Due to conflicts between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, the son did not call the mother for 3 years, and the single mother sued the son to return 3.7 million yuan of the purchase price for the wedding house | payment | purchase price

After purchasing a wedding house for my son,

The mother believes that her son has not been filial for many years,

Therefore, it will be brought to court,

Requesting him to return the purchase price.

On August 14th,

The reporter learned from the Dongcheng Court in Beijing that,

Recently, the court ruled that,

The purchase price of 3.7 million yuan should be refunded.

Conflict between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law

My son hasn't called his mother in three years

Yang Qing is a single mother who previously owned a house located in Dongcheng District, Beijing. Yang Yang is Yang Qing's only son. Before studying abroad, he and his mother lived in this house.

In 2017, Yang Yang, who had studied abroad and returned to China, started working. Thinking that her son was of marriageable age and her own house was relatively small in size, Yang Qing decided to sell her house and exchange the proceeds for a larger one to live with her son's family in the future.

In May 2018, Yang Qing successfully sold her house for 3.7 million yuan. Afterwards, Yang Qing transferred the money to Yang Yang in multiple installments to purchase a larger house in Tongzhou District. In September of that year, Yang Yang obtained the property ownership certificate of the house, which stated that the house was solely owned by Yang Yang.

In June 2019, Yang Yang got married and Yang Qing lived with Yang Yang and his wife in a newly purchased house. Not long after marriage, the daughter-in-law had conflicts with her mother-in-law Yang Qing over daily trivial matters. Afterwards, the conflict between the two sides continued to escalate, and the relationship between Yang Yang and Yang Qing deteriorated. Yang Yang and his wife immediately moved out.

In October 2019, Yang Yang's wife had another argument with Yang Qing. In a fit of anger, Yang Yang blocked Yang Qing's WeChat account.

For over three years afterwards, there was no further communication between Yang Yang and Yang Qing. Yang Yang did not even make a phone call to his mother, and everything was conveyed through other relatives. Yang Yang has also repeatedly expressed to his relatives that he hopes his mother can move out of the house.

In 2022, as his nearly three-year-old daughter reached the age to attend kindergarten, Yang Yang sent a WeChat message to his grandmother proposing three solutions. The third solution clearly stated: "Sell the house in Tongzhou, have my mother use the money she used to sell the house to exchange for another house, and I will save money to buy another house."

Yang Yang also stated on WeChat that if his mother disagrees with all three options, he will consider suing in court.

Mother sues her son for the purchase price

Seeing her son's WeChat, Yang Qing felt very cold hearted. She was worried that if Yang Yang sued herself, she would end up homeless, so she sued the Dongcheng Court and demanded that Yang Yang return the purchase price of 3.7 million yuan for future retirement.

During the trial, Yang Qing and her son Yang Yang each had their own opinions on the nature of the money. Yang Qing believes that she has never stated that 3.7 million yuan was gifted to Yang Yang and should be recognized as a loan; Yang Yang believes that this 3.7 million yuan was gifted to him by his mother.

Yang Qing stated that due to the parent-child relationship, no loan agreement or promissory note was signed. Although it is normal for parents to provide financial assistance to their children when they purchase a house when their economic conditions are limited, this cannot be taken for granted, nor is it advocated by the law, otherwise it seriously violates the concept of legal fairness and justice.

After the children reach adulthood, the parents have fulfilled their obligation to support them and have no obligation to continue providing support. When parents contribute to buying a house for their children, unless it is explicitly stated as a gift, it should be considered as a temporary loan of funds for the purpose of assistance, and the children have an obligation to repay.

Yang Qing also stated that she no longer has a house under her name, and her son has a strained relationship with her. She has no right to dispose of the house under Yang Yang's name and is at risk of being kicked out at any time. During the trial, Yang Qing submitted evidence such as transfer records, bank statements, and WeChat chat records.

Yang Yang believes that there is no loan relationship between him and his mother. His mother sold the house to buy him a wedding house, and he never intended to borrow money from his mother. There were no written documents or verbal agreements such as promissory notes, receipts, or loan contracts between the two parties. In addition, his mother never urged him for the money.

Therefore, Yang Yang believes that this money was gifted to him by his mother. Yang Yang said that when Yang Qing transferred the money, she was preparing to get married. As a mother, it is a custom to buy a property for her child, and this money will also serve as the starting fund for a new family, as a mother's support and gift for her child to start a new life. In cases where the intention expressed at the time of capital contribution is unclear, it should be recognized as a gift based on social norms.

Court ruling:

3.7 million yuan of purchase price should be refunded

The Dongcheng Court held that the focus of controversy in this case is how to determine the nature of the 3.7 million yuan payment made by Yang Qing to her son Yang Yang.

From the perspective of legal provisions, in this case, Yang Qing claimed that the 3.7 million yuan amount was of a loan nature based on the transfer voucher and the WeChat record sent by Yang Yang to her grandmother. Yang Yang argued that the amount was of a gift nature and should bear the burden of proof.

According to relevant laws and regulations, the standard of proof for gift facts is higher than that of general facts to be proven, and it needs to reach the level of excluding reasonable doubt.

The judge stated that in the case, Yang Yang had no evidence to prove that his mother had clearly expressed the intention that the money involved in the case was a gift. It was only inferred that the money involved in the case was a gift based on their mother son relationship and the fact that the money was used to purchase their wedding house.

In this regard, the court held that Yang Yang clearly stated in his chat records with his grandmother that "I will sell the house in Tongzhou and have my mother exchange it for the money she used to sell, and I will save money to buy another house." This indicates that Yang Yang agrees to return the 3.7 million yuan involved in the case to Yang Qing. Therefore, Yang Yang's defense that the money involved in the case is a gift cannot reach the level of excluding reasonable suspicion, and the fact of the gift is difficult to establish.

In addition, the judge stated that from an ethical and human perspective, it is common for parents to invest in buying a house as a gift for their children. However, it is not their legal obligation for parents to support their children in purchasing a house. After the children reach adulthood, parents have fulfilled their obligation to support them and have no further responsibility to provide support.

On the contrary, according to Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly, adult children have a legal obligation to support, assist, and protect their parents. If parents give all their financial support to their children to buy a house, but the children do not fulfill their obligation to support them, and the court still presumes that the investment is in the nature of a gift, it is obviously unfair to parents and there is an illegal concept of fairness and justice.

In this case, Yang Qing, as a single mother, sold her original house and had no real estate under her name. However, her son Yang Yang had not contacted his mother for more than three years due to conflicts between his wife and mother, and did not fulfill his obligation to support his children.

If the money involved in the case is recognized as a gift, in the case of a strained mother child relationship, the mother not only has no savings but may also face the risk of being kicked out of the house by her son. Therefore, from the perspective of balancing interests, the nature of the money involved should not be recognized as a gift.

Finally, the Dongcheng Court determined that the 3.7 million yuan paid by Yang Qing to Yang Yang should be a loan, and ruled that Yang Yang should return the principal of the loan of 3.7 million yuan.