Preview
IL
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, ss. : SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
j OF THE TRIAL COURT
)
PENG BO FU and )
CHENG GUO, individually, ) CIVIL ACTION NO: 16-2497
Plaintiffs, ) “eb
oF {
. ee
PATRICK YONGXIAO FU and )
MING ZHU YAN, )
Defendants. )
_)
DEFENDANTS PATRICK YONGXIAO FU AND MING ZHU YAN’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND
COUNTERCLAIMS
Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 8 and 12, Defendants Patrick Yongxiao Fu (“Patrick”) and
Ming Zhu Yan (“Ming”), (together, “Defendants”) for their Answer to Plaintiffs Peng Bo Fu and
Cheng Guo’s (“Plaintiffs”) Amended Gomplaint, and for their Affirmative Defenses, and
Counterclaims, state as follows. Any allegations in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint that are not
expressly admitted are denied.
NATURE OF THE ACTION ”
Plaintiffs have filed suit claiming ‘ight to title and control of the properties at 45 Selkirk
Road, Apt. D, Brighton, Massachusetts ard at 4 Newbrook Circle, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts,
alleging a right to recover $2,828,900. Tiefendants deny that Plaintiffs have a legal, factual, or
equitable basis for this suit. Plaintiffs filed this suit as a means to use legal process to intimidate
their son Patrick who has married against their wishes, to a woman they do not know or respect,
and to put economic pressure on Patrick to abandon his marriage and return to China. This is the
third lawsuit.filed by the Plaintiffs against their son in attempts to revoke unconditional gifts.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this section, Defendants’ Counterclaims follow this
Answer and Affirmative Defenses.ll.
12.
THE PARTIES
Admitted. i
Admitted.
Admitted.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Admitted.
Admitted.
FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS
Admitted that Patrick and ie are Peng and Cheng’s children. However, Patrick is
* now 26 years old and Ze is now 10 years old.
Defendants admit only that Peng is an experienced stock and financial professional.
Defendants deny that Peng’is an experienced real estate investor. On information
and belief, Peng has ownership interests only in three Shanghai properties. The
remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
_ Denied.
Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations,
and therefore deny the same.
Denied.
Denied.
Defendants admit that Patrick moved to the United States in January 2013 to study
and that Plaintiffs gave gifts to Patrick to pay for some of his educational and living
expenses, The remaining éllegations in this paragraph are denied.
\
BRIGHTON PROPERTY13,
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19,
20.
21.
22.
Denied that Plaintiffs planred to purchase property in the United States as an
investment. Admitted that Plaintiffs gifted funds to Patrick’s bank account in
: June 2013 but denied that the amount was $939,000. Defendants lack sufficient
information to admit or deny the remaining allegations, and therefore deny the
same.
Admitted that Cheng and Ze came to Boston in summer of 2013 and that Ze
attended a summer camp. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny
the remaining allegations, and therefore deny the same.
Admitted that Patrick and Cheng saw houses while Cheng was in Boston. The
remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
Denied.
Denied. The purpose of visiting houses was to look for a property for Patrick to
purchase as a place for him to live.
Admitted that Hao Tian thok Patrick and Cheng to see properties. Denied on
information and belief thatthe was a real estate agent.
Admitted in part and denied in part. After visiting several homes, Patrick decided
to place an offer on the Brighton Property. Cheng agreed with Patrick’s decision
to place an offer on the }3righton Property. The remaining allegations in this
paragraph are denied.
Defendants lack sufficient’ information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph, and therefore dény the same.
Defendants lack sufficient, information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph, and therefore dény the same.23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34,
Admitted only that, on information and belief, Hao is a Chinese citizen. The
" remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
Denied.
Denied. Patrick made the offer to purchase the Brighton Property.
’ Admitted only that, on information and belief, Cheng’s trip to the United States was
pre-purchased. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Cheng was
still in the United States when Patrick made the offer and, on information and belief,
when Patrick signed the purchase and sale agreement.
Denied. Cheng was still in the United States when Patrick made the offer on the
Brighton Property, when Patrick’s offer was accepted and, on information and
belief, when Patrick signed the purchase and sale agreement.
Denied. Patrick was attending school to obtain his Master of Science in
Management.
_ Admitted only that on August 30, 2013, Patrick executed the closing paperwork for
. the Brighton Property and that he used the funds gifted to him by Plaintiffs.
Denied. Patrick used funds that were gifted to him by the Plaintififs to purchase the
Brighton Property.
Admitted that Yongxiao Fv. was listed as the owner of record in the Suffolk County
Registry of Deeds. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the
allegations regarding the >recise record location and therefore deny the same.
' Defendants deny the remaiiaing allegations in this paragraph.
Denied.
, Denied.
Denied.35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
45.
46.
Denied.
Admitted only that Peng traveled to the United States in January 2014 and stayed
in Boston for a short period of time. The remaining allegations in this paragraph
are denied. '
Admitted that Patrick showed Peng the Brighton Property and met with the tenants.
The remaining allegations i n this paragraph are denied.
CHESTNUT HILL PROPERTY
Admitted. :
. Defendants lack sufficient’ information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
Denied.
' Admitted only that Peng and Patrick visited several homes in January 2014. The
: remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
Admitted that Patrick contacted Cheng in spring 2014 about the Chestnut Hill
- Property and that Plaintiffs have correctly recited its specifications except that the
listing price was $2,072,000. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are
' denied.
Denied that this was an investment. For various reasons Patrick did not reside in
the Brighton property, it wes leased to tenants, and Patrick bought the Chestnut Hill
Property with the intention of residing there with his future wife. Admitted that
i
Plaintiffs were initially reluctant about the amount of money involved.
Denied.
' Denied. i
Denied.47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
Denied that Plaintiffs’ contribution towards the purchase price of the Chestnut Hill
| Property was not a gift to Batrick, Admitted that at the time of the closing on the
l
Chestnut Hill Property, Patrick was a student, was not employed, and had received
financial support from Plaintiffs. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are
denied.
Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this
"paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
Admitted that Patrick suggested taking out a home equity loan on the Brighton
Property to help purchase tine Chestnut Hill Property. Patrick did this after Cheng
first asked Patrick to purchase the Chestnut Hill Property in part through a
mortgage, which she promised to provide the funds to later pay off. Patrick then
suggested taking a home equity loan on the Brighton Property because it was not
possible to secure a mortgage on the Chestnut Hill Property. Cheng agreed with
Patrick’s suggestion to moitgage the Brighton Property. Defendants lack
sufficient information to acmit or deny the remaining allegations in this
paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
Admitted that Plaintiffs did not oppose the idea of a mortgage on the Brighton
Property. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining
allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
Denied. The home equity Joan was recorded in the amount of $387,500.
Admitted only that on June 16, 2014, Patrick and Ming executed the purchase
agreement for the Chestnut Hill Property for the consideration of $1,990,000 USD.
The remaining allegations .n this paragraph are denied.
_ Denied.
Admitted only that Patrick, and Ming purchased the property in their own names.
Plaintiffs lack sufficient irlformation to admit or deny the record location of the55.
56.
57.
58.
property and therefore deny; the same. The remaining allegations in this paragraph
are denied.
Denied.
_ Denied.
Denied.
Admitted that Plaintiffs cotitinued to gift money to Patrick after the purchase of the
- Chestnut Hill Property and that some of these funds were used to pay property
taxes. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
PATRICK SEVERS ALL CONNECTIONS WITH PENG AND CHENG AND
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
KEEPS PROPERTIES TO HIMSELF
' Admitted.
. Defendants lack sufficient: information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
Admitted that Plaintiffs leit the Chestnut Hill Property on August 27, 2014. The
remaining allegations in ths paragraph are denied.
’ Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
Admitted that Plaintiffs returned to China after refusing to attend Patrick and
Ming’s wedding, The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
Admitted that Patrick ceased all communications with Plaintiffs after they left the
Chestnut Hill Property the day before his wedding to Ming. Plaintiffs told him in
front of friends and relatives that they will not have him as their son. Patrick spoke66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
|
with Ms. Guo on June 13, 1016, and rarely thereafter, after Mr. Fu sued Patrick in
. Shanghai and Illinois. The ;emaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
" Admitted that Plaintiffs made limited efforts to communicate with Patrick and that
Patrick refused to communicate with Plaintiffs until June 2016 because they have
continued their campaign to pressure him to divorce Ming, including bringing
multiple baseless lawsuits. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
Admitted that Peng arrived at the Chestnut Hill Property on September 9, 2015 and
attempted to break down the locked front door after Patrick fled for safety in the
basement. Further admittec! that Peng or Peng’s associate Shang attempted to break
the glass back door of the Chestnut Hill Property. Defendants further admit that
the police were called in response to Peng and Shang’s misconduct and that they
were escorted off the property and warned not to return.
Denied. Patrick did not meet with Peng on September 10, 2015, and no third party
arranged a meeting.
Denied. Patrick did not meet with Peng on September 11, 2015.
Admitted that Patrick has no intention of relenting ownership or possession of the
Brighton Property or the Chestnut Hill Property. Admitted that Patrick refrained
from communicating with Plaintiffs from August 28, 2014 until June 13,2016. The
remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
Defendants lack sufficient. information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
Denied.
Denied.75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
i
Admitted only that Patrick ‘briefly worked as a real estate agent. The remaining
allegations in this paragraph are denied.
: Denied.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count I
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(YONGXIAO FU)
(BRIGHTON PROPERTY)
In response to Paragraph 77, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs by
reference as if fully stated herein.
Admitted that Plaintiffs gifted to Patrick all of the funds that he then used to
purchase the Brighton Property. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are
denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Admitted that Patrick has retained control over the rental income from the Brighton
Property. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
Dp!
Admitted that Patrick has retained control over the rental income from the Brighton
Property. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
Denied that the Brighton Property was encumbered with a $375,000 mortgage. The
Brighton Property was encumbered with a $387,500 mortgage, and Plaintiffs were
aware that Patrick was seeking a home equity loan. The remaining allegations in
this paragraph are denied,86. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denied.
87. Denied.
Count IL
CONVERSION
(PATRICK YONGXIAO FU)
(MORTGAGE AND RENTAL INCOME FROM BRIGHTON PROPERTY)
88. Inresponse to Paragraph 8, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs by
reference as if fully stated herein.
89. Admitted that Plaintiffs gifted to Patrick all of the funds that he then used to
purchase the Brighton Property.
90. Denied.
91. Admitted that the mortgage on the Brighton Property remains in place. The
remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
92. ~ Denied.
93. Denied.
94. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denied.
95. Denied.
Count II
BREACH OF RESULTING TRUST
(PATRICK YONGXIAO FU)
(BRIGHTON PROPERTY)
96. In response to Paragraph 96, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs by
reference as if fully stated herein.
“1097.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104,
105.
106.
107.
108.
Admitted only that Plaintiffs gifted to Patrick all of the funds to purchase the
Brighton Property.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied that the Brighton Property was encumbered with a $375,000 mortgage. The
Brighton Property was encumbered with a $387,500 mortgage, and Plaintiffs were
aware that Patrick was seelcing a home equity loan. The remaining allegations in
this paragraph are denied.
This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denied.
This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denied.
Denied.
Count IV
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(BOTId DEFENDANTS)
(CHESTNUT HILL PROPERTY)
In response to Paragraph 105, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs
by reference as if fully stated herein.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
11109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
Admitted that the Chestnut Hill Property was recorded in the names of Patrick and
Ming. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
Admitted that the Defendants have lived in the Chestnut Hill Property. The
remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
Admitted that Patrick conveyed title to the Chestnut Hill Property to his wife Ming
on August 23, 2016 for the consideration of $1. The remaining allegations in this
paragraph are denied.
This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denied.
Denied.
