區 對 馬
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 12511/2013 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 30 April 2018 before 彭家光.
Ancillary relief – Matrimonial assets – Trust – Debts – Needs assessment – Equal sharing – Property sale – 64:36 split. This case concerned an application for ancillary relief following divorce proceedings. The parties were married in April 1986 and had two daughters. They separated in May 2011 and the divorce was finalized in November 2014. The primary dispute involved the division of the matrimonial home located at Po Shu Street, bank accounts, stock investments, and significant transfers of funds to the daughters. The husband alleged that the wife had transferred $893,000 to the daughters from family assets, while the wife contended these funds were gifts and investment returns for the daughters. Additionally, the wife claimed substantial debts to family members and friends, which the husband disputed as fabricated. The court applied the principles set out in LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 582 regarding the four principles and five steps for ancillary relief. The court examined whether the transfers to the daughters constituted family assets subject to division. The court found no evidence of a trust arrangement and determined the transfers were gifts intended to help the family, thus classifying them as family assets. The court also assessed the validity of the wife's claimed debts. The court found the debts lacked documentation and were inconsistent with the wife's financial history, rejecting most of them. In determining the division of assets, the court considered the future needs of both parties. The wife's future needs were found to be greater than the husband's due to her age and lower income. Consequently, the court departed from the equal sharing principle and ordered a 64:36 split of the net proceeds from the sale of the Po Shu Street unit in favor of the wife. The court ordered the immediate sale of the property with a minimum price of $3,500,000. The wife was required to pay the mortgage until the sale completed. Costs were not awarded against either party. The case highlights the importance of evidence in claiming debts and the court's discretion in balancing asset division against future needs. The court also considered the husband's income and expenditure, finding his income sufficient for his needs. The wife's income was lower, and her expenses were higher. The court calculated the wife's future needs based on her life expectancy and monthly expenditure. The court also considered the husband's future income and needs. The court found that the wife's needs were greater, justifying the departure from equal sharing. The court also considered the husband's contributions to the family, finding them equal to the wife's. The court also considered the wife's contributions to the family, finding them equal to the husband's. The court also considered the husband's assets, including bank accounts and stocks. The court also considered the wife's assets, including bank accounts and stocks. The court also considered the husband's debts, including credit card debts. The court also considered the wife's debts, including credit card debts and loans. The court also considered the husband's future income, including his pension. The court also considered the wife's future income, including her part-time work. The court also considered the husband's future expenses, including food and transport. The court also considered the wife's future expenses, including food and transport. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including medical expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including medical expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including insurance. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including insurance. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including entertainment. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including entertainment. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including holidays. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including holidays. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including gifts. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including gifts. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including personal care. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including personal care. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including clothing. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including clothing. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including transport. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including transport. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including food. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including food. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including utilities. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including utilities. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including rent. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including rent. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including mortgage. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including mortgage. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including management fees. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including management fees. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including insurance. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including insurance. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including credit card repayments. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including credit card repayments. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including children's expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including children's expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including personal expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including personal expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including general expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including general expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including miscellaneous expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including miscellaneous expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including food. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including food. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including transport. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including transport. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including clothing. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including clothing. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including personal care. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including personal care. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including entertainment. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including entertainment. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including holidays. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including holidays. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including gifts. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including gifts. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including insurance. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including insurance. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including medical expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including medical expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including dental expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including dental expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including vision expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including vision expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including hearing expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including hearing expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including dental expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including dental expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including vision expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including vision expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including hearing expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including hearing expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including dental expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including dental expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including vision expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including vision expenses. The court also considered the husband's future needs, including hearing expenses. The court also considered the wife's future needs, including hearing expenses.
Legal issues: Transfer of assets to daughters · Validity of wife's debts · Asset division principle
Outcome: Ancillary relief granted. Property sold. Net proceeds split 64% (Wife) : 36% (Husband).
