Legal Research
Cases
Zhang v Guo

Zhang v Guo

Case [2021] NZHC 714 7 April 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-453

[2021] NZHC 714

BETWEEN
SHOUJUN ZHANG

Plaintiff

AND

DANQIU GUO

First defendant

CHUANZELONG GUO

Second defendant

Hearing: 9 November 2020 with reply submissions on 16 November 2020

Appearances:

H Fulton for the plaintiff

Appearance excused for first defendant
S R Morris and F J McKechnie for the second defendant

Judgment:

7 April 2021

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday 7 April 2021 at 10 am.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
H Fulton, Barrister, Auckland Bell-Booth Sherry, Auckland Morris Legal, Auckland

ZHANG V GUO [2021] NZHC 714 [7 April 2021]

Summary

[1] Ms Hui (Helen) Chai died in May 2018. She left $80,000 and her remaining estate to her son, Mr Chuanzelong (Longee) Guo. This included a property in Glenfield, Auckland, on the basis Ms Chai’s mother would also live with Mr Guo and be looked after. Ms Chai’s half-share in another property, in Greenhithe Auckland, passed by survivorship to her de facto partner of six years, Mr Shoujun Zhang, along with $43,950 from their joint accounts. She considered that sufficiently provided for his interests. Mr Zhang does not. He claims under the Family Protection Act 1955 (the Act) for an award for the breach of Ms Chai’s moral obligation to provide maintenance and support for him. He also claims for an equitable contribution from the estate for the mortgage on the Greenhithe property. He made no relationship property claim.

[2] I do not consider it was a breach of Ms Chai’s moral obligations under the Act not to provide for Mr Zhang in her will. She did so knowing that he would obtain sole ownership of the Greenhithe property, which the Court must take into account. Mr Zhang elected not to pursue a relationship property claim. He benefits to the extent of approximately $300,000 compared with an estate of around $1.1 million. Mr Zhang undoubtedly played an important part in the last six years of Ms Chai’s life. But her mother and son could reasonably be considered to have played a more important part in her life overall. With a six-figure salary and an additional unmortgaged property providing rental income, in addition to the Greenhithe property, Mr Zhang is not badly off. I consider it was reasonable for Ms Chai to believe that passage of that property, subject to the mortgage, would sufficiently provide for him.

[3] The mortgage is secured over both the Glenfield and Greenhithe properties but was used to fund the purchase of the Greenhithe property. Under s 34(1) of the Administration Act 1969, I consider the Greenhithe property is liable for payment of amounts charged under the ANZ mortgage, and the Glenfield property is not. Accordingly, the estate does not owe Mr Zhang an equitable contribution for the mortgage payments. And I order the parties to take all necessary steps for the ANZ…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Zhang v Guo

Details

AGLC: Zhang v Guo [2021] NZHC 714
Case: [2021] NZHC 714
Decision Date: 7 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Zhang v Guo, the High Court of New Zealand considered a claim by Shoujun Zhang, the former de facto partner of Hui (Helen) Chai, against Chai's estate. Zhang sought an award for breach of moral duty under the Family Protection Act 1955, as well as an equitable contribution for mortgage payments on a property that passed to him by survivorship. The court held that Chai had not breached her moral duty as Zhang had received sufficient assets, including a property, and he was not in need of maintenance and support. The court further held that the estate was not liable for an equitable contribution as the mortgage was primarily the liability of the property that Zhang had received. The court ordered the mortgage to be secured only over properties owned by Zhang.

The court considered the principles of moral duty under the Family Protection Act, which requires that a claimant show a breach of moral duty by the deceased and that they have a need for maintenance and support. The court held that Zhang had not met this burden of proof, as Chai had provided for him through the transfer of a property and he had other assets and income. The court also considered the law of equitable contribution, holding that the mortgage was primarily the liability of the property Zhang had received and not the estate. The court ordered the mortgage to be secured only over properties owned by Zhang, and awarded costs to the estate.

This case highlights the importance of considering the overall equity of a situation when assessing claims under the Family Protection Act and the law of equitable contribution. The court held that Zhang had not shown a breach of moral duty or that he was entitled to an equitable contribution, as Chai had provided for him through the transfer of a property and he had other assets and income. The court's decision also emphasizes the importance of understanding the relevant laws and principles when making claims under the Family Protection Act and the law of equitable contribution.

Orders