Court rejects woman’s bid to sell condo unit held in trust for son due to non-disclosures

On Sep 16, 2016, Ms Tan and her husband were viewing a flat in Australia on the 33rd floor when he fell to his death.

A coroner’s court in Victoria, Australia, found that his fall was accidental.

Ms Tan reported his death and tried to claim the benefits under an AIA Singapore life insurance policy in October 2016.

She later sued AIA Singapore for payment of S$1 million under an insurance policy her husband had taken out in 2014 but lost.

AIA Singapore repudiated the insurance policy on the grounds that her husband did not disclose that he had made other applications for life insurance policies.

In truth, he had made seven applications with various insurance companies for a total of S$6,250,000.

“Apart from the 66-year term life with Prudential Assurance Company Singapore Ltd taken out on Mar 31, 2014, the rest were for five and 10-year term insurance, all taken out between May 23, 2014 and Jul 17, 2014,” said Justice Choo.

Ms Tan was also involved in other suits, including a case where she asked for the bills from her then-lawyer to be sent for taxation assessment because she claimed she had been overcharged.

“In the present application before me, (Ms Tan) wants to liquidate the trust by selling the flat under the trust deed, simply because the value has increased,” said Justice Choo.

“That being the only reason for the sale is sufficient grounds to dismiss her application. A trustee’s duty is to protect the trust assets and not deal with it, unless specifically empowered by the trust to do so, as if it were investment capital.”

He added that the court must be satisfied that the trust was not created as a means to evade additional buyers’ stamp duties.

If a trustee has properties in her name, an application to liquidate the trust asset may be refused, added the judge.

He said Ms Tan was obliged to make full disclosure as to her personal assets and liabilities. If her husband had been alive, the court “may also want to know whether the trust had been created to protect their assets from their creditors”, said Justice Choo.

“In this case, there are no reassuring facts, only disconcerting facts of the non-disclosure of the first applicant’s personal assets and liabilities,” he said.

“The non-disclosure of the husband’s death and the failed legal proceedings add to the furtive nature of this application. The first applicant has not been forthcoming, and I am not at all comfortable to grant her application.”