Left out of mum's will, 2 brothers to get $600k after family feud over $5m home sale因母亲遗嘱中未提及，两兄弟将因500万美元房产交易引发的家庭纠纷而获得60万美元遗产。
A semi-detached house along Eng Kong Road was among the assets a mother left to two of her four surviving sons and two granddaughters when she died in 2012.Before the property was sold for $5 million in 2022, the two brothers twice agreed that $300,000 each would be paid to their two other brothers from the sale proceeds.One of the...
A semi-detached house along Eng Kong Road was among the assets a mother left to two of her four surviving sons and two granddaughters when she died in 2012.
Before the property was sold for $5 million in 2022, the two brothers twice agreed that $300,000 each would be paid to their two other brothers from the sale proceeds.
One of the brothers later refused to grant the payout, arguing that the agreement was invalid.
A High Court judge ruled on Monday (Oct 19) that the agreement was legally binding and must be honoured.
According to the judgement by Justice Christopher Tan, the mother died in December 2012.
She had five sons: Oliver Peter Yip Tong (predeceased), David Chan Yip Tong, Franklin Chan Yip Tong, George Chan Yip Tong, and Jack Chan Yip Tong.
Under her will, the beneficiaries are David, Franklin, Peter's daughter Dione, and George's daughter Joanne.
David and Franklin took each other to court over several disputes surrounding the assets, including the distribution of $600,000 to George and Jack, which Franklin opposed.
Strained family relations
Familial ties between the four brothers had become strained after their mother's death in 2012, in part because George and Jack were left out of her will.
Their uncle, Tam Sook, flew to Singapore in 2018 to try reconciling the brothers.
At that time, he proposed that David and Franklin should each contribute $300,000 after selling the Eng Kong Road property, with George and Jack receiving $300,000 each.
David and Franklin verbally agreed, although payments under this proposal were never made owing to a disagreement on whether the agreement is enforceable only when the property is sold by Sept 30, 2018.
In court, David sought to enforce a separate agreement signed by both brothers in September 2021.
In early September, Franklin, a property agent, informed David that he had found a buyer offering $5 million for the house.
They met on Sept 11, with Franklin intending to obtain David's signature on the Option to Purchase (OTP).
During this meeting, David said that he was not signing the OTP unless Franklin agreed to George and Jack each receiving $300,000 from the sale proceeds.
Franklin was asked to sign a handwritten note agreeing to this condition, which angered him and sparked an argument.
David walked away from the meeting without signing the OTP and without the handwritten note being signed by Franklin.
Minutes later, however, Franklin reached out to David and said he would sign the note.
The two brothers met again and both signed the handwritten note. Upon Franklin signing the note, the David signed the OTP.
'Signed under duress'
The next day, however, Franklin texted David to say he rejected and wholly disagreed with the note.
"I was signed under duress with your unknown hidden ulterior motive. Sorry," he wrote.
In response, David said he would also regard the OTP as having been invalidated.
Despite the disagreement, the sale of the Eng Kong Road property was completed in April 2022.
A $600,000 portion of the sales proceeds was deposited into a joint account, with requires both brothers to authorise any withdrawals.
David did not allow Franklin to withdraw any part of the $600,000, as Franklin had refused to authorise the disbursement of the $600,000 to George and Jack.
Franklin argued that the note was invalidated on two grounds: lack of consideration and economic duress and/or unconscionability.
He sought in court an order requiring David to release his share of the $600,000, along with compensation for the interest allegedly lost because the funds remained in the joint account.
Court rejects Franklin's arguments
Justice Christopher Tan noted David's co-operation and how it allowed for the sale to be completed in the manner parties had agreed upon.
The judge also found that David's decisions to proceed with the sale was something of value exchanged for Franklin's promise to give George and Jack $300,000 each from the sale proceeds, thus rejecting Franklin's argument about the note lacking consideration.
Justice Tan also rejected Franklin's contention that he had been improperly pressured into signing the agreement, finding that the evidence did not support a claim of economic duress.
He noted that Franklin had still proceeded with the transaction, despite his objections and iterated that Franklin would have still been able to pursue other options.
With all of these considerations, the court ultimately found the handwritten note to be a valid and enforceable agreement.
Justice Tan ordered that the $600,000 set aside from the $5 million property sale be paid out as agreed, with George and Jack receiving the promised $300,000 each.
Although the pair had been left out of their mother's will, Goerge and Jack will now receive payments through the separate agreement reached by their brothers, David and Franklin.
Franklin's bid to reclaim a share of the money and related losses was dismissed.
