paying half of the mortgage in May 2016.

According to The Straits Times (ST), the couple clashed three times over the issue, and the case made its way to the Appellate Division of the High Court.

Ex-husband's filings

The ex-husband's first application sought the matrimonial home to be sold.

It also included reimbursement from the ex-wife for payments he made for her and their children's living expenses and mortgage instalment payments, which he claimed to pay on her behalf.

The second application he filed sought the equal division of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home after full payment of outstanding housing loans to the bank, and refunds to their respective CPF accounts.

Ex-wife's filings

The ex-wife subsequently filed an application for the husband to pay her S$1.05 million as the balance lump sum maintenance under the consent order, as she returned that sum.

The ex-wife claimed that this sum was a loan to the husband, and the application was for the loan repayment.

This filing was rejected as the court found no basis to make another order, as the husband had long paid the S$2 million maintenance.

If the sum was indeed a loan, the ex-wife would have had to file a separate lawsuit to reclaim it, reported ST.

The district judge of the family court had previously ordered that the matrimonial home be sold immediately, that the parties were to bear the mortgage loan repayments and property tax for it equally from the date of the district judge's Oct. 20, 2023, order.

Appellate Division of the High Court's decision

Justice Ong said: "In our view, at the time the Consent Order was granted, the parties simply did not apply their minds to the issue of the ongoing contributions towards mortgage repayments."

The court based its decision on the future entitlement to the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.

According to ST, the court ruled that it would be "just and equitable" for the ex-wife to bear half of the mortgage repayments from July 2023, when the case was first heard at the Family Justice Court.

The court reasoned that she would eventually receive half of the sale proceeds of the home when it was sold.

Justice Ong also ordered that the ex-wife's CPF refund was to be made from her own share of the net proceeds.

Parties were also ordered to bear their own costs.