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

SINGAPORE – 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.

Adblock test (Why?)