Young pple got no hope

[Rickster]

12 minutes ago, Sosaria said:

I know some 60+ yr old father with a kid just entering secondary school next year... this one married later in life through match-making agency. The mummy is 40+ on 2nd marriage and has a late 20s son back in china  who is himself married.

Some lives are just complicated but as long as happy, can liao lah

Yes, but that's not common. The vast majority of married couples would have tied the knot well before 40.

[Atonchia]

3 hours ago, Sosaria said:

I know some 60+ yr old father with a kid just entering secondary school next year... this one married later in life through match-making agency. The mummy is 40+ on 2nd marriage and has a late 20s son back in china  who is himself married.

Some lives are just complicated but as long as happy, can liao lah

At least the wife son from 1st marriage already settled down and stayed in China. So less complexity.

Usually issues arised on lywhen staying together😅

[Windwaver]

https://tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/blind-widow-84-recovers-nearly-137m-after-suing-her-two-younger-children

Blind widow, 84, recovers nearly $1.37m after suing her two younger children

A blind woman, 84, successfully sued two of her children to recover nearly $1.37 million owed from the rental and sale of her late husband’s shophouse.

On Oct 31, the High Court dismissed claims by her younger daughter S. Geetha Subramaniam and only son S. Mogan that their mother had gifted them $1.36 million of the proceeds, reprimanding them for their conduct in obtaining her signature for a gift document that no one else knew about except her son’s friend who handled the sale of the property.

The children, who were co-administrators of their father’s estate with their older sister, said they paid the remainder of the sum owed — about $6,400 — in cash to their mother Thamby Kannu Parvathi but could not recall the exact circumstances or details of the payment.

Ruling in favour of the widow, Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu said the pair exploited their mother’s blindness and advanced age.

The gift document was invalid as their mother was not aware she had given away her half of the Little India shophouse when she signed the document, the court held.

The shophouse, in Dunlop Road, was among several properties left by Madam Thamby’s husband Subramaniam Govindasamy when he died in 2013. 

The properties included four shophouses along Martaban Road in Balestier. Currently, Madam Thamby lives with the daughter of her estranged eldest daughter in one of these houses, while Ms Geetha and Mr Mogan separately occupy another two of these houses.

As the Little India shophouse had not been covered by Mr Subramaniam’s will, which had been prepared by Ms Geetha, his widow was entitled to half a share under the Intestate Succession Act.

In 2016, the property was sold for more than $2.6 million, with the sale completed on April 7, 2017 and the proceeds to be divided among the children and their mother.

A few days later, the widow signed the gift document – prepared by Ms Geetha – that stated that $1.36 million of her share of the sale proceeds would go to Ms Geetha and Mr Mogan.

Madam Thamby testified that in 2017 she asked Ms Geetha for her share of the sale proceeds, and again in 2018 or 2019.

When the widow was told by her younger daughter that she did not have a share in the sale proceeds, she approached her elder daughter in or around 2019 who told her mother that she should have received half of the sale proceeds, and took her to a lawyer.

After consulting her current lawyers, the widow took legal action against her two younger children, with her solicitors issuing a letter of demand dated Oct 18, 2019.

The siblings argued that after signing the gift document in 2017, Madam Thamby did nothing to dispute it for over two years, which was an indication that she intended to give away her share of the proceeds.

The judge disagreed with their reasoning, noting that while their mother could live independently, she needed help to venture out of her home, to find a lawyer and be taken to see them.

She determined it was highly unlikely that the widow had even been given a copy of the gift document the day after she signed it as Mr Mogan claimed.

Labelling the pair as “wholly unreliable”, the judge cited how the siblings claimed that the sale of the Dunlop Street property was first mooted on Oct 29, 2016, but this was contradicted by the agency agreement to sell the shophouse that Ms Geetha and Mr Mogan signed on Oct 1, 2016.

The property agent handling the sale, a friend of Mr Mogan’s, should not have witnessed the signing as he was not an independent third party who could be objective, the judge said.

He also confirmed that he did not read or know the contents of the gift document.

The contents of the gift document were incorrect and/or false, the judge said, adding that among other things, no evidence was produced to show that the siblings had taken care of their parents before their father’s death.

Said Justice Lai: “Even if the defendants and Geetha in particular took care of the deceased while he was alive, why should the plaintiff have to thank them on his behalf by forgoing her inheritance?

