Inherited US Real Estate Dispute: How We Recovered $1.9 Million for a Taiwanese Family
- Jeff Chang
- 11 hours ago
- 12 min read
In January 2026, a Massachusetts Superior Court issued a decision in a case I tried that will return approximately $1.9 million to a Taiwanese family whose father's US real estate investment was at risk of being lost entirely. The case, Chen v. Chen, Suffolk Superior Court Civil Action No. 1784CV00590, involved Taiwanese nationals on both sides, millions of dollars in cross-border wire transfers, no written partnership agreement, and a dispute that had been building for nearly a decade.
I am writing about this case because the fact pattern is not unusual. Over the course of my practice, I have seen variations of this kind of inherited US real estate dispute repeatedly among Chinese and Taiwanese families. A parent invests in US real estate through an informal arrangement with another family. Title goes into someone's name. The parent passes away. And a dispute erupts over who has rights to the property and its proceeds.
Sometimes you are the heir who funded the investment but whose name is not on the deed. Sometimes you are the child whose name is on the title, placed there by a parent who intended the property for your benefit, and the other parties to the arrangement are now challenging your ownership. Either way, you are dealing with an informal arrangement, no written agreement, and a dispute that crosses international borders.
If you are in either situation, this article explains what happened in this case, how US courts handle these disputes, and what your options may be.
The Case: An Informal Investment Partnership That Worked Until It Didn't
The facts, as found by the court after a four-day trial, followed a pattern I have seen many times in the Asian business community.
Two families, both Taiwanese, had invested together in real estate for decades. One side identified properties and managed them. The other side provided much of the capital. Over that period, they purchased approximately thirty properties together, primarily in Taiwan. There was no written partnership agreement. The arrangement operated on trust and a shared understanding: after the property sold, they would split the profits evenly once the capital contributions were repaid.
For one particular property, a condominium at 45 Province Street in Boston, the purchase price was $1,875,000. The investor, Sung-Chi Chen, funded the entire amount, but the way the money moved illustrates how intertwined these relationships can become. He had originally provided the funds for the purchase, but the other family used that money for a different deal. When it came time to close on the unit, Sung-Chi did not have enough cash available, so he paid $405,000 directly and borrowed the remaining approximately $1,475,000 from the other family to complete the purchase. He repaid that loan in four installments over the following year. Title was placed in the name of one of Sung-Chi's children, our client. The other family managed the property, found a tenant, collected rent, and handled the day-to-day responsibilities.
This arrangement worked for about two years. Then the investor died unexpectedly in a car accident.
How an Inherited US Real Estate Dispute Unfolded After the Death
After the investor passed, the relationship between the families broke down. The other family, who had been managing the property, continued collecting rent but did not share any of the income with the investor's heirs. They did not account for the revenues or expenses. They failed to keep current on property taxes and condominium fees, resulting in a tax lien on the property that one of the heirs ultimately had to pay from Taiwan.
When the heirs tried to assert their father's interest in the property, the other family pushed back, filing suit and arguing that the heirs should release any claim to the condominium.
The heirs were in Taiwan. They were grieving. They were dealing with an unfamiliar legal system in a foreign country. The person who understood the full scope of their father's US investments was gone. And the other parties to the arrangement were telling them they had no rights.
Why This Case Required More Than Just Legal Knowledge
This is where I want to be direct about why cases like this require a specific kind of attorney, and why I believe our firm was the right fit.
I understood this case from the inside. Not just the legal issues, but the way the underlying business relationship actually worked.
The informal partnership structure in this case, where one side provides capital and the other identifies deals and manages properties, with title placed in a family member's name and profits split on the back end, is common in Taiwanese and Chinese business communities. These arrangements are built on personal trust and family relationships, not written contracts. The parties often use wire transfers through family bank accounts, rely on handshake agreements, and consider formal written contracts unnecessary or even disrespectful between people who trust each other.
