Ex-husband 'gives' sports car to mum, shifts $570k to sister in bid to dodge support

Some men would jump through hoops just to hide assets from their spouse when a divorce is under way, such as the one who put his Mini Cooper sports car in his 70-year-old mother's name.

As if that was not enough to raise eyebrows, he also moved about $570,000 of savings to his sister, claiming it was to pay off a loan that was in fact a lot less.

The sister, who was described in court as "a famous local actress", had purportedly loaned $300,000 to her brother.

The man and his ex-wife had separated in 2020 but his antics were only exposed a few years later when he asked the court to reduce the maintenance he had to pay for their three children.

When the couple agreed to split their assets through a settlement in 2021, the man agreed to pay $3,000 a month for his children.

But barely a year later, his ex-wife applied to increase this to $4,500, plus an additional yearly sum of $2,400.

The man only challenged this in October 2023 because he wanted to revert to the original payment of $3,000 a month and cut the total annual sum to $900. His application for changes was dismissed by the Family Justice Court, but he filed an appeal.

Conditions for variation

When couples have already agreed to split via a settlement deal, they have to provide sufficient grounds if they want to change the deal. Generally, the court will not be "sympathetic" to matters that could have been foreseen when both sides agreed to such consent orders.

High Court Judge Choo Han Teck noted that the lower court had accepted the wife's application to vary the maintenance even though her three reasons to support her case were not strong enough.

For instance, she wanted more money for her kids' school fees, but such costs should have been factored in before she signed the deal. Her second reason was that her monthly salary was only $3,600 but this was what she was earning at the time of the consent judgment.

Finally, she said her ex-husband had been tardy in making payments but Justice Choo noted that this would be a matter for enforcement action, which had resulted in the man being jailed three times - each time for a day - for not paying maintenance.

Even so, the non-payment of maintenance could not be a reason for variation, the judge said.

The husband's grounds for reducing his maintenance responsibilities gained little traction as well. He disagreed with the lower court findings that he was earning an average salary of $7,700 from selling cars and insurance, but yet he did not provide proof to show his income had dropped.

He added that he was jailed for non-payment of maintenance because he had no money to pay.

But other than his bare words, Justice Choo noted that the man could not prove that he could not pay for his kids.

"In my view, it may also show that the husband is a recalcitrant ex-spouse when it comes to not paying maintenance. The enforcement court may eventually run out of patience and he may find himself imprisoned for a longer term in future," the judge added.

He noted that the ex-wife's claim that the man was hiding assets would have had a bigger impact on the court if this was made known when she applied to vary the consent order.

The court did not make a ruling on the hidden assets because the husband could not even justify his own case to reduce the maintenance order.

But Justice Choo did not ask the man to bear his ex-wife's legal costs because her application for more maintenance was made too soon after the original orders.

Despite this, he noted that the case involved a spouse who had not been forthright in disclosing all matrimonial assets.

While the wife's application was premature, Justice Choo said justice seemed to have worked in her favour in the end because her ex-husband might have to use his hidden stash to keep up with the higher child support.