_ Count V
BREACH OF RESULTING TRUST
(CHESTNUT HILL PROPERTY)
In response to Paragraph 114, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs
by reference as if fully stated herein.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Admitted that the Chestnut Hill Property was recorded in both of Defendants’
names and that Patrick subsequently transferred the property to his wife, Ming. The
remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied.
This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denied.
This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, denied.
12121. Denied.
h
Count VI
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
122. In response to Paragraph 1:21, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs
by reference as if fully stated herein.
123, This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is requirei, denied.
124. This paragraph and its subparts contain legal conclusions to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is required, denied.
PRAY'¢R FOR RELIEF
Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief whatsoever.
JURY DEMAND
Defendants join in Plaintiffs demand for a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
DEFENSES/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
. Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each particular cause of action set forth therein fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
. Plaintiffs’ service of process upon Defendants was inadequate.
. Plaintiffs’ claims are wholly insubstantial, frivolous, vexatious, and not advanced in good faith,
and Defendants are entitled to their attorneys’ fees and costs under M.G.L. c. 231 § 6F.
. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs have not suffered any injury
or damage as a result of any act or conduct by Defendants and Defendants’ alleged conduct
did not directly or proximately cause or contribute to any damage, loss, or injury allegedly
sustained by the Plaintiffs.
5. Plaintiffs have unclean hands that prevent them from seeking equitable relief from this Court.
. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole-or in part, by their own wrongdoing.
. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of inequitable conduct.
138. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by applicgple statutes of limitations or laches.
9. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whdle or in part, by their own breaches of the parties
understandings or agreements.
10. Defendants have performed all of their' duties and obligations, if any, owed to Plaintiffs.
11. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the Statute of Frauds. :
12. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the Parties’ understandings or agreements.
13. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because the properties and/or funds sought by
Plaintiffs were gifts to Patrick.
14, Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would unjustly enrich Plaintiffs.
15. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their Jamages and therefore their claims are barred in whole
or in part. :
16. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by waiver.
17. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of setoff.
18. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole cr part by estoppel.
19. Defendants state that the Plaintiffs acknowledged, ratified, consented to and acquiesced in the
alleged acts or omissions of Defendanis, if any.
20. Plaintiffs’ Complaint makes claims that are unsupported by fact or law.
21. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of res judicata and issue
preclusion.
22. Plaintiff's claims are barred by their own misrepresentations.
ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
Defendants reserve the right to amend their Answer and to assert additional defenses based
on information that may become known a:ter the filing of this pleading.
PATRICK YONGXIAO FU AND MING ZHU YAN’S COUNTERCLAIM
COMPLAINT AGAINST PENG BO FU AND CHENG GUO
INTRODUCTION
1. Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Patrick Yongxiao Fu (“Patrick”) and Ming Zhu Yan
(“Ming”) counterclaim against the Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Peng Bo Fu (“Mr.
1410.
Fu”) and Cheng Guo (“Ms. Guo”) for abuse of process, unjust enrichment, and promissory
estoppel. ,
This lawsuit is the third legal proceediig brought by Mr. Fu (and the first by Ms. Guo) against
their adult son Patrick to revoke unconditional gifts.
Plaintiffs have woven a web of tangled and contradictory claims in the lawsuits they have filed
here, in Illinois, and in Shanghai.
Taken together, Plaintiffs’ are unlawfully using legal process to accomplish an ulterior
purpose.
BACKGROUND BE [WEEN PATRICK AND HIS PARENTS
Patrick, age 26, is the elder of two children of the Plaintiffs, and has lived in the United States
since January 2013.
The Plaintiffs are wealthy Chinese nationals residing in Shanghai.
Plaintiff Mr. Fu is a successful and experienced financial investor. He is the Deputy General
Manager at AEGON-Industrial Fund Management Co., Ltd., an asset management company
in Shanghai. Plaintiff Ms. Guo has not worked outside the home for more than a decade.
Patrick began the process of applying for an EB-5 visa to come to the United States in 2012.
In order for Patrick to qualify for the EB-5 visa, he needed $500,000 to invest in the United
States, as well as additional funds for related expenses.
In support of Patrick’s desire to remain: in the United States and pursue an EB-S visa, Plaintiffs
made an unconditional gift to Patrick of $590,000 on February 27, 2012.
In the meantime, Patrick wanted to study in the United States and arrived in January 2013
using a F1 student visa and attended Mount Ida College, where he graduated with his Master
of Science in Management degree.
. Patrick is in the process of exploring opportunities for investment of those gifted funds into
multiple EB-5 projects.
. In May 2016, Mr. Fu filed lawsuits in Shanghai and Illinois to recover this unconditional gift
under Chinese law.
PATRICK PURCHASES THE BRIGHTON PROPERTY
. Following the EB-S5 gift in 2012, the Plaintiffs continued to transfer gifts of money to Patrick
for his support and maintenance, encouraging the deposit of funds to be accessed by him,
throughout 2013 and concluding in August of 2014.
1514,
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
The gifts allowed Patrick to purchasé: the Brighton Property for $795,000, which Patrick
ultimately leased out and used as a souice of income to pay for his living expenses and tuition,
as well as for the property’s upkeep, among other expenses.
Patrick made the offer of $795,000 on the Brighton Property on July 12, 2013, which was
accepted.
Patrick closed on the Brighton Property on August 30, 2013 and paid the remaining balance
due from his funds.
PATRICK AND MING PURCHASE THE CHESTNUT HILL PROPERTY
In the spring of 2014, Patrick and Ming visited the Chestnut Hill Property.
Patrick told the Plaintiffs about the Chestnut Hill Property, and they agreed to gift monies to
Patrick to purchase the Chestnut Hill Froperty as a “wedding gift”.
After Patrick determined that securing a mortgage to purchase the Chestnut Hill Property was
not possible, the Plaintiffs agreed that Patrick should obligate himself on a home equity loan
on the Brighton Property to use for the purchase of Chestnut Hill, which they promised that
they would pay back.
