Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Retrenched sales director appeals against child maintenance ratio, says he is jobless while ex-wife works

SINGAPORE — A man who out-earned his wife as a regional sales director in a technology firm before being retrenched appealed to the High Court against orders made in his divorce, seeking to pay less maintenance and receive more matrimonial assets.

The man, who previously drew S$17,000 monthly, said he has been jobless since May 2020 and cannot bear the burden of child maintenance equally.

The man, who previously drew S$17,000 monthly, said he has been jobless since May 2020 and cannot bear the burden of child maintenance equally.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — A man who out-earned his wife as a regional sales director in a technology firm before being retrenched appealed to the High Court against orders made in his divorce, seeking to pay less maintenance and receive more matrimonial assets.

He appealed against a lower court judge's orders on the division of the matrimonial home, a condominium unit and other assets and maintenance for the children.

He argued that his ex-wife remains employed, earning more than S$13,000, while he has been jobless since May 2020 and claims there is a "mismatch in their financial capacities".

In a judgment released on Tuesday (March 7), Justice Choo Han Teck dismissed the majority of the man's appeal.

THE CASE

The man, now 50, married his wife, a year his junior, in 1999. They have three teenage children.

The man previously worked as a regional sales director in a technology company based in China, while his ex-wife has been working as a backroom marketing executive in the same company for 22 years.

The couple obtained a divorce in October 2020 and a district judge gave a decision on the splitting of assets in 2022.

The man appealed to the High Court against the district judge's decisions in the division of the matrimonial home and other assets such as a condominium unit, maintenance for the children and the district judge's finding on the man's dissipation of assets.

The district judge had found that the total amount of assets amounted to S$5.19 million, including about S$803,000 that was dissipated by the man.

Of this, about S$1.6 million of assets was under the wife's name and S$2.8 million under the man's.

The man argued on appeal that the district judge was wrong to assess indirect contributions as a ratio of 60:40, in favour of his ex-wife. Instead, he said it should be 50:50.

He gave screenshots of conversations, instances of video calls when he was overseas and proof of payments for household expenses.

Justice Choo said it was undisputed that the man was the main breadwinner of the family, as a sales director who was required to travel frequently.

His ex-wife was the homemaker, who held a stable job at the same company for 22 years.

"The extent of the wife's indirect contribution extended beyond the immediate family, being the primary caregiver of the three children and her parents-in-law, as seen in her provision of month(ly) allowance to the parents-in-law post-divorce," said the judge.

"As far as I can tell, the wife was a diligent homemaker, while also contributing financially to the family, albeit to a lesser extent compared to the husband."

He said the woman's indirect non-financial contribution outweighed her ex-husband's "far more significantly" and affirmed the ratio of 60:40.

DISSIPATION OF ASSETS

In his appeal, the man said the district judge was incorrect to find that he had dissipated assets of about S$803,000. Dissipation here refers to one spouse using marital assets for themselves while the marriage is breaking down.

His ex-wife agreed that the district judge had double-counted certain sums.

The district judge had found that the man had dissipated assets including: His severance package from his employer, endowment policies and insurance policies on behalf of the children and payment of legal fees.

After considering the evidence, Justice Choo found that the man had dissipated a sum of about S$526,000 instead. This was the only part of the appeal that the man won.

CHILD MAINTENANCE

The district judge had found that the expenses for the three children amounted to S$6,000.

The man did not dispute this, but says the judge erred in splitting the maintenance obligation equally between him and his ex-wife.

He said his ex-wife remains employed, earning more than S$13,000 from her monthly salary and rental from the condo unit.

However, he remains unemployed since May 2020 and said there is a mismatch in their financial capacities which prevents him from bearing the maintenance burden equally.

Justice Choo disagreed with the man's view of his ex-wife's financial capacity. He said the woman continues to pay monthly rental of S$3,500 to her ex-husband's sister for an apartment.

The ex-wife is also contending with medical problems, which she has shown adequate proof of.

Justice Choo pointed to the fact that the man drew an average nett income of S$17,000 a month for several years before he was retrenched.

The man said his earning capacity should not be pegged to this last-drawn salary.

He said he tried to seek re-employment to no avail, producing applications for job interviews, but the earliest email was dated August 2021.

"This means that the husband was unemployed for over a year without seeking re-employment," said Justice Choo.

"The Skills Future course he attended was in February 2021, some seven months after his unemployment. I do not accept that these failed attempts at seeking employment meant that the husband had a reduced earning capacity. It was not as if he had commenced employment with another company and had accepted a pay cut."

The judge added that the man remains "self-employed" on his LinkedIn page, as pointed out by his ex-wife.

"It is not clear if the husband is running his own business, and if so, what his current income is," said Justice Choo. "In any case, I do not believe that his earning capacity, which has consistently outstripped the wife for several years, would suddenly become lower than hers."

He said that the ex-husband had tried to show he was "a man of considerable means" in seeking a greater share of the matrimonial asset pool, so it is "disingenuous" for him to claim he does not have enough money when it comes to child maintenance.

Justice Choo did not change the district judge's finding on maintenance.

For more reports like this, visit cna.asia.

Related topics

court family divorce

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.