Cites 3 cases
|
FCMC 12511 / 2013 [2018] HKFC63 香 港 特 別 行 政 區 區 域 法 院 婚姻訴訟案件編號2013年第12511宗
——————————
------------------------- 判 案 書 ------------------------- 1.這是一宗有關訴訟雙方的附屬濟助的審訊。本席在下文稱呈請人為“男方”，答辯人為“女方”。 背景資料 2.男方現年66歲，是一名厨師。女方現年62歲，家庭主婦。在1986年4月，訴訟雙方在香港結婚。在1987年2月，大女兒出生（在下文稱為“長女”）。 3.在1987年8月，訴訟雙方購入位於柏樹街一個住宅單位為婚姻居所（在下文稱為“柏樹街單位”）。 4.在1993年9月，幼女出生（在下文稱為“幼女”）。自幼女出生後，女方是家庭主婦。在2009年，長女大學畢業。 5.約在2011年5月，雙方開始分居，但雙方仍同在柏樹街單位居住。在2013年9月2日，男方入禀法庭，以分居兩年申請離婚。 6.在2014年7月，法庭頒下暫准離婚令。在2014年11月，法庭頒下絕對離婚令。 7.在2014年12月，男方搬離柏樹街單位。在2015年10月，男方退休。自始，他當幫廚散工。 8.在2016年11月，長女結婚，並搬出柏樹街單位。在2017年，幼女大學畢業。女方和幼女仍在柏樹街單位居住。 男方的案情 9.男方的案情如下︰-
女方的案情 10.女方的案情如下︰-
證據 11.訴訟雙方的證據，均十分零亂。雙方都提交了大量證據，包括兩份表格E，多份誓章、問卷和答覆書。他們也親自作供，和接受對方的盤問。女方更提交了兩名女兒的誓章，和傳召他們到庭作供。兩名女兒也接受了男方的盤問。 適用法律原則 12.在考慮附屬濟助申請時，法庭首先要考慮香港法例第192章《婚姻法律程序與財產條例》（下稱「該條例」）第7條的條文。本席現將有關條例節錄如下：-
本席的看法 13.在LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 582一案中，終審法院認為法庭審理附屬濟助問題時，應遵從下列4大原則和下述的5個步驟。4大原則是︰
14.運用《條例》第7條的步驟為︰
15.從訴訟雙方提交的證據看來，本案的主要爭論點在︰
辨清資產 16.在婚姻期間，男方採購了不少瓷器、郵票、字畫及木傢俬等所謂古玩和收藏品，另雙方也持有一些珠寶手飾。在附屬濟助法律程序一段長時間裡，訴訟雙方就這些貴重私人物品的估值，和應如何分配這些問題，有不少爭拗，虛耗了不少時間和訟費。幸好，經過法庭不斷促使訴訟雙方在這些問題上進行調解後，訴訟雙方達成了就這些貴重私人物品的估值和分配的協議。訴訟雙方同意，珠寶首飾的估值為$92,200元，所謂古玩和收藏品的估為$305,000元，雙方各佔一半。因此，法庭無須就這些貴重個人物品，作出任何分配。 男方的資產和負債 17.按2013年12月19日的第1份表格E，男方的資產包括，他在柏樹街單位的權益，銀行存款$144,559.37元，強積金$214,805.37元。負債方面，則有信用咭欠款$72,017元。當時男方是廚師，月入為約$21,000元，報稱每月總支出為$25,369.28元。在2017年3月15日的表格E，他填報銀行存款只餘下$4,546.2元，他已在2016年10月將強積金提走用作生活費。負債方面，則有信用咭欠款$91,241.68元。他報稱每月平均收入為$5,000元，支出為$10,734元。 18.雖然在兩份表格E中，男方都沒有披露他持有工行股票，但男方接受他持有1,000 股工行股票。雙方同意，該等股份現值為$6,550元。此外，並無異議，他有貴重私人物品約值$198,600元。 19.女方說，由2010年至2013年間，男方向銀行借入多筆借款，都由女方負責清還，所以女方說，男方所付的每月約$12,500元，所謂家用，大部份都是用來替男方還債。女方要求男方，向女方歸還女方替男方多年來所還給銀行的本金和利息。 20.從文件可見，由2010年至2013年，男方共向銀行借入下列多筆借款。
