SINGAPORE, July 6 — Two high-stakes divorce cases in Singapore have shone a spotlight on the costly consequences of ghosting court proceedings — with one woman walking away from a potential half a million dollars, and a man’s new wife getting tangled in a failed plot to grab an HDB flat.

In the first case, The Straits Times reported that a 40-year-old Taiwanese woman who married a Singaporean millionaire nearly 20 years her senior lost out on a potential share of his S$10 million fortune (RM33.1 million) — all because she repeatedly failed to show up in court.

The whirlwind marriage began in December 2019 after a brief long-distance romance. Her husband, now 58, held a senior corporate role with an annual salary of nearly S$800,000. But just six months after moving to Singapore, she packed her bags for Taiwan, citing boredom and an unwillingness to do housework.

When her husband pleaded for her return, she asked for “an expensive house” instead. He didn’t bite, but did wire her S$19,300 as a compromise.

She returned in early 2021, but left again just weeks later. The marriage had effectively collapsed, and communication stopped altogether by May that year.

Despite clear signs she wanted a payout — and the Family Justice Court transferring the case to the High Court to safeguard her interests — the woman ignored multiple mediation sessions and failed to submit proper documents. She even abruptly logged off a Zoom hearing and never returned.

In the end, the High Court awarded her a token sum of S$5,000 — a fraction of what a modest 3 to 5 per cent share of her ex-husband’s estate would have brought her.

Justice Choo Han Teck noted the man’s assets included a S$4 million home, and even after subtracting liabilities, his net worth stood at about S$6.5 million. But with the woman absent and uncooperative, “there was nothing that can be awarded to her”.

The judge also offered some dry encouragement to the man, who had said he was seeking peace and companionship in his “sunset years”: “Fifty-eight is hardly sunset; it is more like mid-afternoon, so there should be no rush in looking for wife No. 3.”

Flat-out failure

In another cautionary tale, also reported by The Straits Times, another no-show spouse who plotted to seize full control of his HDB flat while eyeing remarriage ended up losing it entirely — and having to refund his new wife S$200,000.

The man had borrowed that sum from his girlfriend to top up his wife’s CPF account, which he then used to clear the outstanding loan on their jointly owned flat. But the plan backfired when the wife discovered his affair and filed for divorce at the Shariah Court.

Even though he tried to claim a share of the flat, the man failed to attend a single hearing. The court ordered the flat to be sold and awarded all proceeds to the wife.

He later tried to reverse the ruling but managed only to claw back S$125,000 from the wife — prompting his new partner, now his wife, to appeal in a bid to recover the full S$200,000.

The result? The Appeal Board reinstated the original decision: 100 per cent of the flat’s value went to the ex-wife, and the new wife was told to sue in civil court.

That civil court win finally restored the S$200,000 — but with a twist: her husband, not the ex-wife, had to pay her back. The court ruled that the ex-wife had simply followed her then-husband’s “puzzling plan” and was not at fault.