“The defendants seem to have put a very substantial price on their filial piety to their late father and to their surviving mother.”

[Ender]

On 11/4/2022 at 9:52 AM, Jman888 said:

i know a few friends who become father at 50 so i dun judge them, i think we have one here in mcf 

The thing of being a parents at older age is they tend to be quite protective （老来得子） hence the kid might not be matured and independent under such environment.

Daughter won't beat up father one. Some say in this modern day, having daughter better than son.

[Windwaver]

Driving without considering the driver's license, ran away from the traffic police

He was still learning how to drive, so he asked his girlfriend to let him drive. The 19-year-old boy was holding a temporary license while driving from the back port to the bridge and then went to the Long Island. When he saw a roadblock ahead, he attempted to abandon the car and ran away, and was arrested

19-year-old Liu (Tinton) yesterday pleaded guilty to three counts of evading autopsy, violating the temporary driving license ordinance and driving without third party insurance.

The investigation revealed that at 9 p.m. on May 5, the girlfriend of the accused drove to the open parking lot of Block 156 group house in Hougang 11th Street to look for the suspect.

At the time was asked if his girlfriend could let him drive, and after he promised, he picked up the keyboard to drive away.

At 12:23 in the morning, the accused was driving to Jinlongxi, and when he came to the Dong Pass of Hong Kong, he found a roadblock, immediately parked the car on the side of the road and ran away.

Traffic police pursued the sightings and arrested him less than 10 feet from the car. At the time, the accused had only a Provisional Driving License.

What kind of consequences are likely to face youth? Please go through the New Tomorrow newspaper column.

[mersaylee]

57 minutes ago, Windwaver said:

Driving without considering the driver's license, ran away from the traffic police

He was still learning how to drive, so he asked his girlfriend to let him drive. The 19-year-old boy was holding a temporary license while driving from the back port to the bridge and then went to the Long Island. When he saw a roadblock ahead, he attempted to abandon the car and ran away, and was arrested

19-year-old Liu (Tinton) yesterday pleaded guilty to three counts of evading autopsy, violating the temporary driving license ordinance and driving without third party insurance.

The investigation revealed that at 9 p.m. on May 5, the girlfriend of the accused drove to the open parking lot of Block 156 group house in Hougang 11th Street to look for the suspect.

At the time was asked if his girlfriend could let him drive, and after he promised, he picked up the keyboard to drive away.

At 12:23 in the morning, the accused was driving to Jinlongxi, and when he came to the Dong Pass of Hong Kong, he found a roadblock, immediately parked the car on the side of the road and ran away.

Traffic police pursued the sightings and arrested him less than 10 feet from the car. At the time, the accused had only a Provisional Driving License.

What kind of consequences are likely to face youth? Please go through the New Tomorrow newspaper column.

Definitely a worse runner than me...kena caught within 10 feet...haiz...youngsters these days...limpeh lao ren also could make mata mata run more than that then kena caught 😁

[Jman888]

1 minute ago, mersaylee said:

Definitely a worse runner than me...kena caught within 10 feet...haiz...youngsters these days...limpeh lao ren also could make mata mata run more than that then kena caught 😁

mata scare you fall down if they give chase, so they pretend to 'run' lah.

[Mustank]

1 hour ago, Windwaver said:

https://tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/blind-widow-84-recovers-nearly-137m-after-suing-her-two-younger-children

Blind widow, 84, recovers nearly $1.37m after suing her two younger children

A blind woman, 84, successfully sued two of her children to recover nearly $1.37 million owed from the rental and sale of her late husband’s shophouse.

On Oct 31, the High Court dismissed claims by her younger daughter S. Geetha Subramaniam and only son S. Mogan that their mother had gifted them $1.36 million of the proceeds, reprimanding them for their conduct in obtaining her signature for a gift document that no one else knew about except her son’s friend who handled the sale of the property.

The children, who were co-administrators of their father’s estate with their older sister, said they paid the remainder of the sum owed — about $6,400 — in cash to their mother Thamby Kannu Parvathi but could not recall the exact circumstances or details of the payment.

Ruling in favour of the widow, Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu said the pair exploited their mother’s blindness and advanced age.

The gift document was invalid as their mother was not aware she had given away her half of the Little India shophouse when she signed the document, the court held.

The shophouse, in Dunlop Road, was among several properties left by Madam Thamby’s husband Subramaniam Govindasamy when he died in 2013. 

