Man fails in suit against brother for 10% of $9.3m proceeds from One Tree Hill property sale

Two brothers gifted a house by their father more than 40 years ago ended up in court when one sued the other to claim 10 per cent of the $9.3 million proceeds from the sale of the One Tree Hill property.

Mr Tan Tien Sek, 68, said he transferred his one-tenth share of the property to Mr Tan Tien Sai, 65, in 2000 so that the younger man could mortgage the property to tide over his financial difficulties.

He alleged that it was only because his brother promised to pay him 10 per cent of the proceeds upon the sale of the property that he signed documents to effect the transfer.

Though the documents stated he was paid $320,000 for the transfer, he said he never received any money.

The property was sold in late 2017.

The suit was dismissed by the High Court in a judgment on March 31, saying that the plaintiff failed to prove that his brother had made the alleged promise.

Judicial Commissioner Teh Hwee Hwee found that the plaintiff had in fact been paid by his father, Mr Tan Teck Lye, for his one-tenth share in the property, even before the documents were signed.

“Therefore, the plaintiff did not transfer his one-tenth share in reliance on any alleged oral undertaking from the defendant, as the consideration for the transfer had in fact been earlier furnished by Mr Tan Teck Lye.”

The plaintiff is the eldest of three brothers, while the defendant is the youngest.

In 1976, Mr Tan Teck Lye divided his three properties among his three sons by way of a ballot.

The plaintiff was allocated a property in Guillemard Road, second son Tan Hian Chye a property in Jalan Sedap, and the defendant the One Tree Hill property.

In 1977, Mr Tan Teck Lye gifted 10 per cent of the One Tree Hill property to the plaintiff and 90 per cent to the defendant.

The plaintiff said his father had done so to be fair because the Guillemard property was of lower value than the One Tree Hill one. The defendant said the plaintiff had demanded an exchange with him after the ballot.

A witness for the defendant testified that the men’s father told her in 1997 or 1998 that he had paid the plaintiff the market price of his one-tenth share to avoid any dispute arising between his sons in the future.

In 2000, the plaintiff signed three documents to transfer his one-tenth share to the defendant, making the younger man the sole owner of the property.

In his suit, the plaintiff contended that when he and the defendant signed the documents, they “did not intend to create the legal relations that the written documents gave the impression of creating”.

This meant that the documents were merely a sham and did not reflect the true arrangement between the two of them.

He highlighted that the defendant mortgaged the property on several occasions, to support his case that the defendant had asked him for the transfer because he was in financial difficulties.

On the other hand, the defendant said his father was the one who asked the plaintiff to make the transfer, and that his father paid the plaintiff on his behalf.

The two men’s half-sister, Ms Tan Bee Lee, testified for the plaintiff, saying that their father complained to her in 2019 that the defendant did not pay the plaintiff for the latter’s share in the property.

Her audio recording of the conversation in Hokkien was submitted as evidence.

Mr Tan Teck Lye died in September 2020.

In her judgment, the judicial commissioner concluded that his words in the audio recording indicated that he had already paid the plaintiff for the transfer.

There is nothing in the recording that suggests that the defendant should have paid the plaintiff after the sale of the property, she said.

She added that the recording appeared to be made under suspicious circumstances, and that it was evident that Ms Tan was trying to lead the conversation towards the conclusion that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff.