Love, luxury, and a $1m dispute: When a couple fought over watches and handbags

Sign up for ST InvestMe and unlock the full access to exclusive insights and financial literacy courses today.

A couple splurged about $1 million on collecting a sizeable stash of luxury watches and handbags, and they ended up fighting over these assets when they split.

The dispute is unusual because such personal belongings, which are sometimes given as gifts, are usually not considered matrimonial assets that are up for sharing unless the total value of the items is substantial.

In this case, the value of the couple’s collection added up to almost 20 per cent of their total cash savings and investments of over $5 million.

They had two apartments but agreed not to fight over these homes, which are registered in the names of their two adult children.

The husband, 60, who earns $15,000 a month as a senior vice-president of marketing, is an astute stock investor and his share trading account used to have a balance of over $13 million at one stage during his 27-year marriage.

He also has an eye for fine watches – his collection of eight Rolexes, an Audemars Piguet and a Cartier – had gone up in value over the years, and are now worth over $400,000.

For instance, he bought his most expensive watch, a Rolex Daytona with an Everose gold strap, for about $53,000, but the High Court put the final value of the watch at $105,000.

The wife, 58, who owns a business that sells skincare products, has a more modest collection of two Rolex watches with diamonds and a Patek Philippe Nautilus gold watch. But each of these watches has a price tag of more than $100,000.

Another $200,000 was spent acquiring 15 Hermes Birkin, Hermes Kelly, Chanel and Louis Vuitton handbags, but the court estimated the total value of her collection to be around $70,000 now due to “age and condition”.

Prior to setting up her beauty business, she had a long career working for an airline as part of a flight crew and eventually as an in-flight supervisor. In between her travels, she spent time researching and watching the real estate market, and ended up buying and selling over 10 properties.

This explained why the couple’s two apartments are currently in their children’s names, as these were bought on trust for them prior to 2022, without the need to pay the additional buyer’s stamp duty.

For instance, the $5 million apartment that was bought for their son, now 28, was paid for in cash, with $3 million from the wife and the remaining $2 million from the husband.

After considering both the financial and indirect contributions of the couple, the High Court ruled that the wife should be entitled to $3.2 million, or 55 per cent of their combined non-property assets of about $5.8 million, while the husband was given the remaining $2.6 million, or a share of 45 per cent.

Here are two lessons from the case on how the division of matrimonial assets is done.

Value of luxury items

You can indulge yourself with buying luxury items that you desire for personal use or collection if you have the means to do so.

But do note that if the marriage does not work out, such items can turn out to be a burden, because you may end up receiving less cash if you own a substantial amount of such assets.

Once the division happens after a spouse’s share has been decided by the court, these assets will go into the count first because it is only fair for the parties to retain their own assets.

For instance, as the wife owned more than $420,000 worth of watches and handbags, such assets would set off her entitlement of $3.2 million first and this meant that her share of other assets would be reduced to $2.78 million.

A downside of having such assets is that you may find it hard to cash out or find buyers who are willing to pay your price. So if you are in a hurry to sell the items, you may end up getting less than the estimated value.

The cost of hiding money

As the courts aim to resolve all matrimonial disputes in a just and equitable manner, any attempt to hide money to deprive the other spouse of getting more will be met with penalties, which will result in the culprit getting less.

When a stash of hidden funds is discovered, the court could add the whole amount into the matrimonial pool for sharing but will not count the sum as the owner’s contribution. The court can also deduct the overall percentage of share of those who do not come clean, so their spouses will end up getting more.

In this case, the husband was caught telling his friend of his plan to stash his money away, after his son secretly planted a voice recorder in his car.

During the conversation, he said: “I tell you, ah, all my assets are all right, now gone already. I really maybe gotta see a lawyer ah... how to cover my assets lah.”

For example, he was accused of trying to hide about $1.4 million with his friends, as he said the proceeds from the sale of his public stocks were jointly owned by them due to their share purchase deal.

But Senior High Court Judge Tan Siong Thye found it odd that the friends would go through with this arrangement, which could put them at a disadvantage in a dispute when they could invest in the shares in their own names.

He said: “(The husband’s) explanation that this arrangement was for the sole purpose of saving security brokers’ commissions and SGX (Singapore Exchange) fees, which are not large sums of money, is disingenuous, lame and highly suspicious.”

So he added the whole sum of about $1.4 million back to the matrimonial pool as he found that the man had sold his shares and made the transfers to his friends in contemplation of divorce proceedings.

The husband was also taken to task for trying to dissipate close to $700,000 by making the following claims without any basis.

If there is a lesson here, it is that it does not pay to be dishonest in any court proceedings. The husband would have received a much larger share if he had just disclosed the whole amount, which would then increase his contribution.