The dispute over the $600,000 forms just one part of a years-long family feud that erupted after their mother's death in 2012, with the brothers also clashing over rent, estate-related finances and a defamation suit.
lim.kewei@asiaone.com swetha.sundararajan@asiaone.com
2012 年，一位母亲去世，她留给四个在世儿子中的两个和两个孙女的遗产包括位于英光路的一栋半独立式住宅。
在 2022 年该房产以 500 万美元的价格售出之前，两兄弟曾两次达成协议，从售房款中分别向他们的另外两个兄弟支付 30 万美元。
其中一位兄弟后来拒绝支付赔偿金，声称该协议无效。
高等法院法官周一（10月19日）裁定，该协议具有法律约束力，必须予以履行。
根据克里斯托弗·谭法官的判决，母亲于 2012 年 12 月去世。
她有五个儿子：叶童（已故）、陈叶童、陈叶童、陈叶童和陈叶童。
根据她的遗嘱，受益人是戴维、富兰克林、彼得的女儿迪奥妮和乔治的女儿乔安妮。
大卫和富兰克林就资产分配问题对簿公堂，其中包括向乔治和杰克分配 60 万美元，富兰克林对此表示反对。
家庭关系紧张
2012 年母亲去世后，四兄弟之间的家庭关系变得紧张，部分原因是乔治和杰克没有被列入遗嘱。
他们的叔叔谭淑于 2018 年飞往新加坡，试图调解兄弟俩的关系。
当时，他提议大卫和富兰克林在卖掉英孔路房产后，每人出资 30 万美元，乔治和杰克每人获得 30 万美元。
大卫和富兰克林口头同意了，但由于双方对协议是否仅在房产于 2018 年 9 月 30 日前售出时才具有强制执行力存在分歧，因此从未根据该提议支付款项。
在法庭上，大卫试图强制执行两兄弟于 2021 年 9 月签署的一项单独协议。
9月初，房产经纪人富兰克林告诉戴维，他找到了一位买家，出价500万美元购买这栋房子。
他们于 9 月 11 日见面，富兰克林打算让大卫在购买选择权 (OTP) 上签字。
在这次会议上，大卫表示，除非富兰克林同意乔治和杰克分别从销售所得中分得 30 万美元，否则他不会签署 OTP。
富兰克林被要求签署一份手写便条以同意这一条件，这激怒了他，并引发了一场争吵。
大卫离开会议时既没有签署一次性协议，也没有让富兰克林在手写便条上签字。
然而，几分钟后，富兰克林联系了戴维，表示他会在纸条上签字。
两兄弟再次见面，并在手写便条上都签了名。富兰克林签完便条后，大卫也签了字条。
“在胁迫下签署”
然而，第二天，富兰克林发短信给大卫说，他拒绝接受并完全不同意那张纸条的内容。
“我是在胁迫下签的字，你肯定另有不可告人的目的。对不起。”他写道。
对此，David 表示他也会认为 OTP 无效。
尽管存在分歧，Eng Kong Road 房产的出售还是在 2022 年 4 月完成。
销售所得的 60 万美元存入了一个联名账户，任何提款都需要两兄弟的授权。
大卫不允许富兰克林提取 60 万美元中的任何一部分，因为富兰克林拒绝授权将 60 万美元支付给乔治和杰克。
富兰克林认为该票据因两个原因无效：缺乏对价和经济胁迫和/或显失公平。
他向法院申请命令，要求大卫支付他应得的 60 万美元份额，并赔偿因资金留在联名账户中而损失的利息。
法院驳回了富兰克林的论点。
克里斯托弗·谭法官注意到大卫的合作，以及正是这种合作使得交易能够按照双方约定的方式完成。
法官还认定，戴维决定继续进行出售是有价值的，以此换取富兰克林承诺从出售所得中分别给乔治和杰克 30 万美元，从而驳回了富兰克林关于该票据缺乏对价的论点。
谭法官还驳回了富兰克林关于他受到不正当压力而签署协议的说法，认为证据不足以支持经济胁迫的说法。
他指出，尽管他反对，富兰克林仍然继续进行交易，并重申富兰克林仍然可以寻求其他选择。
综合考虑以上因素，法院最终认定该手写便条是一份有效且可强制执行的协议。
谭法官下令，从500万美元的房产出售中拨出的60万美元应按约定支付，乔治和杰克将分别获得承诺的30万美元。
尽管乔治和杰克没有被列入母亲的遗嘱，但他们现在将通过他们的兄弟大卫和富兰克林达成的单独协议获得报酬。
富兰克林要求追回部分款项及相关损失的请求被驳回。
这场围绕 60 万美元的纠纷只是持续多年的家庭不和的一部分。这场不和始于 2012 年他们的母亲去世之后，兄弟俩还因租金、遗产相关财务和诽谤诉讼而发生冲突。
lim.kewei@asiaone.com swetha.sundararajan@asiaone.com