After learning Hai Huang and his wife had signed away ownership of their half-million-dollar home to their son for one dollar, the man to whom Huang owed $436,000 had questions.
A jury awarded Jian He the money in 2018 after finding Huang had assaulted him, perforating He’s eardrum and causing post-traumatic stress disorder. But until this week, He has been unable to collect his cash.
On Wednesday, a B.C. Supreme Court judge found the transfer of the home, which is now worth $1 million, was a fraudulent conveyance — a legal term for a suspicious sale.
Justice Robin Baird rejected Huang’s claim the transaction was legitimate because it was “Chinese custom” for parents to transfer all their property to their children in advance of a marriage — leaving it to their kids to “take care of them until they died.”
“I am not persuaded by the uncorroborated claim that it is Chinese custom for parents to transfer all of their assets to their children, especially when the parents are comparatively young and profess, for reasons not disclosed, to earn no income to support themselves,” Baird said.
“The timing of it, in the very midst of civil litigation in which it had been clearly established … that Mr. Huang stood exposed to significant financial liability … is extremely suspicious.”
‘$1.00 and natural love and affection’
According to Baird’s decision, the battle between the two men dates back to August 2013 when Huang struck Jian He in what Huang would later claim was self-defence.
Jian He sued and the matter wound its way through the court to a trial which ended in February 2018.
Huang denied causing any psychological damage to He — but a jury found otherwise, awarding He $436,768.76 plus costs.
“The day after this verdict was returned, [Jian He’s] lawyer … performed a land title search on the property,” Baird wrote.
“He discovered that the transfer had been completed in the very midst of the litigation and that the consideration for it registered on title was ‘$1.00 and natural love and affection.'”
According to the ruling, Huang has never paid a penny of the damages he owes Jian He. The unemployed man, who is in his mid-fifties, claims he and his wife are completely financially dependent on their 39-year-old son.
“I have been given no explanation for this,” the judge wrote.
“[Huang] says that he has no income, savings or investments, and he cannot deny that the transfer had the effect of giving away his only valuable asset to his son.”
‘There was no marriage’
In order to determine whether the transfer of the house was suspicious Baird looked back at the circumstances leading up to the transfer of the home in 2016.
The judge said Huang was “on clear notice by mid-July 2016, three months before the transfer, that the allegations made … were serious and that, if things did not go his way, he would be obliged to pay … a significant sum of money in damages.”
Nevertheless, Huang and his wife claimed the transfer of the home was legitimate given their son’s impending marriage.
“[They said] Chinese custom required his parents to transfer all of their property to him in advance of the wedding to assure his prospective spouse and her family she would be adequately looked after,” Baird wrote,
“It is also Chinese custom that children should continue living with their parents, even after they are married, to take over responsibility for the family finances and payment of all household bills.”
The judge said that while Huang’s son’s engagement to a woman from China may have been sincere, “six months or so after the transfer, the couple parted and have not reconciled.”
“There was no marriage,” Baird wrote.
The judge said he had no trouble concluding that the intention of the transfer was to deprive Jian He “of a lawful debt-collection remedy in the event, by no means implausible, that his assault lawsuit succeeded.”
Despite the ruling, Baird said the law says the transfer of the house can still stand.
But he said Jian He can register the judgment against title to the property — meaning he should be able to collect on his debt as though Huang were still the owner.