An attorney without experience in this community might look at the facts and see chaos: money flowing through family accounts in multiple currencies, properties in various names, no written agreements, no corporate structure. The investor's original funds being redirected to another deal, then a loan from the managing partners to cover the gap, then repayment over the following year through wire transfers between Taiwan bank accounts. But within the cultural context, the arrangement had a clear internal logic. Partners in these relationships routinely redirect capital across deals and lend to each other, with the understanding that everything nets out over time. Both sides knew exactly what they had agreed to. The problem was not that the agreement was unclear. The problem was that one side stopped honoring it after the other side's principal died.
Understanding this distinction mattered at trial. It informed how we presented the evidence, how we framed the wire transfer records, and how we explained to the court why the absence of a written agreement did not mean the absence of an agreement.
The Legal Framework: Resulting Trusts
The legal tool the court applied is called a resulting trust. Under Massachusetts law, when one person pays for property but title is placed in another person's name, the court can find that the title holder was supposed to hold the property for the benefit of the person who paid for it. The key question is what the parties intended at the time of the purchase.
In this case, we presented wire transfer records showing the full arc of the transaction: the loan from the other family to Sung-Chi for the purchase, the funds flowing through family bank accounts to the closing attorney, and then Sung-Chi's four repayment transfers totaling over $1.47 million in 2012 and 2013. We showed the parties' decades-long history of similar real estate investments, primarily in Taiwan, following the same pattern. We demonstrated that Sung-Chi had purchased other properties in his children's names with the intent that each child would benefit from specific properties held in their name.
The court found the evidence persuasive. It ruled that although Sung-Chi's daughter, Sonia, held sole legal title, the intent was to create a resulting trust whereby she held the property for the benefit of both herself and the other family. The court ordered that Sung-Chi's initial capital investment of $1,875,000 be returned to Sonia as the intended beneficiary of her father's investment, and that the remaining profit from the sale be split evenly between the parties. In total, our client will recover approximately $1.9 million.
One piece of evidence proved particularly important. Years before the lawsuit, Taiwan's National Tax Bureau investigated Sung-Chi's wire transfers to determine potential tax liability. In response, a member of the other family wrote to the tax authorities explaining that the four transfers from Sung-Chi were repayments of loans the other family had made to him in connection with their real estate investments. That letter, written for a completely different purpose and well before litigation was anticipated, was essentially an admission that Sung-Chi had borrowed the purchase funds and repaid them in full. The court afforded it great weight.
Fiduciary Duty and Accountability
The resulting trust was only part of the case. The court also addressed what happened after the investor's death.
The other family had managed the property for years, collecting approximately $306,000 in rent while paying associated expenses. They kept all of the rental income. They failed to pay property taxes, resulting in a lien that one of the heirs had to pay to prevent further consequences. When the heir regained control of the property, she paid the outstanding taxes, condo fees, and renovation costs out of her own pocket, but she also did not rent the unit or generate income to offset those expenses.
The court found that both sides had fallen short in their responsibilities. Neither party was diligent about tracking and paying the property taxes. Neither side fully mitigated their damages. As a result, the court split the responsibility for certain costs equally and declined to award either side the fees they had incurred in the litigation.
This outcome reflects something I often see in these cases: the relationships are complicated, both sides feel wronged, and the court's job is to sort through the facts and reach an equitable result. The goal for our clients was not to destroy the other side. It was to establish their father's investment, protect their inheritance, and reach a fair resolution. The court's decision accomplished that.
What This Inherited US Real Estate Dispute Means for Your Situation
If your parent invested in US real estate and you are now trying to figure out what they owned and how to protect your interest, whether as an heir whose name is not on the deed or as the title holder whose ownership is being challenged, there are a few things I want you to take away from this case.
First, the absence of a written agreement does not mean you have no claim. Courts can and do enforce informal investment arrangements, particularly when there is financial evidence like wire transfers showing who actually funded the purchase.
