Court orders man to honour S$600,000 payment to brothers left out of mother's will

Among other assets, the will bequeathed a property in Eng Kong Road to two of the sons, which was later sold for S$5 million.

A view of the Singapore skyline next to the Supreme Court in Singapore July 1, 2019. (File photo: REUTERS/Edgar Su)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

SINGAPORE: When a mother of four surviving sons died in 2012, she named only two sons and two granddaughters as beneficiaries in her will, leaving out two other sons.

When the sons' relationship grew strained, their uncle flew to Singapore to help them reconcile. He proposed that the two sons included in the will use the sales proceeds of a property bequeathed to them by their mother to give S$300,000 (US$234,620) to each of the excluded brothers.

The semi-detached house in Eng Kong Road was sold for S$5 million in April 2022.

Despite the initial agreement, the payment to the excluded brothers was not made and one of the sons took the other to court to compel him to pay their brothers, among other disputes.

In a judgment on Monday (Oct 19), Justice Christopher Tan found that the agreement was binding.

The matriarch in the case, who was not named in court documents, had five sons.

One, Oliver Peter Yip Tong, had died before her. The remaining sons were: the claimant, David Chan Yip Tong, the defendant, Franklin Chan Yip Tong, Jack Chan Yip Tong and George Chan Yip Tong.

In the woman's last will and testament, she named David and Franklin as the executors of her estate.

She died in December 2012 and named four beneficiaries in her will: David, Franklin, George's daughter and Oliver's daughter.

As part of her will, the woman bequeathed a semi-detached house at Eng Kong Road to David and Franklin in equal shares.

She also bequeathed a retail unit in Far East Shopping Centre to her two sons and Oliver's daughter in three equal shares.

The woman also bequeathed a condominium unit at Hindhede Walk to her granddaughters in equal shares.

After her death, the relationship between the four brothers grew strained, partly because the will left nothing to George and Jack, the judgment said.

Around June 2018, the brothers' uncle, Mr Tam Sook, flew from Mauritius to Singapore to try to help them reconcile.

He proposed that David and Franklin contribute S$300,000 each to George and Jack.

The brothers agreed orally but the payment was not made.

Franklin contended that the Eng Kong Road property had to be sold by Sep 30, 2018 for the payments to be made, which it was not.

David disagreed and said the Sep 30, 2018 date was merely a target date for payments to be made to George and Jack.

THE OPTION TO PURCHASE

In early September 2021, Franklin informed David that there was a buyer offering to pay S$5 million for the Eng Kong Road property.

Franklin wanted to get David's signature, as co-owner of the property, on the option to purchase (OTP).

At a meeting that same month, David told Franklin that he would not sign the OTP unless Franklin agreed that George and Jack would each receive S$300,000 from the sale proceeds.

David then produced a handwritten note for Franklin to sign to this effect.

Franklin was agitated by this and raised his voice, the judgment stated.

An argument ensued culminating in David walking away without signing the OTP, and with no signature from Franklin on the handwritten note.

However, Franklin later capitulated and reached out to his brother, saying he would sign the handwritten note.

They met again and both signed the note. After this, David signed the OTP.

The next day, however, Franklin sent David a WhatsApp message disavowing the handwritten note and declaring that he had signed it out of duress.

"This is my stance and I declare this note was not created by me, I reject and disagree totally with this note. I was signed under duress with your (unknown) hidden ulterior motive. Sorry," wrote Franklin.

David retorted that he would also regard the OTP as legally invalid.

Despite this, the property was sold in April 2022 and the sale proceeds were distributed between David and Franklin, except the disputed sum of S$600,000.

They agreed to carve it out from the proceeds and deposit the sum into a joint account, which required authorisation from both of them before any withdrawal could be made.

The balance in the joint account stands at about S$743,000, said Justice Tan.

David has refused to let Franklin withdraw any part of the S$600,000 as he says it is payable to their brothers.

Franklin has refused to authorise the disbursement of the S$600,000 to his brothers, saying the note was invalid on two grounds: Lack of consideration and economic duress or unconscionability.

Justice Tan found that the handwritten note was a validly concluded contract which Franklin is obliged to honour.

He rejected Franklin's submissions that the note is invalid.

Justice Tan pointed to a message from Franklin to David on Sep 5, 2021, where Franklin complained about David's reticence despite Franklin finally finding a "sucker" willing to pay S$5 million for the property.

This amount was above the bank valuation of S$4.5 million.

When cross-examined about his use of the term "sucker", Franklin said he was just trying to elaborate that the offer was "such a good deal, should not miss it, just take it".

Justice Tan said the facts were thus entirely consistent with a state of affairs where Franklin found the sale price so irresistible that he agreed to take a "haircut" of S$300,000 to secure David's concurrence.

"The defendant should not be allowed to now raise the doctrine of economic duress to wriggle out of keeping to his word," said Justice Tan.

