Myth Buster

Scenario

Abu was a businessman and married to his wife, Samah in year 2006. In the same year, Abu transferred two (2) of his bungalows to Samah without any consideration.

In year 2010, Abu was declared bankrupt. The Official Assignee of Abu claims that the said transfer should be void and thus falls under the authority of Official Assignee whilst Samah claims that the bungalows are hers. Which claims should be true??

Mythbusted.

Under section 52(1) of the Bankrutcy Act 1967, any transfer of property made by the bankrupt , in our case, Abu, shall be void against the insolvency department, ie: Official Assignee if Abu becomes bankrupt within 5 years after the said transfer of property, except for:-

  1. the settlement/transfer is made before and in consideration of marriage; or
  2. a settlement/transfer made in favour of a purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration; or
  3. a settlement/transfer made on or for the wife or children of the settler of property which has accrued to the settler after marriage in right of his wife,

In this case, it is the duty of Samah to prove to the court that the said transfer of bungalows fell under limb (1), i.e: The property is made in consideration of the marriage between Abu and Samah.

So, how much did you know about this Legal Myth?

Share with us your thoughts and feedback to us. Ask us a question on AskCA@Thursday or suggest a Myth Buster for us.

Thanks!