- in United States
- with readers working within the Basic Industries, Chemicals and Technology industries
A recent Singapore High Court decision, Jenny Prawesti v Sauw Tjiauw Koe [2025] SGHC 209, serves as a stark and powerful reminder for individuals and families of the profound risks inherent in certain "family arrangements" for holding significant assets.
This "regrettably growing catalogue of family disputes," as the court noted, provides a multi-million dollar case study in how ambiguity and the "borrowing" of names can catastrophically backfire, leading to protracted, costly, and emotionally devastating litigation.
For families, particularly those with more complex holding arrangements, the court's analysis offers critical, actionable insights. The key takeaway is unequivocal: clarity, contemporaneous documentation, and robust understanding of the legal ramifications are not optional.
In cases where family members contribute monetary funds to make purchases that are then registered in another family member's name, this judgment and the facts as summarised therein serves as a timely reminder of why careful consideration is needed.
The factual background: A sprawling property empire built on ambiguity
The dispute was between a daughter, Jenny, and her mother, Mdm Koe. The family had moved from Indonesia to Singapore in the 1980s, supported by substantial allowances from the father (Sugeng), who remained in Indonesia to run his businesses. These allowances given to Mdm Koe were significant, reportedly reaching US$47,000 per week for two decades. 1
From the late 1990s, Mdm Koe started investing in properties in Singapore. After buying nine properties in her sole name, she acquired another 26 properties between 2002 and 2012 (the "26 properties").
The core of the dispute lay in who owned these properties. They were purchased in the names of Mdm Koe, Jenny, and/or Jenny's younger brother (Ronny) in various combinations—some as joint tenants, others as tenants-in-common with seemingly random splits (e.g., Mdm Koe 90%, Ronny 9%, Jenny 1%).
- The daughter's claim: Jenny claimed she was a 50% beneficial co-owner of all 26 properties. Her case was founded on an "alleged promise" from her mother that they would purchase properties "together as equal owners." 2
- The mother's counterclaim: Mdm Koe denied making the "alleged promise", asserting that Jenny and Ronny were her nominees and that she had 100% beneficial ownership of all 26 properties. Her position was that she always maintained full control over the 26 properties and she was merely "borrowing" her children's names for convenience and to teach them about property investment. She argued they were all her nominees, holding the properties on trust for her. 3
The dispute also involved shares in a family company, ST Travel, of which shares had been allotted to Jenny who presently holds 1% .
The legal principles: Finding the "actual intention"
The court's starting point is always that "equity follows the law." This means, on the face of it, the law presumes that the people listed on the title registrations are the true beneficial owners in the proportions stated.
To displace this presumption, and in the absence of an express trust, a claimant must prove either:
- A resulting trust: This principle operates to "result" the asset back to the person who voluntarily transferred it without the intention of benefiting the recipient. This analysis ultimately depends on the intention of the transferor.
- A common intention constructive trust (CICT): This trust is "constructed" by the court to reflect the parties' common intention (either expressly agreed or inferred from their conduct) that the beneficial ownership should differ from the legal title.
Crucially, the court emphasised that these trusts and presumptions are merely tools to ascertain the parties' actual intention. Where the evidence clearly reveals what the parties truly intended, the court will enforce that intention.
The court's decision
The High Court reviewed the evidence, ultimately splitting the assets into three distinct categories.
The Centrepoint property: Equity follows the law
The very first property purchased, the Centrepoint Property, was held by Jenny and Mdm Koe as joint tenants. The court found that this property stood apart from all the others.
Why? Because Jenny made significant, direct financial contributions to its purchase. She paid the initial option fee, a S$25,000 lump sum from her Central Provident Fund (CPF), and serviced the mortgage for 10 years using S$115,714 from her CPF.
Mdm Koe's contributions were roughly equal. Because both parties had clearly contributed financially, the court found no basis to establish a resulting trust or CICT in Mdm Koe's favour. The starting presumption held: they were joint tenants in law and in equity. Mdm Koe's attempt to claim 100% ownership therefore failed.