Justice Tan also settled several other claims that arose from the administration of the brothers' late mother's estate.

David successfully claimed S$39,300 in unpaid rent and rental proceeds from Franklin in relation to the Eng Kong Road property.

They had agreed for Franklin's family to stay there before it was sold in exchange for monthly rent of S$4,000.

However, Franklin said he had an oral agreement with David for the rental to be waived until he managed to rent out his apartment in The Pinnacle @ Duxton.

The judge found that this was true but allowed the rental claims for the period spanning September to November 2016. This was after Franklin's Pinnacle property had been sold and could no longer be rented out.

David had explained that he had let his brother stay rent-free at the Eng Kong Road property because he valued their brotherly ties despite feeling it was unfair.

Franklin had also sued David for defamation over an email sent to property agency PropNex in December 2021, linked to the same Eng Kong Road property.

Franklin was both the co-owner of the property and the property agent handling its rental.

He had rented out the house to a tenant in August 2017 after his family moved out.

In the email sent to a whistleblowing address, David had raised suspicions that Franklin had kept S$7,800 in agent commission without submitting it to his employer PropNex.

This was because no official receipt had been issued despite numerous reminders.

The court found that the email was indeed defamatory but dismissed Franklin's suit because the suspicion was justified and David was protected by qualified privilege.

Qualified privilege is a legal defence in defamation law protecting damaging statements made in good faith in a situation where a person has a legal, moral or social duty to communicate the information to someone with a corresponding interest in receiving it.

The court also dismissed several claims by Franklin in relation to alleged excess rent and property tax.

It ordered David to return a sum of S$2,800 he withdrew from his mother's bank account a day after his mother died.

The court also granted Franklin's claim for David to give an account of a blue attache case containing valuables belonging to their mother.

Costs for the trial have yet to be decided.

David was represented by Mr Lim Thian Siong and Ms Elizabeth Anne Shuet Yan Boey from Hin Tat Augustine & Partners, while Franklin was represented by Mr Alexander Nathanael Walter, Mr Walter Ferix Silvester and Ms Madelene Yu Rwei Yi from Silvester Legal.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

遗嘱中将位于英光路的一处房产遗赠给了他的两个儿子，该房产后来以 500 万新元的价格售出。

2019年7月1日，新加坡最高法院旁的新加坡天际线景观。（资料照片：路透社/Edgar Su）

这段音频是由人工智能工具生成的。

新加坡：2012 年，一位育有四个儿子的母亲去世，她在遗嘱中只指定了两个儿子和两个孙女为受益人，而将另外两个儿子排除在外。

当儿子们的关系日渐紧张时，他们的叔叔飞往新加坡帮助他们和解。他提议，遗嘱中指定的两个儿子将母亲遗赠给他们的一处房产的出售所得，分别向未被列入遗嘱的两位兄弟各支付30万新加坡元（约合23.462万美元）。