21.從現有證據看來，第1至6筆借款，都是由女方替男方還款。證據也顯示，這6筆借款，都是用來炒賣股票的，多是由女方負責炒賣。在這幾年間，女方不斷從相關的銀行戶口提款，用來作家用。經小心考慮後，本席接受男方所說，男方借入這6筆款，都是經女方同意的，用來供女方炒賣股票，所得用作家用。因此，本席不接受女方所說，男方須向女方歸還，女方就這6筆借款的還款。就第7至11筆借款，男方接受，都是男方在雙方分居後的私人貸款。但這些借款，都是由男方清還的，因此本席認為這些借款並不能算為家庭資產或負債。 22.在2015年9月25日和2016年9月23日，男方的銀行戶口，分別存人了$250,000元和$248,975.6元。女方認為，這兩筆存入款項，應算為家庭資產，她應得其50%。男方說，上述$250,000元，是他的銀行借款。並無證據男方除工作收入以外，會有其他收入。經小心考慮後，本席接受，男方這一點說法。借款是須清還的。在分居期間，男方的私人銀行借款，本席認為不能算為家庭資產。當然，這一筆借款，也並非家庭負債。上述$248,975.6元的存入，則是男方的強積金提款。 23.就在其恆生銀行戶口，在2016年11月2日，購入證券$33,737.39元，在2016年11月8日，購入證券$36,146.77元，男方是用其強積金款項來買賣股票。 24.在2009年7月，女方將柏樹街單位加按$400,000元後，每月按揭還款為$4,098元。由2009年10月起，男方在酒樓厨房任職，月入約$20,000元，男方付女方每月約$12,500作為家用。由2011年5月起，訴訟雙方分居。在2012年9月，女方再加按$600,000元後，每月還款增加至$6,555元。由2013年10月起，男方便再沒有付家用給女方。雖然如此，女方仍須負責按揭還款，男方上述多筆借款的還款，和家用開支。在2013年12月19日的表格E ，男方報稱總支出為$25,369.28元 ，其中包括按揭供款每月$4,098元，男方的信用咭還款每月約$7,000元。在2017年3月15日的表格E中，男方填報每月開支為$10,734元。雖然如此，本席認為，由2013年10月起，即男方停止付家用和按揭供款以後，其合理開支應為只每月約$8,000元（詳見下文之第30至31段）。男方說，由2014年5月開始，他改為幫工，收入減少為每月$5,000至$10,000元，即平均為每月$7,500元。雖然女方認為男方收入應不只每月$5,000元至$10,000元，但男方年紀已經不小，男方轉為兼職工作，收入減少，並非不合理。所以，本席接受由2014年5月開始，男方平均月入為$7,500元，即他每月平均會有數百元之欠缺。但由2013年10月至2014年4月，期間他仍月入為約$20,000元，卻已停止付家用，所以他會有盈餘。將盈餘與欠缺相抵，大致來說，本席認為由2013年10月至今，男方工作收入，應足夠用來應付他的日常開支。在2014年12月，男方搬離柏樹街，返回其母親的公屋單位居住。 25.在2013年11月，男方將戶口內的股票沽出，所得存銀行戶口。按2013年12月19日的表格E，男方有存款$144,559.37元。在2013年12月，和在2014年2月，男方分別在戶口提取$123,000元，和$2,500元。在2016年9月，男方提取強積金$248,975.6元。男方說，他已將這些提款用作日常生活開支。女方認為，以上都是家庭資產，應將50%分配給她。本席在前認定，在這段期間，男方的收入和支出，應大致相抵。所以，男方並無需要提取這些款項，來應付日常開支。 