Bad kids
Master Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2016
- Messages
- 2,753
- Reaction score
- 1,076
And generally do this kind of things; at the expense of other…I know of people who are greedy… wanted more and more than what they can simply spend

And generally do this kind of things; at the expense of other…I know of people who are greedy… wanted more and more than what they can simply spend
The 90-year-old businessman, who is illiterate, got caught up in this dispute only because he wanted to use the proceeds from the sale of four investment properties to buy a home for a grandson.At 90 so much money still bring over to the other side?
I guess only her parent would know. The Judge has avoided commenting on this aspect too. It would be unfair for outsiders to comment and make a general statement based on this case alone..清官难判家务事。。Sometimes, we have to consider that the above statement applies to our own mothers, wives, siblings and children.See lah. Have daughter is as good as don't have
![]()
真的是一块又大又肥的叉烧A real estate tycoon who liked to buy property for his children became entangled in a bitter lawsuit when one of his daughters ironically claimed that she was a co-owner of his own investment properties.
The 90-year-old businessman, who is illiterate, got caught up in this dispute only because he wanted to use the proceeds from the sale of four investment properties to buy a home for a grandson.
It was then that he discovered that he was not the sole owner of these properties.
His youngest daughter, who helped him with the paperwork for the purchase of the homes for around $11 million in all between 2004 and 2018, had also inserted her name as a co-owner. This was on top of the five homes she already owned in her own name.
To make matters worse, the daughter objected to the sale, claiming that all four homes, which are likely to be worth a lot more today, were hers as they were gifts from her father.
The elderly man was so upset that he sued his daughter to reclaim the properties.
He related his case in the Hokkien dialect and struck High Court Judge Choo Han Teck as a credible witness who testified without embellishment or deception.
Justice Choo not only found that the man had bought the four properties for himself as investments, but he also believed his claim that his daughter had taken advantage of his inability to read by putting her name on the title deeds.
The daughter argued that her name was included as a co-owner because her father had intended to give her these properties. But this claim did not gel with her father's practice of buying properties for each of his six children in their own names.
Indeed, this daughter had five properties purchased in her name by her father, of which three have since been sold.
"That exposes the flaw in (her) contention that the (father) gave the four properties to her as joint tenant," Justice Choo added.
"Were that his intention, he would have given them to her in her sole name, just as he did with those five properties and all the ones he gave to his other children."
So he ruled that the four disputed properties were solely owned by the father and that his daughter was merely holding them for him. He also gave the order to sell the four properties according to the father's wishes.
Justice Choo said: "The defendant describes herself as a filial daughter. It is a description open to debate, depending on whether one thinks that a filial child would surrender to the parents what her parents want, regardless of whether the child thinks it fair or deserving."
But this was a "philosophical issue", and the father did not need extrajudicial considerations to bolster his case because he managed to prove his claim adequately.
The evidence suggested that the family was a "close-knit" one until the father chose to make more gifts by selling his own properties. "Even the tapestry of close-knit families can be unravelled by greed," Justice Choo noted.
Continue reading: https://www.tnp.sg/news/woman-5-properties-wanted-elderly-dads-4-homes
Char siews,char siews everywhere.A real estate tycoon who liked to buy property for his children became entangled in a bitter lawsuit when one of his daughters ironically claimed that she was a co-owner of his own investment properties.
The 90-year-old businessman, who is illiterate, got caught up in this dispute only because he wanted to use the proceeds from the sale of four investment properties to buy a home for a grandson.
It was then that he discovered that he was not the sole owner of these properties.
His youngest daughter, who helped him with the paperwork for the purchase of the homes for around $11 million in all between 2004 and 2018, had also inserted her name as a co-owner. This was on top of the five homes she already owned in her own name.
To make matters worse, the daughter objected to the sale, claiming that all four homes, which are likely to be worth a lot more today, were hers as they were gifts from her father.
The elderly man was so upset that he sued his daughter to reclaim the properties.
He related his case in the Hokkien dialect and struck High Court Judge Choo Han Teck as a credible witness who testified without embellishment or deception.
Justice Choo not only found that the man had bought the four properties for himself as investments, but he also believed his claim that his daughter had taken advantage of his inability to read by putting her name on the title deeds.
The daughter argued that her name was included as a co-owner because her father had intended to give her these properties. But this claim did not gel with her father's practice of buying properties for each of his six children in their own names.
Indeed, this daughter had five properties purchased in her name by her father, of which three have since been sold.
"That exposes the flaw in (her) contention that the (father) gave the four properties to her as joint tenant," Justice Choo added.
"Were that his intention, he would have given them to her in her sole name, just as he did with those five properties and all the ones he gave to his other children."
So he ruled that the four disputed properties were solely owned by the father and that his daughter was merely holding them for him. He also gave the order to sell the four properties according to the father's wishes.
Justice Choo said: "The defendant describes herself as a filial daughter. It is a description open to debate, depending on whether one thinks that a filial child would surrender to the parents what her parents want, regardless of whether the child thinks it fair or deserving."
But this was a "philosophical issue", and the father did not need extrajudicial considerations to bolster his case because he managed to prove his claim adequately.
The evidence suggested that the family was a "close-knit" one until the father chose to make more gifts by selling his own properties. "Even the tapestry of close-knit families can be unravelled by greed," Justice Choo noted.
Continue reading: https://www.tnp.sg/news/woman-5-properties-wanted-elderly-dads-4-homes
Then we fnb n consumers suffering for their sinsLandlord raised landlord children
Causality. Or as some call it, karma.
i guess some EDMWers also hidden multimillionaires with 10 propertiesUncle JSKM. Bought more than 10 properties.
I bet the dad now wished he didnt bring this greedy shitty daughter into this world.
Like what he said it's in the genesLandlord raised landlord children
Causality. Or as some call it, karma.
I guess only her parent would know. The Judge has avoided commenting on this aspect too. It would be unfair for outsiders to comment and make a general statement based on this case alone..清官难判家务事。。Sometimes, we have to consider that the above statement applies to our own mothers, wives, siblings and children.
"Justice Choo said: "The defendant describes herself as a filial daughter. It is a description open to debate, depending on whether one thinks that a filial child would surrender to the parents what her parents want, regardless of whether the child thinks it fair or deserving.""