The retired sergeant pursued his son’s ownership rights, the father called the mortgage application and the son retorted that he had not asked for contributions

Social News

Written by: Zhu Dixin

2020-10-12 19:54

Last update date: 2020-10-12 19:54

The 70-year-old retired police chief claimed that when he bought a flat in Sham Shui Po in 1994, he was about to retire at that time. He was worried about not being able to apply for a mortgage from the bank, so he bought the property jointly with his eldest son. He paid the cost of buying the property, but later he asked his son to change his name and entered. Filed a lawsuit, the case is heard in the High Court today (12th).

The police chief said that when he bought the property, he had prepared the property as a residence for him and his wife to return to the old for a hundred years, but he asked his son to return the property, but his son refused.

The son’s lawyer pointed out that the sheriff had not mentioned the difficulty of applying for the mortgage back then, and pointed out that the sheriff had not asked for his son’s contribution, and that he had given his son the title.

The sheriff denied the statement, and even denounced his son for rebelliousness and rebellion.

The plaintiff Li Hantian (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), and the defendant is Li Zineng (hereinafter referred to as the defendant).

Alleged that the defendant was only entrusted to hold the title

The plaintiff purchased the Sham Shui Po Loonian Garden unit of the Housing Society for RMB 2.08 million in 1994.

At that time, the plaintiff expected that he would retire in a few years, and he and the defendant jointly became the owner of the unit in order to apply for a bank mortgage.

However, the plaintiff claimed that he paid for the unit and the defendant was only entrusted with holding the title. Earlier reports indicated that the current market value of the unit was close to 10 million yuan.

The 77-year-old plaintiff today confessed that when he bought the involved unit, he wanted to use his wife for the elderly, but the bank required the unit to jointly hold it before granting the mortgage, so he and the defendant jointly purchased the unit.

He emphasized that the defendant only held it on his behalf, and he was the actual owner of the property.

The plaintiff, Li Hantian, claimed that he bought a property in Sham Shui Po before retirement and originally wanted to use it as a home for his wife.

(New photo by Zhu Di)

The defendant stated that he was not required to contribute

The defendant’s lawyer stated that the plaintiff had never indicated to the defendant that it was difficult to apply for a mortgage and added the defendant’s name as the owner of the unit.

The defendant's lawyer also pointed out that the plaintiff did not have the defendant to contribute to the unit at the time of the case because the title was given to the defendant.

The plaintiff denied them all in court.

Alleged that the defendant opposed the monopoly of oral ownership

The defendant’s lawyer continued to question why the plaintiff did not ask the defendant to return the title at that time because the mortgage payment for the relevant property was paid off in 1998.

The plaintiff explained that he believed that the defendant would return the title at any time, so he did not make a request at that time, and said: "I know that I will turn back and disobey." He also pointed out that his son wanted to monopolize the entire title.

Recognize that the patriarch has no respect for the defendant's disobedience

When asked why the defendant was not required to surrender the title when the second will was made in 2017, the plaintiff stated: "There was no disobedience and disobedience at the time."

The plaintiff also revealed that he is an indigenous inhabitant of Lamma Island, with a more traditional mindset and patriarchal patriarch.

However, the defendant’s lawyer stated that the plaintiff had assisted the defendant financially. For example, in 1999, the defendant had given 400,000 yuan to the defendant to buy the property.

The plaintiff emphasized that the money was a loan.

The case continues.

Case Number: HCA 744/2018

Li Guozhang's sister filed for ownership of flats and parking spaces in Mid-Levels

[Tapu Wife Beheading Case] ​​The doppelganger provokes the murderous wife to own the ownership of the big house and her husband owns multiple companies

01News

Off-duty Police Property Rights Court