The other 25 properties: Trust for the mother
For the remaining 25 properties, the court found entirely in Mdm Koe's favour. It held that Jenny held her registered interests on trust for Mdm Koe. 4
The evidence for this was overwhelming:
- Sole financial contribution: Mdm Koe paid for everything; all down payments, stamp duties, and mortgage repayments.
- Absolute control: Mdm Koe made all investment decisions, managed the properties, dealt with banks, and, most importantly, collected and kept 100% of all rental and sale proceeds.
- Inconsistent conduct: One compelling piece of evidence relied on by the court was Jenny's own conduct. From 2018-2020, Jenny faced severe financial distress. In voluminous text messages, she repeatedly begged her mother for money, expressing shame and stress. She never once asked for her "rightful 50% share" of the rental or sale proceeds from properties that had been sold. Her past failure to assert a "50% share" was completely inconsistent with her belief that she was a co-owner.
- Letter of Indemnity (LOI): When Jenny gave Mdm Koe a Power of Attorney (POA), Mdm Koe signed an LOI, indemnifying Jenny against all losses from the properties. The court saw this as strong evidence of a common intention: Mdm Koe bore all the risk, so it was intended she would receive all the reward.
The ST Travel shares: Presumption of advancement
The court ruled that the 1% shares in ST Travel did belong to Jenny. Mdm Koe's claim that Jenny was a nominee failed, as the court found Jenny had contributed work to the company.
Critically, the court applied the presumption of advancement. This is a legal presumption that where a parent transfers an asset to a child, it is intended as an outright gift, not a trust. The burden was on Mdm Koe to prove it wasn't a gift, and her evidence was insufficient.
Key takeaways
This judgment illustrates of some of the pitfalls of asset-holding arrangements involving family members, particularly where ownership disputes arise that differ from the entitlements reflected on legal title registration. These are some key observations:
"Borrowing Names"
In this case Mdm Koe claimed she had discussed and told her children that the properties belonged entirely to her, and that she "borrowed" her children's name out of convenience so that they could help her deal with various parties, for ease of communication, and learn about property investments. The judge found that this narrative of an express common intention by Mdm Koe was not compelling. 5
Whatever the stated motives of a parent's "borrowing" her children's names, such an approach is demonstrably unhelpful and could expose the "true" owners to various types of risks. In this case, the relationship between mother and daughter had broken down resulting in litigation by the daughter claiming equal ownership in the subject properties, with the mother having to claim on the other hand, ownership of all the subject properties, including one where her name was not reflected in the legal title registration.
The presumption of advancement – is a gift intended?
The case concerning the shares highlights a critical point. The law presumes that when a parent transfers assets to a child, it is intended as a gift. Mdm Koe lost the argument over the shares because she could not rebut this presumption, and the court accepted Jenny's evidence that she was given the shares for her contributions to its business. For the properties, however, Mdm Koe's evidence of paying for them was strong enough for a resulting trust to be found in her favour. For parents, the takeaway is stark: if you are placing an asset in your child's name without any intention of benefiting them, you must have clear, written evidence to rebut the presumption of a gift.
Documenting parties' intention.
In this case, the multi-year, multi-million dollar dispute could have been avoided. For instance, if parties had accepted from the outset that one was holding interest on trust for the other, this could have been documented (e.g. through a deed of trust). Why this was not done remains a mystery.
Actions speak louder than words (and become evidence).
The court placed immense weight on the parties' conduct. Mdm Koe's total control (collecting rent, paying mortgages) built her case. Jenny's text messages begging for money (without demanding her "share" when properties were rented out or sold) negated hers. Family communications, such as emails, text messages, casual conversations, can be brought before a court as evidence of intention during a dispute.
Powers of attorney (POAs) are administration tools, not ownership declarations.
Although Mdm Koe was ultimately successful in her claim of ownership over the 25 properties, the judge's view was that the POAs undermined her claim that she was seeking convenience by registering Jenny as a nominal owner of the properties.6 Families must not mistake administrative convenience for legal clarity on beneficial ownership.
Footnotes
1. Para 3, Jenny Prawesti v. Sauw Tjauw Koe [2025] SGHC 209
2. Para 4(a), Ibid.
3. Para 15, Ibid.
4. Para 137(b), Ibid.
5. Para 54, Ibid.
6. Para 70, Ibid.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
