01 Jul 2007, ST
Q I WAS married in 1983 and got divorced in 1997.
I have two teenage children. I quit my job to take care of our children as the maid was always causing problems. I was a housewife at the time of my divorce.
My former husband was unfaithful and wanted to have a new life.
He is paying maintenance for the two children but there is nothing for me. I agreed to the arrangement at that time as I had no time to think and argue. I was upset and in shock that he had left me for another woman.
It was agreed that 40 per cent of the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home would be a lump sum payment for me.
But the private apartment is still unsold as the price it would fetch is too low. Still, I may get nothing much if it were sold because I was not working then and my former husband was the one paying the mortgage. As such, I expect the bulk of the proceeds will be returned to his Central Provident Fund account.
When our children reach 21 years of age, he might stop paying maintenance so I am wondering whether I can get some money from him now.
I am still single.
My former husband has since remarried and has a six-year-old daughter. I believe he is doing well in his export business.
A I ASSUME that the court order pursuant to which your former husband is making the monthly maintenance payments for your children was a consent order, because you say you had to agree to an arrangement where there was no maintenance for yourself.
It could also be that you may have thought because you had a monthly income, you did not need monthly maintenance.
Alternatively, your maintenance may be in the form of a lump sum from the sale proceeds of your home.
It would have been prudent for you to have insisted on a nominal monthly sum of even $1 to be ordered at that time as this would have left the door open for you to go back to court to seek a variation due to a material change in circumstances.
The fact of your having to stop working to look after the children may well be a material change of circumstances allowing the court to increase the maintenance payable to you.
It appears that in your case, you would not be able to seek a variation of a monthly maintenance order as there is strictly no such periodic maintenance order before the court to vary.
You may, however, apply to vary your children's monthly maintenance if there has been an increase in their expenses - as that is to be expected as they grow up.
The purpose of a lump sum maintenance order is to achieve a clean break and your former husband may also have altered his financial position on the basis that he does not have any periodic financial obligations to you.
Hence, it may well be inequitable and unjust to expect him to provide you with monthly maintenance.
Another problem you have is that your lump sum maintenance is not represented by a fixed sum to be carved out of the sale proceeds. You agreed to a fixed percentage only of the sale proceeds and so it would also not be possible for you to argue that your fixed lump sum is not realisable as the price of the flat is too low.
You will still get your 40 per cent whatever the sale price.
There have been cases where the courts have made the necessary variations in which the agreed lump sum could not be realised as the price of the home had dropped after the parties had entered into such an agreement.
Finally, if yours is a consent order, the only way such an order can be set aside is for you to show that there was fraud or a mistake because such an order is really like a contract you entered into with your former husband.
Your ray of hope may be that prices of private apartments have picked up and you may eventually be able to sell your home at a higher price.
Amolat Singh
Lawyer
Amolat & Partners
Q I WAS married in 1983 and got divorced in 1997.
I have two teenage children. I quit my job to take care of our children as the maid was always causing problems. I was a housewife at the time of my divorce.
My former husband was unfaithful and wanted to have a new life.
He is paying maintenance for the two children but there is nothing for me. I agreed to the arrangement at that time as I had no time to think and argue. I was upset and in shock that he had left me for another woman.
It was agreed that 40 per cent of the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home would be a lump sum payment for me.
But the private apartment is still unsold as the price it would fetch is too low. Still, I may get nothing much if it were sold because I was not working then and my former husband was the one paying the mortgage. As such, I expect the bulk of the proceeds will be returned to his Central Provident Fund account.
When our children reach 21 years of age, he might stop paying maintenance so I am wondering whether I can get some money from him now.
I am still single.
My former husband has since remarried and has a six-year-old daughter. I believe he is doing well in his export business.
A I ASSUME that the court order pursuant to which your former husband is making the monthly maintenance payments for your children was a consent order, because you say you had to agree to an arrangement where there was no maintenance for yourself.
It could also be that you may have thought because you had a monthly income, you did not need monthly maintenance.
Alternatively, your maintenance may be in the form of a lump sum from the sale proceeds of your home.
It would have been prudent for you to have insisted on a nominal monthly sum of even $1 to be ordered at that time as this would have left the door open for you to go back to court to seek a variation due to a material change in circumstances.
The fact of your having to stop working to look after the children may well be a material change of circumstances allowing the court to increase the maintenance payable to you.
It appears that in your case, you would not be able to seek a variation of a monthly maintenance order as there is strictly no such periodic maintenance order before the court to vary.
You may, however, apply to vary your children's monthly maintenance if there has been an increase in their expenses - as that is to be expected as they grow up.
The purpose of a lump sum maintenance order is to achieve a clean break and your former husband may also have altered his financial position on the basis that he does not have any periodic financial obligations to you.
Hence, it may well be inequitable and unjust to expect him to provide you with monthly maintenance.
Another problem you have is that your lump sum maintenance is not represented by a fixed sum to be carved out of the sale proceeds. You agreed to a fixed percentage only of the sale proceeds and so it would also not be possible for you to argue that your fixed lump sum is not realisable as the price of the flat is too low.
You will still get your 40 per cent whatever the sale price.
There have been cases where the courts have made the necessary variations in which the agreed lump sum could not be realised as the price of the home had dropped after the parties had entered into such an agreement.
Finally, if yours is a consent order, the only way such an order can be set aside is for you to show that there was fraud or a mistake because such an order is really like a contract you entered into with your former husband.
Your ray of hope may be that prices of private apartments have picked up and you may eventually be able to sell your home at a higher price.
Amolat Singh
Lawyer
Amolat & Partners
No comments:
Post a Comment