Patrick obligated himself on a home equity loan on the Brighton Property in the amount of
$387,500 and used the money to assist; in the purchase of Chestnut Hill.
Plaintiffs also asked Patrick to provice authorization for them to sell the three properties of
which he was a registered co-owner in China, so that he could use the equity that he had in the
Chinese properties to purchase the Chzstnut Hill Property.
Patrick provided his authorization to’ sell his interest in the Chinese properties because the
Plaintiffs promised that they would help fund the purchase of the Chestnut Hill Property as a
gift, and provide sufficient funds to also discharge the mortgage on the Brighton Property.
Plaintiffs failed to transfer sufficient funds to cover the purchase price of the Chestnut Hill
Property, or to retire the mortgage on tie Brighton Property, despite Patrick providing a release
of his interests in China.
Patrick and Ming also used funds from Ming, and from Ming’s parents, to purchase the
Chestnut Hill Property. Ming had $17,000 of her own. Prior to the wedding, Ming’s parents
had transferred her $200,000 to her as gifts for use on the purchase of the house, and for other
expenses related to the wedding and furnishing the Chestnut Hill Property.
1625.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Patrick and Ming also used approximitely $200,000 that the Plaintiffs transferred to Ming’s
parents, and which Ming’s parents subsequently transferred to Ming.
When Patrick purchased the Brighton ‘Property in 2013, Plaintiffs gifted him $275,000 more
than was necessary to purchase the proverty. In the remainder of 2013, Plaintiffs gifted Patrick
approximately $250,000 in additional, funds. Patrick invested $395,000 of these gifts in the
stock market for several months. When he withdrew these funds in April and June 2014, he
earned gains of over $70,000. Patrick then used a portion of these funds towards the purchase
of the Chestnut Hill Property.
On June 16, 2014, Patrick and Ming purchased the Chestnut Hill Property for a purchase price
of $1,990,000.
PATRICK AND MING’S WEDDING
Patrick’s parents began to express reservations about Ming to him over WeChat starting in or
around May of 2014. They complained that they perceived Ming as “not a typical Chinese
woman,” asserted that she would be difficult to control, and claimed that her family was not
wealthy or prominent enough to provide a “suitable wife” for Patrick.
Patrick and Ming’s wedding was scheduled to take place on August 28, 2014 and Plaintiffs
agreed to attend. :
The night before the wedding, Plainti:s left the Chestnut Hill Property. Mr. Fu told Patrick
that he would no longer accept him as their son and would never see him again unless he agreed
to call off the wedding. :
Patrick and Ming were married on Auzust 28, 2014.
MR. FU’S MISCONDUCT
On September 9, 2015, Mr. Fu attempted to break into the Chestnut Hill property. When the
police arrived at the scene, he stated ‘ae was there because he wanted Patrick to divorce his
wife. .
Mr. Fu created patfupatfupatfu@gmail.com and fabricated correspondence with Patrick,
although ‘the parties had no communiization following Mr. Fu’s trespass at the Chestnut Hill
property. i
By summer 2016, the Plaintiffs collectively filed lawsuits in Shanghai, in Illinois, and (thirdly)
this subject suit against Patrick and Ming.
In the Illinois and Shanghai litigation, Mr. Fu sought to rescind the EB-S gift to Patrick.
1736.
37,
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44,
45.
46.
47.
The Illinois lawsuit was dismissed and decided against Mr. Fu.
The Shanghai litigation is based on the same false allegations made in the Illinois lawsuit and
this lawsuit. ‘
Plaintiffs’ actions in this case constitute abuse of process to achieve an ulterior purpose.
On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed this baseless suit, causing the Defendants to incur
substantial legal fees, in addition to the fees required to defend the meritless and harassing
lawsuits in Illinois and Shanghai.
Plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit in pursuit of ulterior and improper purposes, namely to use
intimidation and economic pressure tc force Patrick to divorce Ming, and ultimately compel
his return to China, and not for the stated reasons of recovering the properties or funds.
Count I
Abuse of Process
‘Mr. Fu & Ms. Guo
Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintixfs incorporate all other allegations by reference as if
realleged herein.
Plaintiffs have used legal process in this Court for improper and illegitimate purposes unrelated
to any evidence that the monies they have transferred to their son were not gifts.
Defendants have incurred and contiriue to incur substantial legal fees as a result of the
Plaintiffs’ tortious misconduct.
It is an abuse of process for the Plaintif’s to use process of law as a means of economic coercion
to accomplish an ulterior purpose.
Count It
Promissory Estoppel
Mr, Fu & Ms. Guo
Defendants and Counterclaim Plainti:fs incorporate all other allegations by reference as if
realleged herein.
The Plaintiffs promised Patrick that, i? he took a mortgage on the Brighton Property in order
to fund the purchase of the Chestnut Hill Property, the Plaintiffs would then repay him for it.
Patrick reasonably relied on the Plaintiffs’ promise that they would repay the mortgage on the
Brighton Property once the Plaintiffs were able to secure additional cash.
1848.
49.
50.
Sl.
52.
53.
54,
a
i
Patrick took the mortgage on the Brighton Property and has made payments on it since that
i
time despite Plaintiffs’ promise that ‘they would pay the costs, and he has been damaged
accordingly. :
Justice requires that Plaintiffs’ promis: be enforced.
: Count I
Unjust Enrichment
Mr. Fu & Ms. Guo
Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs incorporate all other allegations by reference as if
realleged-herein.
Patrick was a registered owner, with the Plaintiffs, of at least three properties in China.
Plaintiffs requested that Patrick provicle consent for them to sell those properties in exchange
for the promise to gift to him funds that would be needed to purchase the Chestnut Hill
property. :
Patrick provided the requested consent but Plaintiffs failed to provide the money to purchase
the Chestnut Hill Property.
Plaintiffs have been unjustly enriched 1o the extent that they have acquired Patrick’s ownership
interest in those three properties and failed to remit an appropriate proportion of the resulting
funds to Patrick.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Defendants seek compensatory, and punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s
fees and costs, emotional distress damage:;, disgorgement and/or the imposition of a constructive
trust over assets or property rightfully owned by Patrick, and such other legal and equitable relief
as this Court'deems just and proper.
