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.
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 CASE
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.
OTHER ISSUES
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.