Court cases between siblings involving inheritance are common, but for one that lasted for a whopping 25 years that is based solely on “You think I thought who confirm”?
Not so common.
A brother has accused his sister of secretly taking a portion of their parents’ inheritance.
He then tried to sue her in the High Court, but the judge dismissed the application.
Here’s what happened.
Brother Sued Sister for Property
The brother, Xu Guoxing (hanyu pinyin), sued his sister Xu Difeng to contend for one-sixth of the proceeds from the sale of their parents’ property on Barker Road in 2019 and another property on River Valley Road.
Xu Guoxing’s parents had six children. Their father established two printing companies: Luen Wah Press and Wing Lee Printing Press Limited.
In 1974, Xu Guoxing became a partner of Luen Wah Press and was the sole shareholder when the company closed down in 2005.
Meanwhile, the shares of Wing Lee Printing Press Limited, which had been assigned to Xu Guoxing, were transferred to his mother in 1978.
His other siblings held some shares, but as his parents and siblings resigned in turn, only Xu Difeng and and one of the sisters remained as directors and shareholders.
By 1986, the two sisters decided to cease operations.
Their parents passed away in 1993 and 2015 respectively, each leaving a will to distribute their estate.
Xu Guoxing received checks for $77,000 and over $62,650 respectively.
Xu Guoxing claimed he was unaware of the will and assumed the two sums were interim distributions of the estate. He did not receive additional payments afterward.
He also pointed out that, although the Barker Road property was jointly named to his mother and two of his sisters, it was his father who was the actual owner.
Furthermore, he asserted his father was the actual owner of the River Valley Road property, and that his parents founded Wing Lee with the intention of dividing it equally among the family members
Xu Difeng and Xu Huifeng (the two sisters), he claimed, transferred the property to their names after the company closed, violating their parents’ original intentions.
He argued that the proceeds from the sale of the Barker Road property after his father’s death, as well as the River Valley Road property, should be divided equally among the siblings, with himself entitled to one-sixth.
The judge dismissed the application, so the case never really went to court.