19! Respectfully Submitted,
1 PATRICK YONGXIAO FU and
: MING ZHU YAN,
By theis-atforneys,
Lauila R7Studen, Esq. (BBO#
483490)
Istuden@burnslev.com
BURNS & LEVINSON LLP
125 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02216
Tel: 617.345.3000
Fax: 617.345.3299
June 9, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Laura R. Studen, hereby certify that on June 9, 2017, I caused the foregoing document
to be served by electronical and US Mail tipon all counsel of 1
Laura. Studen, Esq.
4845-1604-3082.6
20
Preview
IL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. : SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT j OF THE TRIAL COURT ) PENG BO FU and ) CHENG GUO, individually, ) CIVIL ACTION NO: 16-2497 Plaintiffs, ) “eb oF { . ee PATRICK YONGXIAO FU and ) MING ZHU YAN, ) Defendants. ) _) DEFENDANTS PATRICK YONGXIAO FU AND MING ZHU YAN’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 8 and 12, Defendants Patrick Yongxiao Fu (“Patrick”) and Ming Zhu Yan (“Ming”), (together, “Defendants”) for their Answer to Plaintiffs Peng Bo Fu and Cheng Guo’s (“Plaintiffs”) Amended Gomplaint, and for their Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, state as follows. Any allegations in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint that are not expressly admitted are denied. NATURE OF THE ACTION ” Plaintiffs have filed suit claiming ‘ight to title and control of the properties at 45 Selkirk Road, Apt. D, Brighton, Massachusetts ard at 4 Newbrook Circle, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, alleging a right to recover $2,828,900. Tiefendants deny that Plaintiffs have a legal, factual, or equitable basis for this suit. Plaintiffs filed this suit as a means to use legal process to intimidate their son Patrick who has married against their wishes, to a woman they do not know or respect, and to put economic pressure on Patrick to abandon his marriage and return to China. This is the third lawsuit.filed by the Plaintiffs against their son in attempts to revoke unconditional gifts. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this section, Defendants’ Counterclaims follow this Answer and Affirmative Defenses.ll. 12. THE PARTIES Admitted. i Admitted. Admitted. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Admitted. Admitted. FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL CLAIMS Admitted that Patrick and ie are Peng and Cheng’s children. However, Patrick is * now 26 years old and Ze is now 10 years old. Defendants admit only that Peng is an experienced stock and financial professional. Defendants deny that Peng’is an experienced real estate investor. On information and belief, Peng has ownership interests only in three Shanghai properties. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. _ Denied. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations, and therefore deny the same. Denied. Denied. Defendants admit that Patrick moved to the United States in January 2013 to study and that Plaintiffs gave gifts to Patrick to pay for some of his educational and living expenses, The remaining éllegations in this paragraph are denied. \ BRIGHTON PROPERTY13, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19, 20. 21. 22. Denied that Plaintiffs planred to purchase property in the United States as an investment. Admitted that Plaintiffs gifted funds to Patrick’s bank account in : June 2013 but denied that the amount was $939,000. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations, and therefore deny the same. Admitted that Cheng and Ze came to Boston in summer of 2013 and that Ze attended a summer camp. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations, and therefore deny the same. Admitted that Patrick and Cheng saw houses while Cheng was in Boston. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Denied. Denied. The purpose of visiting houses was to look for a property for Patrick to purchase as a place for him to live. Admitted that Hao Tian thok Patrick and Cheng to see properties. Denied on information and belief thatthe was a real estate agent. Admitted in part and denied in part. After visiting several homes, Patrick decided to place an offer on the Brighton Property. Cheng agreed with Patrick’s decision to place an offer on the }3righton Property. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Defendants lack sufficient’ information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore dény the same. Defendants lack sufficient, information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore dény the same.23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34, Admitted only that, on information and belief, Hao is a Chinese citizen. The " remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Denied. Denied. Patrick made the offer to purchase the Brighton Property. ’ Admitted only that, on information and belief, Cheng’s trip to the United States was pre-purchased. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Cheng was still in the United States when Patrick made the offer and, on information and belief, when Patrick signed the purchase and sale agreement. Denied. Cheng was still in the United States when Patrick made the offer on the Brighton Property, when Patrick’s offer was accepted and, on information and belief, when Patrick signed the purchase and sale agreement. Denied. Patrick was attending school to obtain his Master of Science in Management. _ Admitted only that on August 30, 2013, Patrick executed the closing paperwork for . the Brighton Property and that he used the funds gifted to him by Plaintiffs. Denied. Patrick used funds that were gifted to him by the Plaintififs to purchase the Brighton Property. Admitted that Yongxiao Fv. was listed as the owner of record in the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations regarding the >recise record location and therefore deny the same. ' Defendants deny the remaiiaing allegations in this paragraph. Denied. , Denied. Denied.35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 45. 46. Denied. Admitted only that Peng traveled to the United States in January 2014 and stayed in Boston for a short period of time. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. ' Admitted that Patrick showed Peng the Brighton Property and met with the tenants. The remaining allegations i n this paragraph are denied. CHESTNUT HILL PROPERTY Admitted. : . Defendants lack sufficient’ information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. Denied. ' Admitted only that Peng and Patrick visited several homes in January 2014. The : remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Admitted that Patrick contacted Cheng in spring 2014 about the Chestnut Hill - Property and that Plaintiffs have correctly recited its specifications except that the listing price was $2,072,000. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are ' denied. Denied that this was an investment. For various reasons Patrick did not reside in the Brighton property, it wes leased to tenants, and Patrick bought the Chestnut Hill Property with the intention of residing there with his future wife. Admitted that i Plaintiffs were initially reluctant about the amount of money involved. Denied. ' Denied. i Denied.47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. Denied that Plaintiffs’ contribution towards the purchase price of the Chestnut Hill | Property was not a gift to Batrick, Admitted that at the time of the closing on the l Chestnut Hill Property, Patrick was a student, was not employed, and had received financial support from Plaintiffs. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this "paragraph, and therefore deny the same. Admitted that Patrick suggested taking out a home equity loan on the Brighton Property to help purchase tine Chestnut Hill Property. Patrick did this after Cheng first asked Patrick to purchase the Chestnut Hill Property in part through a mortgage, which she promised to provide the funds to later pay off. Patrick then suggested taking a home equity loan on the Brighton Property because it was not possible to secure a mortgage on the Chestnut Hill Property. Cheng agreed with Patrick’s suggestion to moitgage the Brighton Property. Defendants lack sufficient information to acmit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. Admitted that Plaintiffs did not oppose the idea of a mortgage on the Brighton Property. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. Denied. The home equity Joan was recorded in the amount of $387,500. Admitted only that on June 16, 2014, Patrick and Ming executed the purchase agreement for the Chestnut Hill Property for the consideration of $1,990,000 USD. The remaining allegations .n this paragraph are denied. _ Denied. Admitted only that Patrick, and Ming purchased the property in their own names. Plaintiffs lack sufficient irlformation to admit or deny the record location of the55. 56. 57. 58. property and therefore deny; the same. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Denied. _ Denied. Denied. Admitted that Plaintiffs cotitinued to gift money to Patrick after the purchase of the - Chestnut Hill Property and that some of these funds were used to pay property taxes. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. PATRICK SEVERS ALL CONNECTIONS WITH PENG AND CHENG AND 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. KEEPS PROPERTIES TO HIMSELF ' Admitted. . Defendants lack sufficient: information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. Admitted that Plaintiffs leit the Chestnut Hill Property on August 27, 2014. The remaining allegations in ths paragraph are denied. ’ Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. Admitted that Plaintiffs returned to China after refusing to attend Patrick and Ming’s wedding, The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Admitted that Patrick ceased all communications with Plaintiffs after they left the Chestnut Hill Property the day before his wedding to Ming. Plaintiffs told him in front of friends and relatives that they will not have him as their son. Patrick spoke66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. | with Ms. Guo on June 13, 1016, and rarely thereafter, after Mr. Fu sued Patrick in . Shanghai and Illinois. The ;emaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. " Admitted that Plaintiffs made limited efforts to communicate with Patrick and that Patrick refused to communicate with Plaintiffs until June 2016 because they have continued their campaign to pressure him to divorce Ming, including bringing multiple baseless lawsuits. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Defendants lack sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. Admitted that Peng arrived at the Chestnut Hill Property on September 9, 2015 and attempted to break down the locked front door after Patrick fled for safety in the basement. Further admittec! that Peng or Peng’s associate Shang attempted to break the glass back door of the Chestnut Hill Property. Defendants further admit that the police were called in response to Peng and Shang’s misconduct and that they were escorted off the property and warned not to return. Denied. Patrick did not meet with Peng on September 10, 2015, and no third party arranged a meeting. Denied. Patrick did not meet with Peng on September 11, 2015. Admitted that Patrick has no intention of relenting ownership or possession of the Brighton Property or the Chestnut Hill Property. Admitted that Patrick refrained from communicating with Plaintiffs from August 28, 2014 until June 13,2016. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Defendants lack sufficient. information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore deny the same. Denied. Denied.75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. i Admitted only that Patrick ‘briefly worked as a real estate agent. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. : Denied. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I UNJUST ENRICHMENT (YONGXIAO FU) (BRIGHTON PROPERTY) In response to Paragraph 77, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs by reference as if fully stated herein. Admitted that Plaintiffs gifted to Patrick all of the funds that he then used to purchase the Brighton Property. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Admitted that Patrick has retained control over the rental income from the Brighton Property. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Dp! Admitted that Patrick has retained control over the rental income from the Brighton Property. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Denied that the Brighton Property was encumbered with a $375,000 mortgage. The Brighton Property was encumbered with a $387,500 mortgage, and Plaintiffs were aware that Patrick was seeking a home equity loan. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied,86. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied. 87. Denied. Count IL CONVERSION (PATRICK YONGXIAO FU) (MORTGAGE AND RENTAL INCOME FROM BRIGHTON PROPERTY) 88. Inresponse to Paragraph 8, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs by reference as if fully stated herein. 89. Admitted that Plaintiffs gifted to Patrick all of the funds that he then used to purchase the Brighton Property. 90. Denied. 91. Admitted that the mortgage on the Brighton Property remains in place. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. 92. ~ Denied. 93. Denied. 94. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied. 95. Denied. Count II BREACH OF RESULTING TRUST (PATRICK YONGXIAO FU) (BRIGHTON PROPERTY) 96. In response to Paragraph 96, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs by reference as if fully stated herein. “1097. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104, 105. 106. 107. 108. Admitted only that Plaintiffs gifted to Patrick all of the funds to purchase the Brighton Property. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied that the Brighton Property was encumbered with a $375,000 mortgage. The Brighton Property was encumbered with a $387,500 mortgage, and Plaintiffs were aware that Patrick was seelcing a home equity loan. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied. Denied. Count IV UNJUST ENRICHMENT (BOTId DEFENDANTS) (CHESTNUT HILL PROPERTY) In response to Paragraph 105, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs by reference as if fully stated herein. Denied. Denied. Denied. 11109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. Admitted that the Chestnut Hill Property was recorded in the names of Patrick and Ming. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Admitted that the Defendants have lived in the Chestnut Hill Property. