PUBLISHED ONOctober 21, 2026 6:10 AMBYLim KeweiSwetha SundararajanA semi-detached house along Eng Kong Road was among the assets a mother left to two of her four surviving sons and two granddaughters when she died in 2012.
Before the property was sold for $5 million in 2022, the two brothers twice agreed that $300,000 each would be paid to their two other brothers from the sale proceeds.
One of the brothers later refused to grant the payout, arguing that the agreement was invalid.
A High Court judge ruled on Monday (Oct 19) that the agreement was legally binding and must be honoured.
According to the judgement by Justice Christopher Tan, the mother died in December 2012.
She had five sons: Oliver Peter Yip Tong (predeceased), David Chan Yip Tong, Franklin Chan Yip Tong, George Chan Yip Tong, and Jack Chan Yip Tong.
Under her will, the beneficiaries are David, Franklin, Peter's daughter Dione, and George's daughter Joanne.
David and Franklin took each other to court over several disputes surrounding the assets, including the distribution of $600,000 to George and Jack, which Franklin opposed.
Familial ties between the four brothers had become strained after their mother's death in 2012, in part because George and Jack were left out of her will.
Their uncle, Tam Sook, flew to Singapore in 2018 to try reconciling the brothers.
At that time, he proposed that David and Franklin should each contribute $300,000 after selling the Eng Kong Road property, with George and Jack receiving $300,000 each.
David and Franklin verbally agreed, although payments under this proposal were never made owing to a disagreement on whether the agreement is enforceable only when the property is sold by Sept 30, 2018.
In court, David sought to enforce a separate agreement signed by both brothers in September 2021.
In early September, Franklin, a property agent, informed David that he had found a buyer offering $5 million for the house.
They met on Sept 11, with Franklin intending to obtain David's signature on the Option to Purchase (OTP).
During this meeting, David said that he was not signing the OTP unless Franklin agreed to George and Jack each receiving $300,000 from the sale proceeds.
Franklin was asked to sign a handwritten note agreeing to this condition, which angered him and sparked an argument.
David walked away from the meeting without signing the OTP and without the handwritten note being signed by Franklin.
Minutes later, however, Franklin reached out to David and said he would sign the note.
The two brothers met again and both signed the handwritten note. Upon Franklin signing the note, David signed the OTP.
The next day, however, Franklin texted David to say he rejected and wholly disagreed with the note.
"I was signed under duress with your unknown hidden ulterior motive. Sorry," he wrote.
In response, David said he would also regard the OTP as having been invalidated.
Despite the disagreement, the sale of the Eng Kong Road property was completed in April 2022.
A $600,000 portion of the sales proceeds was deposited into a joint account, which requires both brothers to authorise any withdrawals.
David did not allow Franklin to withdraw any part of the $600,000, as Franklin had refused to authorise the disbursement of the $600,000 to George and Jack.
Franklin argued that the note was invalidated on two grounds: lack of consideration and economic duress and/or unconscionability.
He sought in court an order requiring David to release his share of the $600,000, along with compensation for the interest allegedly lost because the funds remained in the joint account.
Justice Christopher Tan noted David's co-operation and how it allowed for the sale to be completed in the manner parties had agreed upon.
The judge also found that David's decisions to proceed with the sale was something of value exchanged for Franklin's promise to give George and Jack $300,000 each from the sale proceeds, thus rejecting Franklin's argument about the note lacking consideration.
Justice Tan also rejected Franklin's contention that he had been improperly pressured into signing the agreement, finding that the evidence did not support a claim of economic duress.
He noted that Franklin had still proceeded with the transaction, despite his objections and iterated that Franklin would have still been able to pursue other options.
With all of these considerations, the court ultimately found the handwritten note to be a valid and enforceable agreement.
Justice Tan ordered that the $600,000 set aside from the $5 million property sale be paid out as agreed, with George and Jack receiving the promised $300,000 each.
Although the pair had been left out of their mother's will, Goerge and Jack will now receive payments through the separate agreement reached by their brothers, David and Franklin.
Franklin's bid to reclaim a share of the money and related losses was dismissed.
The dispute over the $600,000 forms just one part of a years-long family feud that erupted after their mother's death in 2012, with the brothers also clashing over rent, estate-related finances and a defamation suit.
[[nid:737547]]
