Singapore—The High Court has declared that Ms Susan Yeow Jen Ai owns 73 per cent of a Hougang property she had bought with Mr Ravindaranath Kalyana Ramasamy, even as his former wife claimed otherwise, The Straits Times (ST) reports.
In 2008, Ms Yeow, together with Mr Ramasamy, bought a house worth S$1.7 million as an investment.
In order to save money on stamp duties and property tax, they put the house only in his name.
Over a decade after buying the house, as they were going through a divorce, Mr Ramasamy’s wife, Ms Vishnumangalam Chandrasekharan Renuka, put up her own claim on the house, claiming her ex-husband had bought it using the sales proceeds of a flat they owned.
Ms Yeow presented to the court bank records that showed she had given 73 per cent of the funds towards buying the house as well as other related expenses.
Convinced, the High Court declared Ms Yeow as having a 73 per cent share of the property and Mr Ramasamy, 27 per cent.
ST added that Mr Ramasamy agreed with Ms Yeow, that he had only been holding her claim on the property in trust.
Justice Lee Sieu Kin wrote in his Apr 19 judgment that while it was possible that Ms Yeow and Mr Ramasamy had conspired to dilute Mr Ramasamy’s assets, he did not find any sign of that.
The judge further said that Ms Yeow had been able to substantiate her claim that she and Mr Ramasamy had planned for the property to be divided based on their respective payments towards it.
Ms Yeow and Mr Ramasamy, who had first met in 2003 when they were in the same Master of Business Administration programme, borrowed money from a bank in 2008 to buy the Hougang property.
Ms Yeow, who was the guarantor for the loan, said that they had an oral agreement to share the profits from the sale of the property once the price reached $3.5 million.
She paid her share for the purchase with monthly payments to Mr Ramasamy of $7,000 to $10,000 for the mortgage, and ended up paying $833,600 in total, while he paid $310,000.
However, Ms Renuka said that Ms Yeow made payments to her ex-husband because he was engaged in financial trades for her. Some of the money could also be gifts to him or loan repayments, Ms Renuka said.
The judge struck down this claim, as there was no basis for it.
On the contrary, Ms Yeow had the weight of documentary evidence, he added.
Follow us on Social Media
Send in your scoops to email@example.com