news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

in an aging society, individuals establishing support relationships with others through contracts is a useful supplement to the social pension mechanism.many lonely elderly people ensure the quality of their lives in their later years by signing support and property donation agreements with others.

however,a 90-year-old man in shanghai, after establishing a support and property donation relationship with a young colleague for more than ten years, suddenly announced the cancellation of the donation due to changes in his personal marital relationship.can the elderly’s decision be supported by the court?

more than ten years after giving away the house, the old man regretted it

tan lao (pseudonym) is an elderly man born in the 1920s. because of his poor relationship with his children, in 2005, tan lao signed a "support and property donation agreement" with his colleague gu mingli (pseudonym) and his family.

in this agreement written by mr. tan himself, mr. tan said that although he had not established a clear support relationship with gu mingli's family over the past decade, the gu family had already taken care of many aspects of support. therefore, he wanted to determine the ownership of the property through legal means.

in this agreement, mr. tan stated,once i pass away, the house and all the belongings in the house will belong to gu mingli and his wife.at the same time, the gu family must fulfill their obligation to support mr. tan. mr. tan listed his needs in the agreement, which are mainly spiritual, including that the gu family needs to keep in touch with mr. tan by phone, visit him once a week, and care about his clothes and daily necessities. if mr. tan encounters difficulties in life, the gu family needs to pay more attention to him.

in addition to this agreement, around 2004, mr. tan also made a will, in which he stated:"since my children have not fulfilled their obligation and responsibility to support me, it is necessary to make arrangements for my property after my death. i hereby make this will. my house and all the furnishings and items in it will all belong to mr. and mrs. gu mingli.because they helped me through my injuries and illnesses with love and care that was better than that of my own family, paid attention to my daily life, and did many things to help me live a fulfilling and happy life and spend my later years in peace. "

in 2005, mr. tan signed a house sale contract with the gu family and sold the house under his name to the gu family for 200,000 yuan. although it was a sale, the gu family never paid mr. tan for the house, and mr. tan never moved out of the house.

in 2018, 14 years after the two parties established a support relationship,at the age of 93, mr. tan found his life partner. the relationship between the gu family and mr. tan changed.

after that, mr. tan filed lawsuits with the court several times in 2019 and 2021, saying that he never knew that his house had been transferred to the name of the gu family. he hoped that the court would rule that the previous "house transfer contract" was invalid and that the house belonged to mr. tan. in 2021, during the litigation process, the gu family filed a counterclaim, requesting the court to order mr. tan to move out and return the disputed house, and pay the house usage fee from january 2006 to the actual date of moving out.

in the 2021 lawsuit, the court held that although mr. tan and the gu family had signed the "shanghai real estate sales contract", the two parties did not have an agreement on the sale of the house at the time. the essence of this transaction was actually a gift with obligations. in the 2021 judgment, the court rejected both mr. tan's lawsuit and the gu family's counterclaim.

after the judgment of the aforementioned case came into effect,mr. tan filed a lawsuit again, requesting the court to withdraw his house donation.mr. tan believes that the gu family has not fulfilled their obligation to provide support, and as a donor, he has the right to revoke the gift.

the arbitrary revocation of gifts is not conducive to the stability of the support relationship

the gu family did not agree with tan lao's accusations.

during the trial, the gu family provided the court with group photos, short message records, wechat chat records, etc. of the two parties between 2017 and 2019 to prove that before tan lao filed the lawsuit, the gu family often accompanied tan lao and took him on trips.

even after the lawsuit, the gu family still often sent messages to mr. tan, but mr. tan blocked them. not only that, when the gu family came to visit mr. tan, mr. tan also refused to let them in.

mr. tan said that these evidences were left behind by the gu family after the conflict between the two sides. they would not deliberately take photos before the conflict. the existence of the photos itself can prove how intense the conflict between the two sides was.

after trial, the shanghai court pointed out that before this, mr. tan wrote and signed the "support and property gift agreement" on his own. although the gu family did not sign it, the two parties subsequently went through the property transfer procedures. both parties fulfilled the agreement with actual actions, so a gift relationship with support obligations was established between mr. tan and the gu family.

now, the court does not recognize the opinions of mr. tan that the agreement is not valid and the opinions of the gu family that the validity of the agreement is pending.

according to mr. tan's description in the "support and property donation agreement", the gu family had taken care of the plaintiff for more than ten years before mr. tan donated the house, and mr. tan was very satisfied with this. from the donation of the house to the first time mr. tan sued the gu family in court, during the more than ten years, there was never any evidence that the gu family had failed to fulfill their support obligations or that there was a conflict between the two parties.

before,mr. tan once said that he needed a house because of changes in his marriage relationship and the need for family support for his retirement.in other words, mr. tan’s revocation of the gift was not actually due to the gu family’s unwillingness to fulfill their support obligations. therefore, mr. tan’s proposal to revoke the gift on the grounds that the gu family did not fulfill their obligations under the gift contract lacked factual basis.

the court held that in this case,when the gu family has taken care of mr. tan for many years, mr. tan's revocation of the gift goes against the good customs of a harmonious society.arbitrary revocation of gifts is also not conducive to the stability of the support relationship.in summary, the court did not support tan lao’s claim.

user comments

many netizens said

"tan lao is confused, the court did a good job!"

there are also many netizens

speak for the gu family

some netizens also said

understanding the old

what do you think?