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Admitted that Patrick conveyed title to the Chestnut Hill Property to his wife Ming on August 23, 2016 for the consideration of $1. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied. Denied. _ Count V BREACH OF RESULTING TRUST (CHESTNUT HILL PROPERTY) In response to Paragraph 114, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs by reference as if fully stated herein. Denied. Denied. Denied. Admitted that the Chestnut Hill Property was recorded in both of Defendants’ names and that Patrick subsequently transferred the property to his wife, Ming. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied. 12121. Denied. h Count VI DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 122. In response to Paragraph 1:21, Defendants fully incorporate the above paragraphs by reference as if fully stated herein. 123, This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is requirei, denied. 124. This paragraph and its subparts contain legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, denied. PRAY'¢R FOR RELIEF Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief whatsoever. JURY DEMAND Defendants join in Plaintiffs demand for a trial by jury on all issues so triable. DEFENSES/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES . Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each particular cause of action set forth therein fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. . Plaintiffs’ service of process upon Defendants was inadequate. . Plaintiffs’ claims are wholly insubstantial, frivolous, vexatious, and not advanced in good faith, and Defendants are entitled to their attorneys’ fees and costs under M.G.L. c. 231 § 6F. . Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs have not suffered any injury or damage as a result of any act or conduct by Defendants and Defendants’ alleged conduct did not directly or proximately cause or contribute to any damage, loss, or injury allegedly sustained by the Plaintiffs. 5. Plaintiffs have unclean hands that prevent them from seeking equitable relief from this Court. . Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole-or in part, by their own wrongdoing. . Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of inequitable conduct. 138. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by applicgple statutes of limitations or laches. 9. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whdle or in part, by their own breaches of the parties understandings or agreements. 10. Defendants have performed all of their' duties and obligations, if any, owed to Plaintiffs. 11. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the Statute of Frauds. : 12. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the Parties’ understandings or agreements. 13. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because the properties and/or funds sought by Plaintiffs were gifts to Patrick. 14, Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would unjustly enrich Plaintiffs. 15. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their Jamages and therefore their claims are barred in whole or in part. : 16. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by waiver. 17. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of setoff. 18. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole cr part by estoppel. 19. Defendants state that the Plaintiffs acknowledged, ratified, consented to and acquiesced in the alleged acts or omissions of Defendanis, if any. 20. Plaintiffs’ Complaint makes claims that are unsupported by fact or law. 21. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of res judicata and issue preclusion. 22. Plaintiff's claims are barred by their own misrepresentations. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Defendants reserve the right to amend their Answer and to assert additional defenses based on information that may become known a:ter the filing of this pleading. PATRICK YONGXIAO FU AND MING ZHU YAN’S COUNTERCLAIM COMPLAINT AGAINST PENG BO FU AND CHENG GUO INTRODUCTION 1. Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Patrick Yongxiao Fu (“Patrick”) and Ming Zhu Yan (“Ming”) counterclaim against the Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Peng Bo Fu (“Mr. 1410. Fu”) and Cheng Guo (“Ms. Guo”) for abuse of process, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. , This lawsuit is the third legal proceediig brought by Mr. Fu (and the first by Ms. Guo) against their adult son Patrick to revoke unconditional gifts. Plaintiffs have woven a web of tangled and contradictory claims in the lawsuits they have filed here, in Illinois, and in Shanghai. Taken together, Plaintiffs’ are unlawfully using legal process to accomplish an ulterior purpose. BACKGROUND BE [WEEN PATRICK AND HIS PARENTS Patrick, age 26, is the elder of two children of the Plaintiffs, and has lived in the United States since January 2013. The Plaintiffs are wealthy Chinese nationals residing in Shanghai. Plaintiff Mr. Fu is a successful and experienced financial investor. He is the Deputy General Manager at AEGON-Industrial Fund Management Co., Ltd., an asset management company in Shanghai. Plaintiff Ms. Guo has not worked outside the home for more than a decade. Patrick began the process of applying for an EB-5 visa to come to the United States in 2012. In order for Patrick to qualify for the EB-5 visa, he needed $500,000 to invest in the United States, as well as additional funds for related expenses. In support of Patrick’s desire to remain: in the United States and pursue an EB-S visa, Plaintiffs made an unconditional gift to Patrick of $590,000 on February 27, 2012. In the meantime, Patrick wanted to study in the United States and arrived in January 2013 using a F1 student visa and attended Mount Ida College, where he graduated with his Master of Science in Management degree. . Patrick is in the process of exploring opportunities for investment of those gifted funds into multiple EB-5 projects. . In May 2016, Mr. Fu filed lawsuits in Shanghai and Illinois to recover this unconditional gift under Chinese law. PATRICK PURCHASES THE BRIGHTON PROPERTY . Following the EB-S5 gift in 2012, the Plaintiffs continued to transfer gifts of money to Patrick for his support and maintenance, encouraging the deposit of funds to be accessed by him, throughout 2013 and concluding in August of 2014. 