2022 年 4 月，位于英光路的半独立式住宅以 500 万新元的价格售出。

尽管最初达成了协议，但被排除在外的兄弟们并没有得到付款，其中一个儿子将另一个儿子告上法庭，要求他向他们的兄弟们支付款项，此外还有其他纠纷。

周一（10 月 19 日），克里斯托弗·谭法官在判决中认定该协议具有约束力。

案件中的女家长（法庭文件中未提及姓名）有五个儿子。

其中一人，叶童彼得，先于她去世。其余儿子分别是：原告陈叶童大卫，被告陈叶童富兰克林、陈叶童杰克和陈叶童乔治。

在这位女士的遗嘱中，她指定大卫和富兰克林为她遗产的执行人。

她于 2012 年 12 月去世，并在遗嘱中指定了四位受益人：大卫、富兰克林、乔治的女儿和奥利弗的女​​儿。

根据她的遗嘱，这位女士将位于英光路的一栋半独立式住宅平均分配给了大卫和富兰克林。

她还将远东购物中心的一间零售店面遗赠给了她的两个儿子和奥利弗的女​​儿，三人均等。

这位女士还将位于欣德赫德步行街的一套公寓平均分配给了她的孙女们。

判决书称，在她去世后，四兄弟之间的关系变得紧张，部分原因是遗嘱中没有给乔治和杰克留下任何遗产。

2018 年 6 月左右，兄弟俩的叔叔谭淑先生从毛里求斯飞往新加坡，试图帮助他们和解。

他提议大卫和富兰克林各向乔治和杰克捐款 30 万新元。

兄弟俩口头达成了协议，但款项并未支付。

富兰克林认为，恩孔路房产必须在 2018 年 9 月 30 日之前售出才能支付款项，但该房产并未售出。

大卫对此表示异议，称 2018 年 9 月 30 日只是向乔治和杰克支付款项的目标日期。

购买选项

2021 年 9 月初，富兰克林告诉大卫，有一位买家愿意出价 500 万新元购买英光路房产。

富兰克林希望获得房产共同所有人大卫的签名，以签署购买选择权协议 (OTP)。

在当月的一次会议上，大卫告诉富兰克林，除非富兰克林同意乔治和杰克每人从出售所得中分得 30 万新元，否则他不会签署一次性付款协议。

随后，大卫拿出了一份手写的便条，让富兰克林签字确认此事。

判决书称，富兰克林对此感到激动，并提高了嗓门。

随后双方发生争执，最终大卫没有签署一次性协议就离开了，而且富兰克林也没有在手写便条上签名。

然而，富兰克林后来妥协了，联系了他的兄弟，表示他会在手写的便条上签字。

他们再次见面，两人都在纸条上签了字。之后，大卫签署了结婚协议。

然而，第二天，富兰克林通过 WhatsApp 向大卫发送了一条消息，否认了那张手写便条，并声称他是在胁迫下签署的。

“这是我的立场，我声明这份文件并非我所写，我完全拒绝并反对这份文件的内容。我是在胁迫下签署的，你（身份不明）另有图谋。抱歉。”富兰克林写道。

大卫反驳说，他也会认为该一次性支付协议在法律上无效。

尽管如此，该房产还是在 2022 年 4 月售出，销售所得款项在 David 和 Franklin 之间分配，但有争议的 60 万新元除外。

他们同意从收益中拨出这笔钱，存入一个联名账户，任何取款都需要双方的授权。

陈法官表示，联名账户余额约为74.3万新元。

大卫拒绝让富兰克林提取任何60万新元的款项，因为他说这笔钱是要支付给他们兄弟的。

富兰克林拒绝授权向他的兄弟们支付 60 万新元，称该票据因两个原因无效：缺乏对价和经济胁迫或显失公平。

谭法官认定该手写便条是一份有效订立的合同，富兰克林有义务履行该合同。

他驳回了富兰克林关于该纸条无效的说法。

谭法官指出，富兰克林在 2021 年 9 月 5 日发给大卫的一条信息中抱怨大卫迟迟不肯出手，尽管富兰克林最终找到了一个愿意以 500 万新元购买该房产的“冤大头”。

这个金额高于银行评估的450万新元。

当被盘问为何使用“傻瓜”一词时，富兰克林说他只是想详细说明这个提议“如此划算，不容错过，赶紧接受吧”。

谭法官表示，事实完全符合这样一种情况：富兰克林发现售价如此诱人，以至于他同意“减价”30万新元以获得大卫的同意。

“被告现在不应被允许援引经济胁迫理论来逃避履行其承诺，”谭法官说。

谭法官还解决了因管理兄弟俩已故母亲的遗产而产生的其他几项索赔。

David 成功向 Franklin 追讨了与 Eng Kong Road 房产相关的 39,300 新元未付租金和租金收益。

他们同意在房子出售前让富兰克林一家住在那里，以换取每月 4000 新元的租金。

然而，富兰克林表示，他与大卫达成了一项口头协议，在他成功出租位于杜克斯顿巅峰大厦的公寓之前，租金将被免除。

法官认定情况属实，但允许了2016年9月至11月期间的租金索赔。当时富兰克林的Pinnacle房产已被出售，无法再出租。

大卫解释说，尽管他觉得这样做不公平，但他还是让弟弟免费住在英孔路的房子里，因为他珍视兄弟情谊。

富兰克林还曾就戴维于 2021 年 12 月向房地产代理公司 PropNex 发送的一封与同一处位于英光路的房产有关的电子邮件，起诉戴维诽谤。

富兰克林既是该房产的共同所有者，又是负责该房产租赁的房产经纪人。

2017 年 8 月，他的家人搬走后，他将房子租给了租客。

在发给举报人邮箱的电子邮件中，大卫怀疑富兰克林私吞了 7800 新元的代理佣金，而没有将其上缴给雇主 PropNex。

这是因为尽管多次提醒，仍未开具正式收据。

法院认定该电子邮件确实构成诽谤，但驳回了富兰克林的诉讼，因为怀疑有理有据，而且戴维受到有限特权的保护。

有限特权是诽谤法中的一项法律辩护，旨在保护在法律、道德或社会义务要求将信息传递给有相应利益接收者的情况下，出于善意而作出的损害性陈述。

法院还驳回了富兰克林提出的几项与涉嫌过高租金和房产税有关的诉讼请求。

法院命令大卫归还他在母亲去世第二天从母亲银行账户中提取的 2800 新元。

法院还批准了富兰克林的请求，要求大卫交代一个装有他们母亲贵重物品的蓝色公文包的下落。

审判费用尚未确定。

David 的代理律师是 Hin Tat Augustine & Partners 的 Lim Thian Siong 先生和 Elizabeth Anne Shuet Yan Boey 女士，而 Franklin 的代理律师是 Silvester Legal 的 Alexander Nathanael Walter 先生、Walter Ferix Silvester 先生和 Madelene Yu Rwei Yi 女士。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。