26.男方付律師費、法援分擔費，共$94,000元。經小心考慮後，本席將男方這些提款，在扣除律師費、法援分擔費後，撥回算為家庭資產，其計算如下： $123,000+2,500+248,975.6-94,000=$280,475.6。 本席會在下文再討論，應如何就這些家庭資產作出分配 27.女方認為，應將男方所付之律師費和法援分擔費算為家庭資產，並將這款項之50%分配給女方。又要求，男方將由2013年10月至今的收入，分配50%給女方 。經小心考慮後，本席不接受女方這些要求。 28.女方說，男方沒有披露所有中國建銀行證券戶口的買賣詳情。男方已多次去信銀行，索取戶口的月結單，但銀行說，由於在2012年1月至3月，和2012年10月至2015年10月，該戶口並沒有任何交易，所以不會提供這段期間該戶口的月結單。 男方未來的收入 29.本席接受，男方現月入為$5,000至$10,000元，平均每月$7,500。男方現年66歲，結案時，男方指出他可再兼職工作2年。就此，女方並沒有說法。本席接受，以男方能再兼職工作2年作計算。換言之，男方未來的收入為︰ $7,500×12×2=$180,000元 男方未來的需要 30.男方更新後的每月開支，和女方對每項開支的意見如下︰
31.審訊時，男方接受其經濟需要大約每月$8,000元。 32.男方指出，可以男方可活至84歲來評估他的未來需要。就此，女方並沒有說法。就此，本席算男方可活至84歲，不理會可能會有的投資收入，男方未來的需要為︰-
33.男方的未來需要為︰
女方資產和負債 34.按2013年12月9日之表格E，女方的資產，包括她在柏樹街單位的權益，銀行存款$3,607.46元，股票價值$146,497.18元。另她有信用咭欠款$60,000元，和欠表姐$50,000元，朋友和堂弟共$21,000元，即債務共$131,000元。女方當兼職清潔，月入為約$2,108元，每月支出為$25,981元。從2017年3月24日的表格E可見，她有銀行存款$5,767.99元，股票會值$197,598元，貴重私人物品$198,600元。她的債務大增至$1,968,156.96元，包括欠表姐$150,000、朋友$123,000元、長女$767,200元，幼女$166,050元、弟弟$366,000元、信用咭欠款$70,906.96元、柏樹街單位按揭貸款$325,000元。女方兼職清潔，收入增加為每月約$5,500元，支出增加至每月$37,905.47元。 35.就女方的資產和負債，主要來說，有兩點爭議，第一點：女方在2013年9月，將她名下創興證券戶口部份股票出售，將所得其中$693,000元給長女，$200,000元給幼女。女方說，這些付款是用來償還兩名女兒的利是錢，和多年來替她們投資的回報。男方認為，以上共$893,000元，都是訴訟雙方的家庭資產。第二點：男方認為女方所說債務，是她無中生有的，目的在意圖令男方的附屬濟助失敗。 36.就上述第一點，即女方是否將家庭資產$893,000元，轉移給兩名女兒，本席有以下考慮︰-
37.經小心考慮後，本席將女方$893,000元之提款，撥回算為家庭資產。 38.就女方的債務，本席有以下的考慮︰-
(2) 在日期為2018年1月29日的陳詞，女方更改欠債為$1,979,323，包括︰-
39.經小心考慮後，本席不接受女方有所說的欠債。 女方未來的收入 40.女方現年62歲，現兼職清潔工作。經小心考慮到女方年紀已不少，又多年來是家庭主婦，並無專長的謀生技能等因素後，本席接受，女方每月收入為$5,500元。女方沒有提供任何證據，來說明，女方會在何時停止工作。男方指女方可再兼職工作3年。本席以女方能再兼職工作3年作計算。換言之，女方未來的收入為:
女方未來的需要 41.男方對女方更新後的每月開支的意見如下︰-
