63yo widower sues ex-girlfriend for $191,000 he allegedly paid for apartment in her name

A 63-year-old man's lawsuit seeking VND5 billion (US$191,000) from his former girlfriend resumed at the Region 4 People's Court in Hanoi on Sept. 18.

According to the lawsuit and proceedings at a Sept. 10 hearing, Tuan, from Ho Chi Minh City, met Thuong, 48, of Hanoi, in 2019 after his wife died.

She had been divorced twice and has three children from previous relationships.

In November 2019, their families held a traditional ceremony at the ancestral altar, the centerpiece of a Vietnamese wedding, and made the relationship public.

The couple did not register their marriage, though. Tuan proposed doing so in early 2020, but Thuong repeatedly put it off, citing work.

Tuan said he regarded Thuong as his wife and usually handed her his entire salary to manage and spend on their life together.

He was still working in Ho Chi Minh City at the time and traveled to Hanoi a few times a month to see her.

In late 2020, Tuan said, Thuong suggested buying a three-bedroom apartment in Hanoi's My Dinh area. He agreed, having already planned to buy a place for the two of them after he retired.

He said he transferred her about VND5.5 billion in total. Because he "loved and trusted her completely," none of the transfers noted that the money was for a home.

The 94 sq.m apartment was bought in December 2020 at a contract price of VND5.2 billion, with about VND350 million more spent on the interior.

Tuan said Thuong told him the title would be in her name only because they were not legally married. The two agreed verbally, he said, to add his name later.

He kept working in Ho Chi Minh City and sending money every month. After retiring in 2021, he moved into the apartment with Thuong and her three children.

Breaking up, demanding gifts back

Tuan ended the relationship in early June 2022, about three years after they met.

In his lawsuit, he cited mounting disagreements, as well as his disappointment on discovering that the business Thuong had described was not what he had imagined.

"Every morning and afternoon she'd go exercise, do yoga and have coffee with friends, and paid no attention to looking after the family," Tuan said.

"I stayed home cooking, took her young child to and from school, then came back to clean and cook. I felt my life had truly hit a dead end."

The biggest conflict, according to Tuan, came in late May 2022, when Thuong proposed selling his house in HCMC and buying a car worth about VND1.6 billion ($61,100). She also planned to mortgage the apartment where they were staying for a bank loan.

He refused, saying they did not need to travel much, his main income was now his pension, and he did not want debt at his age.

She put down a deposit on the car anyway.

Unable to reach agreement, Tuan said, he moved back to HCMC. He then asked Thuong to return the money he had given her as loans, for her business and toward the apartment.

He initially sought VND5.5 billion, then reduced the claim to VND5 billion after deducting money Thuong had spent on his family and an amount she had transferred back to him.

Tuan argues that the apartment was bought mainly with his money but is registered only in her name. Now that the relationship is over, he says, she must return what he gave her.

Real estate in western Hanoi. Photo by VnExpress/Giang Huy

Ex-girlfriend says she was financially independent

Thuong disputes the claim, noting that none of Tuan's 11 transfers mentioned the apartment.

Apart from bank transfer records, Tuan has produced no document, message, recording or witness showing an agreement that she would buy the apartment with his money and hold the title on his behalf.

The defense pointed to Tuan's own testimony that Thuong first raised buying an apartment only in late October or early November 2020. Money transferred before then, it argues, cannot automatically count as payment for the apartment.

Tuan's amended claim also acknowledges that the money went to business capital, land purchases, investments and household spending, among other things. The full sum therefore cannot be counted as money for the home, the defense says.

She says the apartment was paid for not only with Tuan's money but also with her savings and the proceeds from selling an apartment she owned and her Mercedes GLC 200.

Her 2020 bank statements show incoming transfers of more than VND10 billion ($382,000), excluding Tuan's.

In December 2020, she mortgaged an apartment she owned for a VND2.1 billion ($80,200) loan. If Tuan's money had covered the purchase, the defense asked, why would she need to borrow against her own property?

Tuan counters that her other sources of money do not change their agreement over the apartment.

He says he regularly transferred his income for her to manage while they lived together, and left the purpose off the transfers out of trust, since he considered her his wife.

His side also argues that the couple chose furniture together and moved their belongings into the finished apartment. That, it says, shows the apartment was a home for their shared life rather than simply Thuong's personal property.

Thuong's side countered that Tuan has consistently described "voluntarily transferring money to the person he considered his wife" for household use. If so, it argues, the money cannot automatically be treated as a loan to be repaid.

No evidence, no claim

The defense cited Article 91 of the Civil Procedure Code. It requires a party asking the court to protect their lawful rights and interests to "collect, provide and submit to the court documents and evidence proving that the request is well-founded and lawful."

Thuong argues Tuan must prove that the transfers were meant for the apartment, that she agreed to hold the title on his behalf and that she is obliged to repay.

Without that proof, the defense has asked the court to dismiss the suit.

Her lawyer warned that ordering her to pay would set a bad precedent. Anyone in any relationship, including lovers, spouses, grandparents, parents and children, could then become a victim of "breaking up and demanding the gifts back," the lawyer argued.

The trial was adjourned on Sept. 10 to clarify certain details.