Abstract:
The ways in which families organise their lives are neither uniform nor universal. The recent decisions of TQU v TQT [2020] SGCA 8 and VOD v VOC [2022] SGHC(A) 6 have demonstrated the difficulty in understanding the place of a multigenerational matrimonial home – a single property that is a matrimonial home to two different family nuclei. In this article, using Singapore as a case study, the author argues that a single property can be the matrimonial home for two different families and that a party’s part interest in the multigenerational matrimonial home should be included in the pool of matrimonial assets for division. The author further advances a novel argument that the classification methodology can be applied by the courts to take into account the ownership and residence of the other family in the multigenerational matrimonial home as a “clear reason to make a different calculation” for the multigenerational matrimonial home vis-à-vis the other matrimonial assets, and may be applied alongside the use of unequal weightages being ascribed to direct and indirect contributions.