Widow wins suit against son over RM204K insurance proceeds

High Court rules the son’s management of the funds did not alter the fact of its ownership.

The High Court has ruled that Ang Ee Mooi was the beneficial owner of the funds following the death of her husband, Chan Ah Chai, and that their two sons held them in trust for her.

SHAH ALAM:

 The High Court here has ruled that RM204,000 in insurance proceeds, left to an 80‑year‑old widow by her late husband, belong solely to her, with the sum — presently placed in four fixed deposits — held in trust by her sons for her benefit.

Justice Choong Yeow Choy said Ang Ee Mooi, though elderly and visibly distressed, gave clear and consistent testimony establishing her ownership of the AIA insurance proceeds.

“Her testimony withstood cross-examination,” the judge said in allowing the suit brought by Ang and her son, Chan Hooi Hwa, 57, as plaintiffs.

The mother and son filed the lawsuit against her younger son, Chan Hooi Boon, 54, whose own counterclaim was dismissed.

In his 11-page judgment, Choong described Ang as a woman in her twilight years who had led a fortunate life.

He noted how she was blessed with seven children and a devoted husband who, during his lifetime, had taken out the insurance policy naming her as sole beneficiary.

“But fortune, it seems, has its irony. For in her later years, she now stands before this court in an unfortunate position: compelled to litigate against one of her own children over the very proceeds of that policy,” he said.

Chong said he merely had to decide if the money kept in the fixed deposits belonged to Ang or the family collectively for emergency use.

He said the plaintiffs had proved that Ang received RM203,747.95 in insurance proceeds from AIA in 2013 following the death of her husband, Chan Ah Chai, a year earlier, as established by undisputed documentary evidence.

According to the judge the plaintiffs further proved that Ang only entrusted the management of the money to Hooi Boon.

The judge dismissed Hooi Boon’s claim that the funds were a family pool set up by Ang’s children.

“(Hooi Boon’s) assertion that he contributed cash to this family fund was unsupported by any receipts, bank documentation, or independent corroboration,” said Choong.

He added that the subsequent management of the funds — including reinvestment, renewal, and mixing with a small portion of Hooi Boon’s own money for higher interest — did not alter the source of ownership.

Occasional small withdrawals made at Ang’s direction also did not change her status as the beneficial owner.

“The funds are therefore trust monies belonging beneficially to the first plaintiff (Ang) and held by the second plaintiff (Hooi Hwa) and the defendant (Hooi Boon) as trustees,” he said.

In court, four of her children supported Ang’s version of events while only a sister supported Hooi Boon.

Another sibling did not testify due to overseas commitments.

Lawyer Ng Siew Hoon appeared for Ang and Hooi Hwa while Ler Lian Heng represented Hooi Boon. - FMT