Son who was bequeathed S$1 by mother contests her will, fails

SINGAPORE: A man who was bequeathed S$1 (US$0.78) in his mother’s will took to court to have the will declared void and invalid, but lost in the case against his aunt and has to pay her costs of almost S$75,000.

According to a judgment made available on Thursday (Mar 12), the plaintiff is the youngest of the deceased woman’s three sons, who were “causes of distress and concern” for her.

The deceased had three wills in 2020, 2019 and 2018, all of which bequeathed S$1 to each of her three sons but with differences in the other particulars.

In her 2020 will, she gave her Housing Board flat at Klang Lane to her second son, money in her bank accounts and some Singtel shares to her sister, and everything left over to the same sister.

The deceased’s sister was appointed sole executrix and trustee of this will.

The youngest son asked for the 2020 will to be declared void and invalid, and for probate to be granted to the executors appointed in a 2019 will – his wife and a long-time family lawyer.

The 2019 will ordered that a flat be held on trust for his daughter P until she turned 30, and bequeathed on her the deceased’s cash, monies in her bank accounts and Central Provident Fund, among other items.

THE WOMAN AND HER SONS

The judgment stated that the late matriarch was a “capable, independent woman of strong character”. Her first marriage ended in 1980 after she commenced divorce proceedings against her husband, who had abandoned the family.

She became a single mother of three sons, supporting them by working as a car park attendant. She remarried in 1992 and helped her second husband start his own scaffolding business.

In 2004, the woman started her own maid employment agency, specialising in bringing domestic helpers from India into Singapore, and operated this business until she died in September 2021. She was a successful businesswoman well-known in Little India for her employment agency, the judge noted.

The woman’s three sons “were at one point or another, causes of distress and concern” for her, said District Judge Cassandra Cheong.

The first son had taken over his late father’s business but incurred debts and needed his mother’s financial help. He allegedly forged his mother’s signature and sold off two of her properties to pay off his debts.

The business was closed in 2015 or 2016, and the oldest son was declared bankrupt.

The second son has a history of drug-related offences and has been to jail, although he turned over a new leaf and later completed his studies and worked as a driver.

The plaintiff, the youngest son, is “arguably the son who gave the deceased the greatest cause for concern”, said Judge Cheong.

He was placed in a boys’ home at the age of 12 for causing grievous hurt to a prefect in his class, running away from the home three years later and being sent to a reformative training centre.

He had two failed marriages, a series of failed businesses and convictions for unspecified offences.

He was convicted of stealing jewellery from his first mother-in-law and sentenced to prison. After he was released, he married a woman who bore the granddaughter, P, mentioned in the 2019 will.

THE GRANDDAUGHTER

P lived with the plaintiff’s mother, the deceased, from the age of three until she was 12. This was after the plaintiff divorced P’s mother. The plaintiff did not take care of P.

The deceased took care of P and paid for all of her expenses, applying for her custody sometime in 2015. She engaged tuition teachers for her, enrolled her in dance classes, singing lessons and swimming lessons.

She was strict in her upbringing and scolded P, using the cane for discipline at times. As P grew older, she became increasingly defiant as she resented her grandmother’s strict approach, said the judge.

The deceased was deeply troubled over who was to care and provide for P when she died, given the lack of parental involvement and guidance in P’s life, especially after the deceased had a stroke in 2012.

She then executed two wills, in 2018 and 2019.

However, sometime in 2019, she found jewellery missing from her home. At the time, P was the only person staying with her.

The deceased suspected that P had been instigated by her father, the plaintiff, to steal her jewellery. She filed a police report.

P was upset by the accusations and left the home to stay with her father for two days before asking to come back.

P was taken in by the Child Protective Service (CPS) in November 2020. The main reason for this was unclear due to the lack of documentary evidence, said the judge.

While P was staying at a centre assigned by CPS, her grandmother visited her on an almost weekly basis, bringing lunch for her.

She did this until September 2021, when she failed to turn up for her usual visit. She had died alone at home on Sep 19, 2021, after falling and hitting her head in the living room.

The deceased was close to her sister, to whom she had bequeathed most of her assets other than the flat in the 2020 will. They talked almost every night on the phone, with the deceased sharing with her sister her woes over her three sons and the challenges she faced with P.

As the deceased’s education stopped after primary school, she would turn to her sister for help in drafting letters.

In December 2019, the deceased told her sister that she wanted to have a new will drafted and asked for a law firm recommendation. The sister recommended one near Chinatown, close to a temple where the deceased regularly worshipped.

The plaintiff argued that his aunt played a leading part in the making of the 2020 will, under which she stood to receive a substantial benefit.

He argued that his aunt had “manipulated” his mother to separate her from her sons and P. 

He also claimed that his aunt came to know about their family assets being worth more than S$5 million and began to advise her sister about rewriting her last will.

JUDGE’S FINDINGS

The judge found most of the plaintiff’s evidence about his aunt to be either “bare allegations” or irrelevant to the execution of the 2020 will. 

She noted that there was no evidence provided in support of the S$5 million figure.

Instead, the evidence showed that it was the deceased who initiated the preparation and execution of the 2020 will by approaching her sister for help, said the judge.

“The deceased was not a weak-willed, elderly lady who was ignorant in relation to the workings of a will,” said Judge Cheong. 

“There is clear, consistent evidence from the parties and the witnesses … that she was a feisty, independent and strong-willed woman and a well-known businesswoman in the Little India area.”

She found it difficult to believe that the deceased would have acted simply on a “misrepresentation” by her sister without assessing and making a decision for herself.

Also, the deceased had bequeathed all other assets apart from the HDB flat to her sister in the earlier 2018 will, so it is not inconceivable that she would do so in her 2020 will.

As for why the deceased bequeathed her flat to her second son, the judge noted two factors that led to this. First, the deceased had been advised by a law firm that the flat could not be held on trust for P until she reached the age of 30 based on HDB’s rules.

The law firm had advised her that in such a situation, the flat would be managed by the minor’s custodian, such as a parent or legal guardian, until she turned 21.

Judge Cheong said this advice surfaced the possibility that the plaintiff would become the trustee of the HDB flat.

She found that the deceased did have knowledge and understanding of the contents of her 2020 will and did approve of their contents before voluntarily executing it.

The judge granted the aunt’s counterclaim against the plaintiff and gave a declaration pronouncing that the 2020 will was valid, and that the aunt is entitled to apply for a grant of probate based on the will.

The plaintiff is appealing against the decision.