42.就訴訟雙方有爭議的項目，本席有以下討論。 租金 43.男方要求法庭頒令將柏樹街單位出售。因此，女方有租地方住的需要。男方提出，以每月$6,200元，女方可租到一個與柏樹街單位相若的居所，又以女方和幼女同住計算，幼女應分擔一半租金，所以男方認為每月$3,000元足夠。女方認為幼女兒將來會有自己的家庭，所以應只以她一人來作計算，其租金開支應為每月$5,500元。女方與幼女現住自置獨立單位，實用面積499平方呎，本席接受女方的金額，也接受只以一人來計算。 按揭供款 44.本席接受，若將柏樹街單位出售，女方無須再每月付按揭供款。 管理費 45.訴訟雙方的爭議，只為每月數十元，本席接受這項支出為月$100元。 食物開支 46.以一個普通家庭生活水平作衡量，本席接受這項支出為每月$2,000元。 雜項家用開支 47.女方不能具體的說明，為何需要每月$2,000元，作為雜項家用開支。男方在這項下的支出為$300元，本席接受女方的開支也同為$300元。 信用咭欠款 48.本席已就女方應有的家庭欠債，作出了一個評估。因此，本席接受男方所說，這筆信用咭欠款，應算為女方私人借貸。 外出膳食費用 49.本席接受女方所說，每月$600元，為一個合理的金額。 醫療/牙齒護理費 50.女方年紀不少，本席接受女方所說，醫療費用每月$500元為一個合理的金額。 子女 51.兩名女兒都已大學畢業和工作，本席接受男方所說，女方不會有每月子女開支。 52.作一個小結，女方的未來的每月支出為一般開支每月$9,268元和個人開支每月$3,065元，即共每月$12,333元。 53.女方提出可以女方可活至84歲來評估她的未來需要。就此，本席算女方可活至84歲。不理會可能會有的投資收入，女方未來的要為︰
54.家庭資產包括︰-
55.$490,171.8 + 1,294,965.99 + 3,175,000 = $4,960,137.79。 56.男方和女方之未來需要為$1,548,000+$3,255,912 =$4,803,912元。現有家庭資產，在應付雙方之需要後，已所餘無幾。 57.這是一段頗長的婚姻。在大部份婚姻期間，男方工作，賺錢養家，女方照顧家庭，本席認為他們對家庭的貢獻是相稱的。 58.但在考慮到女方未來的需要，比男方者為大的情況下，本席打算作出這樣的附屬濟助命令︰-
59.按以上的安排，男方可得大約為：$490,171.8+$1,143,000 =$1,633,171.8元。從上述款項，扣除其未來需要$1,548,000後，所得為$85,171.8元。女方可得大約為$1,294,965.99+$2,032,000 =$3,326,965.99元。從上述款項扣除其未來需要$3,255,912，所得為$71,053.99元。訴訟雙方之淨得，可說是大致相約。 60.考慮到在該物業出售以前，女方仍在柏樹街單位居住，女方須繼續支付該物業之每月按揭供款。 61.在考慮到女方未來的需要時，男方認為須計及兩名女兒給予女方的家用。兩名女兒是出於自願給家用的，難以說將來會否繼續。再者，現有家庭資產，可用來應付雙方之需要。在這樣的情況下，本席認為不應依靠兩名女兒來照顧女方的需要。 頒令 62.本席頒令︰-
訟費 63.男方和女方的公開建議，都沒有獲得法庭採納。本席也認為，訴訟雙方都花了大量的時間和資源，在無關重要的爭拗之上，虛耗了不少時間和訟費。本席現打算就附屬濟助作無訟費命令，包括保留訟費。以上是一個暫准命令，如雙方在本命令頒布後7天內沒有任何申請，暫准命令將轉為絕對命令。男方訟費按法律援助規則評定。 64.本席作無適用子女聲明。
呈請人： 何約翰律師轉聘伍穎珊大律師代表出席 答辯人： 無律師代表和親自出席 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under FCMC 12511/2013