The Court of Final Appel (TUI) said in a statement yesterday that a son and his girlfriend who sold his parents’ flat at a very low price must pay the latter the unit’s market price as compensation.
According to the statement, the son’s mother, “A” and her family wanted to buy a bigger flat on January 7, 2010 for HK$1.66 million but her mortgage application was rejected because she was “too old”. The statement noted that “A” made a verbal agreement with her offspring according to which her son “B” would sign the mortgage and her daughter “C” would be the guarantor. The statement underlined that the agreement pointed out that each month “B” and “C” would pay the monthly mortgage as a way to share the household’s expenses, adding that the agreement identified “A” and “B” as the flat’s joint owners.
The statement said that after “A” bought the flat, she made two payments, HK$150,000 and HK$210,000, to the seller and also paid a lawyer 45,360 patacas. The statement pointed out that after becoming the owners of the flat, her family –her husband “D”, “C” and “B” as well as “B’s” girlfriend “E” – started living there.
However, the statement pointed out that in 2012, “A” and “E” got into an argument, and “B” and “E” then moved out of the flat. The statement added that “B” and “E” entered into a common-law marriage in November 2012 but a year after they had to move back into the family flat due to a rent increase on the flat where they had been living. The statement said that “B” and his girlfriend still had a poor relationship with “A”.
In 2014, the statement underlined, “B” and “E” wanted to sell the flat but the family refused. “B” and “E” ignored their objections and insisted on selling the flat for 3,189,900 patacas to “F” and “G”, adding that “B” and “E” then kept all the money. When “A” knew of the sale, she took legal action to deem the property deal between “B” and “E” and “F” and “G” invalid and wanted “B” to compensate her with 3,445,529.40 patacas.
The Court of First Instance (TJB) ruled that “B” and “E” had to pay “A” 2.996 million patacas along with the interest as compensation. “B” and “E” were dissatisfied with the ruling and appealed to the Court of Second Instance (TSI) but that court rejected their appeal so they the appealed to the Court of Final Appeal.
The statement said that the TUI panel of judges pointed out that “B” did not fulfil his verbal promise to “A” about being the co-owners of the flat, and “B’s” breach of contract caused “A” a financial loss. The panel of judges also underlined that “B” sold the flat for almost half of the market price, when it could have been sold for at least 5.992 million patacas.
The statement added that “A” did not take part in the price setting process, and “B” and “E” sold “A’s” family home without consulting her. The statement said that as “A” did not just lose money but also a place to live, it is only fair that “B” needed to compensate “A” for the loss according to the flat’s market price. Therefore, the statement underlined that the court rejected “B’s” appeal and he needs to pay “A” 2.996 million patacas plus the legal rate of interest.
