<TABLE id=msgUN cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - SG Elite Bitch wants big $$$ from hubby</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">kojakbt22 <NOBR>
</NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">Feb-24 6:04 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 30) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>7924.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Court chides divorcee, 60: Live within your means
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- headline one : end --></TD></TR><TR><TD>Her kids' huge expenses also reflect badly on her, says judge </TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- Author --></TD></TR><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By K C Vijayan, Law Correspondent
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- show image if available --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->
WHAT GOES OUT: She makes frequent purchases of jewellery and beauty treatments and wants $4,200 monthly from her ex-husband to maintain her lifestyle
WHAT GOES IN: Madam Pang gets a $1,907 monthly pension
SHE is a retired civil servant but she lived like a pampered wife, making frequent purchases of jewellery and beauty treatments.
What's more, Madam Rosaline Pang expected her former husband, also a retired civil servant, to pick up part of the tab for her expenses in maintenance for her and their son.
In a judgment released yesterday, a High Court judge said she was having none of it, and blasted the woman for living beyond her means and lacking 'good sense in money matters'.
Justice Lai Siu Chiu threw out Madam Pang's claim, and ticked off a list of reasons for doing so, not the least of which was the fact that the woman drew a monthly pension that was just $224 less than the $2,131 drawn by her former husband.
The judge also said Madam Pang had 'cleaned out' the monies in their joint account and withheld information on the rebates she had received when the Subaru family car was scrapped.
Three years ago, Madam Pang filed for divorce from her husband of 32 years, Mr Chan Kong Chin, alleging that he had behaved unreasonably. The divorce was uncontested.
In her written judgment to divide their assets, Justice Lai did not mince her words about Madam Pang's extravagant lifestyle.
Her monthly expenses exceeded $4,000 and, 'if they were to be believed', included frequent purchases of jewellery and beauty treatments which were 'hardly essential in the lifestyle of a 60-year-old retiree', said the judge.
The items listed in her monthly expenses included $227 on hairdressing, $500 on cosmetics and eye surgery twice a year at $480.
According to her former husband, who is also 60, she spent $62,356 from their joint account in two years, and she admitted that her major expenses throughout their marriage were cosmetics and beauty treatments.
Their accountancy-trained daughter, aged 31, works in London while the son, a 23-year-old polytechnic graduate, is doing his national service.
Madam Pang had sought a monthly maintenance of $4,200 for herself and $1,696 for her son.
'To say that she was extravagant and lived beyond her means would be an understatement,' said Justice Lai.
The judge said there was 'no reason' why the husband should pick up the tab for her extravagance and that she should 'cut her coat according to her cloth'.
Mr Chan's estimated monthly expenses at $2,400 were more realistic for a retiree living on a pension.
Justice Lai expressed amazement that their daughter chalked up $62,000 in credit card debt buying branded goods in her first year of work after graduation.
The daughter's 'equally extravagant' spending was a 'testament to the wife's poor parenting skills'.
She added that the couple's son had also 'undoubtedly been spoilt', judging by the monthly expenses she had listed for him. These included jeans, shirts, socks, mobile phone bills, haircuts, ice hockey membership fees, equipment and hockey practice and overseas tournaments.
'Awarding the son any maintenance at all would be sending him a wrong signal and would be condoning the lifestyle he led,' the judge said.
Justice Lai noted that since the son is now serving national service and gets a monthly allowance of $450 from the army, which also feeds and clothes him, there was no reason for the father to maintain him.
Mr Chan used to give him $480 a month but stopped after they had a spat more than a year ago.
But the judge ruled that Mr Chan would have to pay 80 per cent of the cost if the son opted to pursue a degree here or overseas after his army discharge, subject to the father's consent to his course of study.
This is to prevent the son, 'with the wife's encouragement', from pursuing impractical or useless courses at the husband's expense, said Justice Lai.
Madam Pang will still walk away from the acrimonious divorce with something to show for it.
