Eldest son sues mentally challenged daughter & siblings for houses. Court throws out case
HE wanted all. But he didn't get them.
The New Paper, 21 July 2007.Yesterday, the High Court quashed businessman Chang Ham Chwee's claim against his three siblings and low IQ daughter.
He had wanted the two houses bequeathed to them on top of the semi-detached house that he received as part of his late mother's legacy.
He claimed the houses were bought and built with the money he had earned through the lighterage business he took over from his late father.
But Justice Choo Han Teck said in his judgment that Mr Chang's story 'cannot be believed'.
In dismissing the claim, he said: 'Ultimately, the question central to this action, namely, whether the plaintiff took over and owned the lighterage business after his father died in 1950, depended on whether I believe the plaintiff.
'I do not.'
The family feud began shortly after Mr Chang's mother, Madam Tan Soo Keow, died in July 2006 at the age of 91.
In a will which she had made in April 2002, she bequeathed one semi-detached house to her son, Mr Chang, 69, managing partner of Chan Kain Thye Lighterage Company.
She gave another semi-detached house to her mentally-challenged granddaughter, Ms Chang Lee Siang, 51.
She is Mr Chang's daughter.
Madam Tan then willed the proceeds of a bungalow to be split four-ways: To her daughters, Madam Chan Siew Khim, 70; Madam Chan Meow Khin, 60; her other son, Mr Chan Hung Hor, 67; and to a charity of the Chan sisters' choice.
But Mr Chang - a respected businessman here - claimed that the money, which was used to buy and build the houses in the '50s and '60s, was actually his.
TOOK OVER BUSINESS?
He claimed that his mother was holding the money in trust for him. And, as such, these properties - which were in his mother's name - actually belong to him.
He told the High Court in a hearing last July that when his father, a lighter operator, died suddenly when his boat exploded in September 1950, he was forced to step into his shoes and take over the running of the business.
He was about 12 years old at that time.
In the days before the clean-up of the Singapore River in the early 1980s, lighters (also known as tongkangs) used to transport cargo between the port and the ships anchored out at sea.
His mother could not have run the lighterage business, he claimed, as it would not have been possible for a woman to do so.
He claimed that he gave the money that he had made from the business to his mother for safekeeping, as he was too young to open a bank account.
He claims that his mother knew she was holding the money for him.
In 1951, he said, profit from the business was used to buy two plots at Paya Lebar Crescent.
They were put in his mother's name as, he claims, he was too young at that time.
Two years later, money from the business was used to buy another property along that stretch, now known as 40G. In 1959, Mr Chang's mother and siblings moved into the bungalow built there.
Meanwhile, Mr Chang stayed at a shophouse in Boat Quay, to be close to his office.
In 1965, he decided to build four semi-detached houses on the other two plots so that they could be rented out.
In 1990 and 1991, two of the semi-detached houses, 40B and 40C, were sold for about $1.1m to help pay off Mr Chan Hung Hor's business debts.
Mr Chang claimed that even after this, his mother had assured him that the rest of the properties belonged to him.
But, Mr Chang's two sisters, represented by Mr Anthony Lee, disagreed.
Their side of the story is that Madam Tan was the one running the business.
And Justice Choo agreed with them.
He said: 'The very idea that a 12-year-old boy assumes his father's mantle in what he has himself described as a very rough trade was implausible.
'In my view, a 35-year-old widow (as Madam Tan was at that time), assisted by her husband's experienced foreman and her own adult brother, would have been far more capable of taking over the business than a 12-year-old child.'
The judge said that while it may be true that Mr Chang grew up by the quayside and learned the trade gradually, that was not the same as taking over the father's business from the day he died.
He noted that there was documentary evidence showing that it was Madam Tan who submitted the accounts of the lighterage business and that she was the one who engaged the accountants.
There are also some documents showing that it was she who engaged the architect and employed the contractor to build the houses on the land.
Justice Choo added: 'It is also important to note that this state of affairs (that Madam Tan ruled the roost after her husband's death) was not challenged in her lifetime.'
The judge also noted that Madam Chan Siew Khim was an 'angry and feisty woman' and if her mother, Madam Tan, was like her, she would have little difficulty in dealing with the boatmen.
Speaking to The New Paper on behalf of his low-IQ client, Ms Chang, lawyer Wong Siew Hong said: 'My client is very thankful that she gets to keep her late grandmother's gift.'
No comments:
Post a Comment