Can the right of survivorship be challenged?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nThe Court of Appeal very, very clearly stated that \u201cthe central issue in the appeal<\/u> was whether the Judge erred in finding that the documentary evidence was, on its face, conclusive <\/em>of Mr Lim\u2019s intention to gift a beneficial interest in the Flat to LSI (emphasis ours)\u201d.\u00a0 Was the evidence clear that Mr. Lim intended to make a gift to LSI?<\/p>\nOn this issue, the Court of Appeal said that the Judge\u2019s approach was incorrect. It said that although the Title Deed and the 1981 Transfer Instrument were contemporaneous records, they could hardly be said to be conclusive <\/em>of Mr Lim\u2019s actual intent or state of mind as at the time when the 1981 Transfer was effected.<\/p>\nIn other words, just because the title deed was in joint names and Mr. Lim had signed the 1981 Transfer document isn\u2019t the end of the matter. The court can consider the evidence behind the coming into being of these documents. The Court of Appeal noted that our courts have previously found that properties were held on trust for the transferor in the face of transfer documents suggesting that the transfer had been intended as a gift.<\/p>\n
What evidence did the Court rely on?<\/strong><\/h3>\nIn its decision the Court of Appeal noted that LSI had not contribute to the purchase price of the Flat to begin with and also did not make any payment to Mr. Lim in return for the 1981 Transfer to her as a joint tenant.<\/p>\n
The Court of Appeal said that the weight of the evidence as a whole did not support LSI\u2019s position that the 1981 Transfer had been intended as a gift. Rather, there were several reasonably noteworthy indicators that Mr. Lim did not have any positive donative intent in having LSI added as a joint tenant.<\/p>\n
The three main indicators relied on by the Court of Appeal were:<\/p>\n
\n- Lim was illiterate in English and signed documents in Chinese. There was no evidence that he had been advised on the legal implications of the 1981 Transfer or that he had even read or understood the words \u201cBY GIFT\u201d on the Title Deed Stamp.<\/li>\n
- Secondly, Mr Lim\u2019s conduct showed that he continued to exercise control over the Flat as if he was its sole\u00a0 owner. In 2001 Mr Lim had arranged for LCH to be made a joint tenant of the Flat without first obtaining LSI\u2019s consent to do so.<\/li>\n
- Thirdly, Mr Lim didn\u2019t share a particularly close relationship with LSI. Rather, he favoured his only son, Lim Kwong Yin (\u201cLKY\u201d) and Mr Lim had executed a will on 27 April 2015 (\u201cthe Will\u201d) which provided that Mr Lim\u2019s \u201cshare\u201d in the Flat, the money in his bank accounts, and his residual estate would all <\/em>be given to LKY and LKY Mr Lim\u2019s will did not give any of his assets to his daughters, including LSI.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Apart from looking at what Mr. Lim did the Court of Appeal also applied the \u2018duck\u2019 test – if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck then it\u2019s probably a duck.<\/p>\n
In looking at LSI\u2019s conduct the court noted:<\/p>\n
\n- When Mr. Lim added LCH as a third joint tenant LSI did not object (looks like a duck).<\/li>\n
- Following Mr Lim\u2019s death LSI did not give any instructions about the maintenance or upkeep of the Flat, didn\u2019t continue paying for any related expenses suggesting she didn\u2019t believe that she owned an interest in the Flat and appeared to behave more like a lodger (swims like a duck).<\/li>\n
- After Mr Lim\u2019s death LSI did not take any steps to have the Flat transferred into her sole name as surviving joint tenant until after she was told about his Will two years later in The Court noted that even if LSI didn\u2019t initially appreciate the legal significance of being a joint tenant, she would have understood that she was at least a co-owner and would have wanted to enquire as to what would happen to the Flat upon Mr Lim\u2019s death. The fact that she did not do so again suggests that she did not think that she owned any interest in the Flat (quacks like a duck).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The Court of Appeal found that the total evidence was sufficiently strong to establish, on a balance of probabilities<\/em>, that Mr Lim did not <\/em>intend to gift a beneficial interest in the Flat to LSI. LSI didn\u2019t behave as expected if she genuinely believed she had owned the flat as a joint tenant.<\/p>\nBecause the evidence was that strong the Court of Appeal found that it was unnecessary to apply the presumption of resulting trust or to invoke the presumption of advancement.<\/p>\n
In the end the Court of Appeal perhaps easily decided that LSI, being the sole legal owner of the Flat after Mr. Lim\u2019s death, held the Flat on resulting trust for the Estate. It granted LCH the declaration of trust sought and made additional orders requiring LSI to deliver up possession of the Flat to the Estate.<\/p>\n
What the case is not about<\/strong><\/h3>\nHad Mr. Lim chosen to transfer the flat into LSI\u2019s sole name and not to her as a joint tenant the dispute would still have arisen and the parties would still have made similar arguments (save for any argument about survivorship rights) with the same decision by the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n
Anyone thinking Lim\u2019s Estate case is about survivorship rights of a Joint Tenant has completely missed the point.<\/p>\n
What the case is really about<\/strong><\/h3>\nA recent press report suggests that Lim\u2019s case has somehow changed the law and that despite a joint tenancy and survivorship you may now be able to will away a joint tenancy property. That report claims that:<\/p>\n
\u201ca recent landmark ruling by Singapore’s highest court appears to accord some flexibility to such rigid rules\u201d<\/p>\n
and goes on to claim further that:<\/p>\n
\u201cIt (the court) noted that a surviving joint owner of a property does not have an automatic right to inherit the property if this is clearly not the intention of the other owner\u201d.<\/p>\n
The Lim Estate case is really about whether or not a property is held on a resulting trust despite what is stated on the title deed and in the Transfer document. It\u2019s about whether a person had been gifted property by the Transfer.<\/p>\n
As mentioned, the property could have just been transferred to LSI in her sole name rather than as a joint tenant. The fact that it was a joint tenancy was never a relevant factor in the dispute.<\/p>\n
Ultimately the question before the court was \u2018is LSI just a trustee of the flat, or isn\u2019t she?\u2019 much like \u2018is this a duck or isn\u2019t it?\u2019 and nothing more.<\/p>\n