SINGAPORE: A man who unexpectedly died in a traffic accident left no will behind, prompting his mother to launch court action, seeking ownership of a flat in Tanjong Pagar where she had been living with him.
The man’s only child and son, who had not been in touch with him for some time, launched a counterclaim when he found out about his father’s death.
He objected to his grandmother’s claim on the flat, as well as her withdrawals of more than S$181,000 from his late father’s bank accounts after his death.
In a judgment released on Friday (Dec 30), Justice Lee Seiu Kin found that the grandmother had not made out her claim and that the grandson, who is around 26 years old, is the sole beneficial owner of the Tanjong Pagar flat.
The flat is now worth about S$450,000.
Justice Lee also dismissed the grandson’s counterclaim for the S$181,608 that the grandmother had taken out from the deceased’s accounts, saying that lack of consent had not been successfully established.
THE CASE
The suit was brought by Madam Rasalingam Letchumee. She sought her son’s Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat in Tanjong Pagar, as well as money in his bank accounts.
Her son, Mr Jaganathan Rajendran, married his wife in 1987 and had a son, the defendant Shankar Rajendran, in 1996.
A year or so after Mr Shankar’s birth, Mr Jaganathan’s wife left their matrimonial flat and they were divorced in 2004. She transferred her interest in the flat to him, and Mr Jaganathan became the sole owner of the flat.
After Mr Jaganathan’s divorce, his mother, Mdm Rasalingam, went to live with him, along with her daughters.
Mr Jaganathan, whose age was not revealed in court documents, died on Jul 31, 2019, following a traffic accident. He did not have a will.
His son, Mr Shankar, found out about his father’s death around August 2019, when his maternal relatives told him about the obituary notice.
Through his lawyers, he applied for a grant of letters of administration in relation to his father’s estate.
THE GRANDMOTHER’S CASE
Mdm Rasalingam sought a declaration that she was entitled to the Tanjong Pagar flat or its sale proceeds, as well as all other assets of her son.
She said that her son had invited her along with his siblings to move into the HDB flat and stay with him after his divorce.
Since mid-2005, her son told her repeatedly that he would give her the flat or any proceeds from the sale of the flat if he died before her.
Because of this, Mdm Rasalingam treated the flat as her home, spent money on renovating and improving it, looked after her son and handled household chores and expenses.
She also claimed that her son had repeatedly told her that he would give his other assets to her in the event of his death.
Her claims were founded on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, a claim for property based on a promise someone has given, where the failure to keep that promise causes an “unconscionable” outcome.
Mr Shankar denied that his father had made any such promises to his grandmother.
His position was that, since his father died without a will or “intestate”, he was the sole beneficiary of his father’s estate under the Intestate Succession Act.
He also said that there was about S$120,800 and S$55,500 in two of his father’s bank accounts when he died. However, around September or October 2020, Mr Shankar discovered that there was only about S$1760 and S$466 left in the respective accounts.
He argued that Mdm Rasalingam or her daughters had withdrawn the money, with the former being unjustly enriched by the withdrawals.
Justice Lee said he was of the view that the deceased was “more likely than not” to have told Mdm Rasalingam that the flat would belong to her, should he die before her.
“Mr Shankar, having not been in touch with the deceased and his paternal relatives prior to the deceased’s passing, would not have been privy to the alleged representations and could not be expected to provide evidence that directly contradicts Mdm Rasalingam’s version of events,” he said.
However, he said this did not mean that Mdm Rasalingam’s version of events should be taken at face value.
He said Mdm Rasalingam appeared to have been close to her son, and Mdm Rasalingam had offered much support to him after his divorce.
After considering the evidence, Justice Lee found that it was likely that the deceased did make such representations of passing the flat to his mother.
However, he noted that Mdm Rasalingam had another apartment in Jurong East, that is currently being used by another son.
There was also insufficient evidence to establish that Mdm Rasalingam had spent about S$25,000 on renovations and repairs to the Tanjong Pagar flat.
DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE NOT MADE OUT
Justice Lee found that “detrimental reliance” was not made out by Mdm Rasalingam, a key component to help her claim succeed. Detrimental reliance refers to when a person trusts someone else’s promise or assurance, and is affected detrimentally because of that trust.
“While I think it believable that Mdm Rasalingam had stayed in the Tanjong Pagar flat as her son was lonely post-divorce, the evidence does not suggest that this was detrimental reliance,” he said.
Mdm Rasalingam’s counsel had claimed that she practically abandoned her home in Jurong East and gave her home to her children, but in truth, she continues to return there and has willed the flat to her daughter.
Justice Lee accepted Mr Shankar’s submission that Mdm Rasalingam had moved into the Tanjong Pagar flat out of love and concern for her son, and not in reliance on the representations he had made about giving her the flat.
He found that Mdm Rasalingam had not succeeded in making out her claim in proprietary estoppel, and the flat will go to Mr Shankar as sole beneficiary under the Intestate Succession Act.
As for the S$181,608, the judge found that Mr Shankar had not successfully established that his father did not consent to his grandmother having the money.
“Indeed, the evidence is that the withdrawals were done in accordance with the deceased’s express wishes, even though the money was only withdrawn after his death,” said Justice Lee.
Mdm Rasalingam’s claim for the other assets also failed, with Mr Shankar remaining the sole beneficial owner of his father’s other assets.
Mdm Rasalingam was originally represented by Charles Yeo, who later absconded to the United Kingdom, and later by lawyers from S K Kumar Law Practice and Mr Rajwin Singh Sandhu.
Mr Shankar was defended by lawyers Wang Liansheng and Valerie Goh from Bih Li & Lee.