1514, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The gifts allowed Patrick to purchasé: the Brighton Property for $795,000, which Patrick ultimately leased out and used as a souice of income to pay for his living expenses and tuition, as well as for the property’s upkeep, among other expenses. Patrick made the offer of $795,000 on the Brighton Property on July 12, 2013, which was accepted. Patrick closed on the Brighton Property on August 30, 2013 and paid the remaining balance due from his funds. PATRICK AND MING PURCHASE THE CHESTNUT HILL PROPERTY In the spring of 2014, Patrick and Ming visited the Chestnut Hill Property. Patrick told the Plaintiffs about the Chestnut Hill Property, and they agreed to gift monies to Patrick to purchase the Chestnut Hill Froperty as a “wedding gift”. After Patrick determined that securing a mortgage to purchase the Chestnut Hill Property was not possible, the Plaintiffs agreed that Patrick should obligate himself on a home equity loan on the Brighton Property to use for the purchase of Chestnut Hill, which they promised that they would pay back. Patrick obligated himself on a home equity loan on the Brighton Property in the amount of $387,500 and used the money to assist; in the purchase of Chestnut Hill. Plaintiffs also asked Patrick to provice authorization for them to sell the three properties of which he was a registered co-owner in China, so that he could use the equity that he had in the Chinese properties to purchase the Chzstnut Hill Property. Patrick provided his authorization to’ sell his interest in the Chinese properties because the Plaintiffs promised that they would help fund the purchase of the Chestnut Hill Property as a gift, and provide sufficient funds to also discharge the mortgage on the Brighton Property. Plaintiffs failed to transfer sufficient funds to cover the purchase price of the Chestnut Hill Property, or to retire the mortgage on tie Brighton Property, despite Patrick providing a release of his interests in China. Patrick and Ming also used funds from Ming, and from Ming’s parents, to purchase the Chestnut Hill Property. Ming had $17,000 of her own. Prior to the wedding, Ming’s parents had transferred her $200,000 to her as gifts for use on the purchase of the house, and for other expenses related to the wedding and furnishing the Chestnut Hill Property. 1625. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Patrick and Ming also used approximitely $200,000 that the Plaintiffs transferred to Ming’s parents, and which Ming’s parents subsequently transferred to Ming. When Patrick purchased the Brighton ‘Property in 2013, Plaintiffs gifted him $275,000 more than was necessary to purchase the proverty. In the remainder of 2013, Plaintiffs gifted Patrick approximately $250,000 in additional, funds. Patrick invested $395,000 of these gifts in the stock market for several months. When he withdrew these funds in April and June 2014, he earned gains of over $70,000. Patrick then used a portion of these funds towards the purchase of the Chestnut Hill Property. On June 16, 2014, Patrick and Ming purchased the Chestnut Hill Property for a purchase price of $1,990,000. PATRICK AND MING’S WEDDING Patrick’s parents began to express reservations about Ming to him over WeChat starting in or around May of 2014. They complained that they perceived Ming as “not a typical Chinese woman,” asserted that she would be difficult to control, and claimed that her family was not wealthy or prominent enough to provide a “suitable wife” for Patrick. Patrick and Ming’s wedding was scheduled to take place on August 28, 2014 and Plaintiffs agreed to attend. : The night before the wedding, Plainti:s left the Chestnut Hill Property. Mr. Fu told Patrick that he would no longer accept him as their son and would never see him again unless he agreed to call off the wedding. : Patrick and Ming were married on Auzust 28, 2014. MR. FU’S MISCONDUCT On September 9, 2015, Mr. Fu attempted to break into the Chestnut Hill property. When the police arrived at the scene, he stated ‘ae was there because he wanted Patrick to divorce his wife. . Mr. Fu created patfupatfupatfu@gmail.com and fabricated correspondence with Patrick, although ‘the parties had no communiization following Mr. Fu’s trespass at the Chestnut Hill property. i By summer 2016, the Plaintiffs collectively filed lawsuits in Shanghai, in Illinois, and (thirdly) this subject suit against Patrick and Ming. In the Illinois and Shanghai litigation, Mr. Fu sought to rescind the EB-S gift to Patrick. 1736. 37, 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. 46. 47. The Illinois lawsuit was dismissed and decided against Mr. Fu. The Shanghai litigation is based on the same false allegations made in the Illinois lawsuit and this lawsuit. ‘ Plaintiffs’ actions in this case constitute abuse of process to achieve an ulterior purpose. On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed this baseless suit, causing the Defendants to incur substantial legal fees, in addition to the fees required to defend the meritless and harassing lawsuits in Illinois and Shanghai. Plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit in pursuit of ulterior and improper purposes, namely to use intimidation and economic pressure tc force Patrick to divorce Ming, and ultimately compel his return to China, and not for the stated reasons of recovering the properties or funds. Count I Abuse of Process ‘Mr. Fu & Ms. Guo Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintixfs incorporate all other allegations by reference as if realleged herein. Plaintiffs have used legal process in this Court for improper and illegitimate purposes unrelated to any evidence that the monies they have transferred to their son were not gifts. Defendants have incurred and contiriue to incur substantial legal fees as a result of the Plaintiffs’ tortious misconduct. It is an abuse of process for the Plaintif’s to use process of law as a means of economic coercion to accomplish an ulterior purpose. Count It Promissory Estoppel Mr, Fu & Ms. Guo Defendants and Counterclaim Plainti:fs incorporate all other allegations by reference as if realleged herein. The Plaintiffs promised Patrick that, i? he took a mortgage on the Brighton Property in order to fund the purchase of the Chestnut Hill Property, the Plaintiffs would then repay him for it. Patrick reasonably relied on the Plaintiffs’ promise that they would repay the mortgage on the Brighton Property once the Plaintiffs were able to secure additional cash. 1848. 49. 50. Sl. 52. 53. 54, a i Patrick took the mortgage on the Brighton Property and has made payments on it since that i time despite Plaintiffs’ promise that ‘they would pay the costs, and he has been damaged accordingly. : Justice requires that Plaintiffs’ promis: be enforced. : Count I Unjust Enrichment Mr. Fu & Ms. Guo Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs incorporate all other allegations by reference as if realleged-herein. Patrick was a registered owner, with the Plaintiffs, of at least three properties in China. Plaintiffs requested that Patrick provicle consent for them to sell those properties in exchange for the promise to gift to him funds that would be needed to purchase the Chestnut Hill property. : Patrick provided the requested consent but Plaintiffs failed to provide the money to purchase the Chestnut Hill Property. Plaintiffs have been unjustly enriched 1o the extent that they have acquired Patrick’s ownership interest in those three properties and failed to remit an appropriate proportion of the resulting funds to Patrick. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Defendants seek compensatory, and punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, emotional distress damage:;, disgorgement and/or the imposition of a constructive trust over assets or property rightfully owned by Patrick, and such other legal and equitable relief as this Court'deems just and proper. 19! Respectfully Submitted, 1 PATRICK YONGXIAO FU and : MING ZHU YAN, By theis-atforneys, Lauila R7Studen, Esq. (BBO# 483490) Istuden@burnslev.com BURNS & LEVINSON LLP 125 Summer Street Boston, MA 02216 Tel: 617.345.3000 Fax: 617.345.3299 June 9, 2017 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Laura R. Studen, hereby certify that on June 9, 2017, I caused the foregoing document to be served by electronical and US Mail tipon all counsel of 1 Laura. Studen, Esq. 4845-1604-3082.6 20