Kelly Tian and Anson Zhang became engaged after meeting as mortgage brokers working in the same Auckland office. His contribution of over half a million dollars towards a $5.14 million purchase of four properties on Auckland’s North Shore was a dowry she could keep when the marriage did not go ahead, said Kelly. Not so, Justice Toogood ruled. The money advanced was predicated on their marriage going ahead and must be repaid
The High Court was told the relationship began in May 2014. Ms Tian’s mother was suspicious of Mr Zhang. There was a thirteen year age difference between the couple, with Ms Tian then aged 24. Mr Zhang had been married previously. He lived a showy lifestyle, resplendent with upmarket Porsche. Ms Tian had rejected his first proposal of marriage, agreeing to marry eight months later. In the interim, the two negotiated the purchase of three residential properties and a vacant residential section. Mr Zhang put some $568,000 towards the deposits; Ms Tian had to put in her own money plus money borrowed from her mother and other relatives when Mr Zhang delayed on promises to further fund the deposits – temporary cashflow difficulties, he said. Mortgage finance completed the purchases. At her mother’s insistence, title was taken variously in the names of Ms Tian and her mother. Ms Tian took responsibility for meeting outgoings on the properties, three of which were rented out.
The relationship ended in late 2016. Mr Zhang had caveats lodged on titles to the four properties when Ms Tian refused to repay his contributions towards their purchase. A caveat prevents any dealings with the property. Ms Tian said her fiance’s payments were a dowry paid according to Chinese custom and need not be returned. Justice Toogood said no independent evidence was provided to the court about Chinese dowry customs. He declined an invitation to ‘look it up on Google’. There was no clear evidence of Mr Zhang intending to make a gift of the funds advanced. The payments were in contemplation of and conditional on his subsequent marriage to Ms Tian, Justice Toogood ruled. Since no marriage eventuated, Mr Zhang was entitled to repayment.
Tian v. Zhang – High Court (9.09.19)
19.163