High Court rules son must return house bought with parents’ savings

Gongzhao Wang and Manling Xu had to take their son, Xin Wang, to the High Court to get the house they paid for transferred into their names. Photo / 123RF

A couple transferred their life savings to their son to buy a house for them in New Zealand so they could retire, only for him to claim the property was a gift, rent it out, and then try to sell it.

They then had to take their own son to the High Court to have the property transferred into their names after he refused to hand over the keys to the property.

Now, the High Court at Auckland has ordered Xin Wang sign the property over to his parents, Gongzhao Wang and Manling Xu, pay off a loan he took using the house as security and pay his parents some of the rental income he earned from it.

A recently released ruling from the court says Xin’s parents offered to buy his home in Te Atatū after he separated from his wife. He then entered into a verbal agreement to sell it to them.

The parents then paid off the mortgage and paid out Xin’s ex-wife for her $85,000 contribution to the original purchase.

The property was registered under Xin’s name because his parents assumed they couldn’t buy property in NZ without first becoming residents.

But, the decision says they did so on the understanding Xin would transfer it to them once they obtained their visas, with the plan being that they would retire in New Zealand.

They paid $447,000, which was the culmination of them selling two properties in China as well as their retirement savings.

Xin denies that this agreement occurred, saying there was never any discussion, let alone agreement, regarding his parents purchasing the property.

‘I have given everything to you my entire life’

In 2018, nearly 10 years later, the couple moved to New Zealand.

Xin had been renting out the property since 2015 at $630 a week and had kept the income from it to support himself.

He also took a $34,000 loan out using the property as security without telling his parents, then refinanced that loan to obtain a total of $81,000.

Xin married his second wife, Xiaoyu Wen, in 2016 and through a family trust purchased a home in Flat Bush. This became their family home.

When his parents moved to New Zealand to start their residential visas they lived with their son in Flat Bush because the Te Atatū property was rented out.

Xin told them in 2020, when they asked if they could move into the house they paid for, that they couldn’t because he needed the rental income from it.

Following that discussion, his mother sent him a message via WeChat.

“Xin, I am sure you didn’t come up with this idea. So heartless! It’s like shutting off our retreat,” the translated message said.

“If we comply with you guys and use all our already meagre pension to pay rent, we will be in a constant state of anxiety for the days ahead, unsure of where to find money if we fall ill. Will you provide it? You certainly won’t.”

His mother said she and her husband had given Xin their “lifelong hard-earned money” which he had benefited from over the years.

It's traditional to give red envelopes containing money on Chinese New Year. Photo / Michael Craig

“Yet now, we have a house but can’t live in it and still have to pay rent elsewhere. This wouldn’t make sense to anyone! … I have given everything to you my entire life, and you know that, and you also know that now [we end up being] poor.”

The relationship between Xin and his parents broke down even further after his wife and mother had an argument. Because of this, he asked them to move out of his Flat Bush home into alternative rented accommodation.

In January 2022, Xin claimed his parents had shamed him by giving his children an insultingly small amount of money for Chinese New Year.

Xin says that it was after these incidents that the plaintiffs first alleged that the Te Atatū property belonged to them. He claims that the plaintiffs did so to “take revenge” for him siding with his wife.

Then, in March, he engaged a realtor to sell the property without his parents’ permission, and they had to lodge a caveat to stop him.

‘Financial suicide’

Xin denies there was any agreement regarding the property. He says there was no discussion regarding the purchase of the property by his parents. He says that the $447,361.05 paid to him by the plaintiffs was a gift.

Xin also lodged a counterclaim against his parents that he should have been the recipient of the money they made from selling one of their homes to buy the Te Atatū property, because the title had been in his name.

His parents say the title was in his name so that he could inherit it when they passed away, and to make that inheritance process easier, but they never intended to gift it to him while they still lived.

The couple took Xin to the High Court at Auckland earlier this year to prove that they owned the property, despite it being in their son’s name and there being no written agreement.

The parents took their claim to get their house back to the High Court at Auckland earlier this year. Photo / Craig Kapitan

They told the court that all reasonable people want is financial stability in retirement so it is implausible that they would gift all their retirement savings to their son, and doing so would amount to “financial suicide”.

Instead, they say the more likely explanation is that they transferred the $447,361.05 because they relied on the verbal agreement between themselves and their son.

They also relied on the concept of “filial piety” which is a concept of Chinese culture where children are expected to look after their parents in their old age. They say that, in light of this concept, it is inconceivable they would have made a significant gift to an adult child with no strings attached.

Justice Greg Blanchard agreed wholly with the parents that they were the owners of the Te Atatū property, because they had sunk most of their retirement savings into it.

“I do not think they would have done this had there not been an agreement with Xin that, in due course, he would transfer the property to them,” Justice Blanchard said.

Xin argued that even if there had been an agreement, it would not have been legally binding. He argued that the concept of filial piety came into play and that he had a moral obligation to look after his parent’s interests, and this obligation would have protected them above and beyond any legal agreement.

“I do not accept Xin’s argument,” Justice Blanchard said in his ruling.

“$447,361.05 is a very substantial sum of money. I do not think that the plaintiffs would have reached an agreement with Xin that involved them parting with a sum of money of this order without having the intention that it would be legally enforceable in the event that enforcement became necessary, even if that event was unlikely to arise.

“This is particularly when the sum of money was all their retirement savings.”

Justice Blanchard also ordered that Xin repay the loan he had taken out using the property as security and pay a portion of the rental income he had received from tenants.

The couple declined to comment via their counsel, Kenneth Sun.

Xin could not be reached for comment.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.