The father wanted to return the lucky money he had saved for his son.


The father wanted to return the lucky money he had saved for his son.

Son's New Year's money for many years, the father wanted to return to the first instance and second instance were defeated, lawyer: New Year's money donation or not back

Many parents save their lucky money for their future use. If one day, parents ask their children to pay the money, should they give them money?

The pony's mother deposited six hundred thousand dollars in the name of the pony in the bank for five years, with the money saved by her son's many years of New Year's Day and the money given by relatives when he was in college, together with the money the old couple prepared for his son's further education. Several years later, the old horse wanted to divorce his wife. He remembered that his son's 600,000 fixed deposit was about to expire. He discussed with his son to take the money, but was refused. Fearing that his savings would be withdrawn, the pony went to the bank to report the loss and make up a new passbook to change the password. As soon as the deposit period arrived, he took away the 600 thousand yuan. The old horse thought the money was his own, so he sued his son for the money, and the court of first instance rejected the old horse's claim. Lao Ma is dissatisfied with the result of the choice of appeal, recently, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court heard the case, rejected the appeal of Lao Ma, maintain the original judgment.

Modern express /ZAKER Nanjing correspondent Deng Wenting

The couple saved 600 thousand yuan for their son.

Modern Express reporter learned that the pony was born in 1990, from birth to adulthood, coupled with the money from relatives at university, a total of 200,000 yuan. In October 2008, he gave all the money to his mother and deposited 250,000 yuan in the bank for three years.

In March 2009, the old Ma and his wife were in good economic condition, so they discussed to save part of the money for their son's further education, and gave his son 250,000 yuan, also a three-year period.

In 2012, the money was due, and the couple gave their son another 100,000 yuan, plus the previous 500,000 yuan, to deposit together in the bank for five years. The mother set the password according to the request of the pony.

The father divorced and wanted to return the money with his son.

Who knows later, Lao Ma couple started divorce. In November 2016, the old horse called the pony, saying that 600,000 was his, and asked the pony to go to the bank with him to withdraw money. The pony didn't agree.

In March 2017, when Ma was talking in front of the divorce court, he thought his son's 600,000 belongings were his property. Subsequently, the court decided that the relationship between the two parties had not yet been completely broken down and that divorce was not allowed, so the division of property between the two parties was not dealt with.

But the lawsuit between Lao Ma and his son did not end. The court of first instance held that, first of all, the old horse had no evidence to prove that the deposit was deposited in him. Secondly, according to the usual practice of bank deposit business, even if the old horse has a deposit certificate and password, the pony can retrieve the deposit certificate and reset the password by means of personal identity documents, such as loss of deposit certificate. Whether the old horse has the original deposit certificate or not, the pony is the owner of the property in the deposit certificate. Eventually, the court rejected the appeal of the old horse.

Father failed in the second instance of first instance

The old man was dissatisfied with the verdict of the first instance and appealed to the intermediate people's Court of Nanjing. He thought that because he had taken part of the money when his son got married, and his son was very angry about it, he was unwilling to give him the 600,000.

Mr. Ma said he was 18 when he opened his bank account in 2008, and that in 2012, when he saved 600,000 yuan, he still had no source of income for fresh graduates, and he was unable to own the money. In those days, he did not give the money to his son, just because they are father-son relationship, he borrowed the name of the son to save money, and the deposit certificate is still in his own hands, so the money is still his own.

Ma believes that he is the owner of the money, although his father has a deposit certificate, can not change the fact that the money is his. At the same time, the father did not have evidence to prove that the money was his, the father said to borrow their own name to save money, this statement does not agree with the facts. In the second instance, pony's mother appeared in court to testify. She said the money belonged to her son. But the old horse thinks that the wife thinks for her own interests. Although the wife went to the bank to deposit money, but at that time the two feelings were good, the agent between husband and wife is very normal.

The court held that the source of the $600,000 was money from relatives at New Year's Eve and college, as well as money donated by parents, which his mother later deposited in the bank. Mother's testimony coincides with the opinion of the pony. At that time, as a minor, the pony had the right to receive a gift from another person or his parents, and then give it to his mother to deposit in the bank. The old horse did not provide evidence to prove that the money was his, nor did he have evidence to disprove the testimony of the pony and his mother.

The court held that even if part of the $600,000 was derived from the joint property of the husband and wife of the old horse, if the money was deposited in the account under the name of the pony and the pony had the password, the actual delivery of the money had been completed and the pony became the actual owner of the property in the certificate. Whether the old horse owned the original certificate did not affect the 60. Ten thousand belong to the pony. After hearing the case, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

In this case, Ni Ruichun, a lawyer with Jiangsu Jinglande Law Firm, said that the money given to children by parents and relatives is a gift, so parents should not return the lucky money to their children.

(characters are alias except lawyers).

Source: Modern Express

Editor in chief: Zhang Shen


Waonews is a news media from China, with hundreds of translations, rolling updates China News, hoping to get the likes of foreign netizens