The properties included four shophouses along Martaban Road in Balestier. Currently, Madam Thamby lives with the daughter of her estranged eldest daughter in one of these houses, while Ms Geetha and Mr Mogan separately occupy another two of these houses.

As the Little India shophouse had not been covered by Mr Subramaniam’s will, which had been prepared by Ms Geetha, his widow was entitled to half a share under the Intestate Succession Act.

In 2016, the property was sold for more than $2.6 million, with the sale completed on April 7, 2017 and the proceeds to be divided among the children and their mother.

A few days later, the widow signed the gift document – prepared by Ms Geetha – that stated that $1.36 million of her share of the sale proceeds would go to Ms Geetha and Mr Mogan.

Madam Thamby testified that in 2017 she asked Ms Geetha for her share of the sale proceeds, and again in 2018 or 2019.

When the widow was told by her younger daughter that she did not have a share in the sale proceeds, she approached her elder daughter in or around 2019 who told her mother that she should have received half of the sale proceeds, and took her to a lawyer.

After consulting her current lawyers, the widow took legal action against her two younger children, with her solicitors issuing a letter of demand dated Oct 18, 2019.

The siblings argued that after signing the gift document in 2017, Madam Thamby did nothing to dispute it for over two years, which was an indication that she intended to give away her share of the proceeds.

The judge disagreed with their reasoning, noting that while their mother could live independently, she needed help to venture out of her home, to find a lawyer and be taken to see them.

She determined it was highly unlikely that the widow had even been given a copy of the gift document the day after she signed it as Mr Mogan claimed.

Labelling the pair as “wholly unreliable”, the judge cited how the siblings claimed that the sale of the Dunlop Street property was first mooted on Oct 29, 2016, but this was contradicted by the agency agreement to sell the shophouse that Ms Geetha and Mr Mogan signed on Oct 1, 2016.

The property agent handling the sale, a friend of Mr Mogan’s, should not have witnessed the signing as he was not an independent third party who could be objective, the judge said.

He also confirmed that he did not read or know the contents of the gift document.

The contents of the gift document were incorrect and/or false, the judge said, adding that among other things, no evidence was produced to show that the siblings had taken care of their parents before their father’s death.

Said Justice Lai: “Even if the defendants and Geetha in particular took care of the deceased while he was alive, why should the plaintiff have to thank them on his behalf by forgoing her inheritance?

“The defendants seem to have put a very substantial price on their filial piety to their late father and to their surviving mother.”

Wah!!! Really like this also have! 
 

got money better put cpf life

Edited November 8, 2022 by Mustank

[Watwheels]

17 minutes ago, mersaylee said:

Definitely a worse runner than me...kena caught within 10 feet...haiz...youngsters these days...limpeh lao ren also could make mata mata run more than that then kena caught 😁

It is 10 steps. LoL...

At least he is not those drunk drivers. Those are the worst.

But his gf quite satki, so young got car liao. Dunno how old and chio or not. Skali she is much older and in her 20s. I think she will be implicated too cos it is her car.

[mersaylee]

18 minutes ago, Jman888 said:

mata scare you fall down if they give chase, so they pretend to 'run' lah.

I tink mata mata laugh first before they run...to avoid internal injury...run and laugh at the same time not so healthy 😅

[Throttle2]

When you are so old and blind, why would you need the money? You need the care of your children.  This lady very sad life.  Need to sue children. 

[Windwaver]

2 hours ago, Throttle2 said:

When you are so old and blind, why would you need the money? You need the care of your children.  This lady very sad life.  Need to sue children. 

Yeah, really sad case. Moral of the story is rich people also not enough $$ 

[Volvobrick]

2 hours ago, Throttle2 said:

When you are so old and blind, why would you need the money? You need the care of your children.  This lady very sad life.  Need to sue children. 

Family issues outsiders won't understand. Maybe she wants to give to her favourite kids/grand kids/other relatives or simply doesn't like to be cheated and carry the anger to the grave. 

 

[Throttle2]

37 minutes ago, Volvobrick said:

Family issues outsiders won't understand. Maybe she wants to give to her favourite kids/grand kids/other relatives or simply doesn't like to be cheated and carry the anger to the grave. 

 

Thats why i said sad

[Arogab]

Where is TS?? What happen after 10 over years 😂