She will get, among other things, some $780,000 from the sale of their two jointly owned houses valued at $2.45 million last August. She is appealing against the judgment.
[email protected]
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- headline one : end --></TD></TR><TR><TD>Her kids' huge expenses also reflect badly on her, says judge </TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- Author --></TD></TR><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By K C Vijayan, Law Correspondent
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- show image if available --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->
WHAT GOES OUT: She makes frequent purchases of jewellery and beauty treatments and wants $4,200 monthly from her ex-husband to maintain her lifestyle
WHAT GOES IN: Madam Pang gets a $1,907 monthly pension
SHE is a retired civil servant but she lived like a pampered wife, making frequent purchases of jewellery and beauty treatments.
What's more, Madam Rosaline Pang expected her former husband, also a retired civil servant, to pick up part of the tab for her expenses in maintenance for her and their son.
In a judgment released yesterday, a High Court judge said she was having none of it, and blasted the woman for living beyond her means and lacking 'good sense in money matters'.
Justice Lai Siu Chiu threw out Madam Pang's claim, and ticked off a list of reasons for doing so, not the least of which was the fact that the woman drew a monthly pension that was just $224 less than the $2,131 drawn by her former husband.
The judge also said Madam Pang had 'cleaned out' the monies in their joint account and withheld information on the rebates she had received when the Subaru family car was scrapped.
Three years ago, Madam Pang filed for divorce from her husband of 32 years, Mr Chan Kong Chin, alleging that he had behaved unreasonably. The divorce was uncontested.
In her written judgment to divide their assets, Justice Lai did not mince her words about Madam Pang's extravagant lifestyle.
Her monthly expenses exceeded $4,000 and, 'if they were to be believed', included frequent purchases of jewellery and beauty treatments which were 'hardly essential in the lifestyle of a 60-year-old retiree', said the judge.
The items listed in her monthly expenses included $227 on hairdressing, $500 on cosmetics and eye surgery twice a year at $480.
According to her former husband, who is also 60, she spent $62,356 from their joint account in two years, and she admitted that her major expenses throughout their marriage were cosmetics and beauty treatments.
Their accountancy-trained daughter, aged 31, works in London while the son, a 23-year-old polytechnic graduate, is doing his national service.
Madam Pang had sought a monthly maintenance of $4,200 for herself and $1,696 for her son.
'To say that she was extravagant and lived beyond her means would be an understatement,' said Justice Lai.
The judge said there was 'no reason' why the husband should pick up the tab for her extravagance and that she should 'cut her coat according to her cloth'.
Mr Chan's estimated monthly expenses at $2,400 were more realistic for a retiree living on a pension.
Justice Lai expressed amazement that their daughter chalked up $62,000 in credit card debt buying branded goods in her first year of work after graduation.
The daughter's 'equally extravagant' spending was a 'testament to the wife's poor parenting skills'.
She added that the couple's son had also 'undoubtedly been spoilt', judging by the monthly expenses she had listed for him. These included jeans, shirts, socks, mobile phone bills, haircuts, ice hockey membership fees, equipment and hockey practice and overseas tournaments.
'Awarding the son any maintenance at all would be sending him a wrong signal and would be condoning the lifestyle he led,' the judge said.
Justice Lai noted that since the son is now serving national service and gets a monthly allowance of $450 from the army, which also feeds and clothes him, there was no reason for the father to maintain him.
Mr Chan used to give him $480 a month but stopped after they had a spat more than a year ago.
But the judge ruled that Mr Chan would have to pay 80 per cent of the cost if the son opted to pursue a degree here or overseas after his army discharge, subject to the father's consent to his course of study.
This is to prevent the son, 'with the wife's encouragement', from pursuing impractical or useless courses at the husband's expense, said Justice Lai.
Madam Pang will still walk away from the acrimonious divorce with something to show for it.
She will get, among other things, some $780,000 from the sale of their two jointly owned houses valued at $2.45 million last August. She is appealing against the judgment.
[email protected]
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