Second, the name on the deed is not the end of the analysis. Resulting trusts exist precisely for situations where title does not reflect the true ownership arrangement. This cuts both ways: if you funded the investment, you may have an enforceable interest even without your name on the deed. If your name is on the deed, the court may also recognize your interest, but the other parties to the arrangement may have enforceable rights as well. Either way, understanding the full arrangement matters more than the deed alone.
Third, if you are the title holder being challenged, you need an attorney who can present your side effectively. In the Chen case, our client held title, and the other family filed suit arguing she should give up her interest. The court's decision protected her rights precisely because we were able to demonstrate what the parties actually intended when the property was purchased.
Fourth, you can pursue these claims from overseas. Our clients in this case were based in Taiwan. They did not need to relocate to the United States to protect their rights. We managed the litigation, conducted the trial, and secured the court order on their behalf.
Fifth, time matters. Evidence can be lost. Property can be sold. Statutes of limitations can expire. The sooner you consult with an attorney, the more options you have.
And sixth, who you hire matters. These cases sit at the intersection of US litigation, cross-border finance, and Asian business culture. An attorney who understands only one of those areas will miss things. The wire transfer patterns, the family account structures, the cultural logic behind putting property in a child's name, the reason there is no written contract, these are not problems to be explained away. They are the facts of the case, and presenting them effectively requires an attorney who understands both the legal system and the cultural context.
Frequently Asked Questions
My name is on the deed but someone is claiming they funded the purchase. What are my rights?
If your name is on the title, you have legal ownership, but the other party may argue that a resulting trust exists in their favor based on their financial contribution. The outcome depends on what the parties intended at the time of purchase. If the property was placed in your name with the understanding that you would benefit from it, as was the case for our client in the Chen case, you may have a strong position. An attorney can help you evaluate the evidence and present your side effectively.
My parent put money into a US property but the deed is in someone else's name. Do I have any rights?
Possibly. If your parent contributed money toward the purchase with the understanding that they would share in the ownership or profits, US courts can recognize an equitable interest even when the deed is in another person's name. The key question is what the parties intended at the time of purchase, and whether evidence supports that intent.
What is a resulting trust?
A resulting trust is a legal concept that courts apply when one person pays for property but title is placed in another person's name. If the evidence shows that the title holder was supposed to hold the property for the benefit of the person who paid, the court can enforce that arrangement. In the Chen case, the Massachusetts Superior Court applied this doctrine to protect the investor's heirs.
My parent and their partner never signed a written agreement. Does that mean I have no claim?
Not necessarily. In the case discussed in this article, there was no written partnership agreement covering decades of joint real estate investments. The court relied on wire transfer records, the parties' course of dealing, and other evidence to establish the arrangement and enforce it. Written agreements make claims easier to prove, but their absence does not automatically prevent recovery.
The person managing the property is collecting rent and not sharing it. What can I do?
If that person was managing the property under an arrangement that required them to share income or account for revenues and expenses, their failure to do so may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. In the Chen case, the other family collected rent for years without sharing it with the investor's heirs. The court took this into account when allocating the sale proceeds.
Can I file a lawsuit in the US if I live in Taiwan or China?
Yes. US courts regularly handle cases involving overseas parties. Our clients in the Chen case were based in Taiwan. We managed the entire litigation on their behalf, including a four-day trial. Testimony can often be arranged through videoconference or written declaration when physical presence is not practical.
The property is being sold. What can I do to protect my interest?
An attorney can file a lis pendens, which is a public notice recorded in the property records alerting buyers and title companies that the property is subject to a legal dispute. In the Chen case, the parties used this tool early in the litigation to ensure the sale proceeds were held in escrow pending resolution. This prevented either side from unilaterally taking the money.
Do I need to open a probate case in the United States?
It depends on the circumstances. In some cases, it may be possible to proceed through a civil lawsuit to establish your parent's interest without a separate probate proceeding. In others, probate may be necessary to formally transfer the interest to heirs. An attorney can advise on the best approach based on your situation.
How long do I have to bring a claim?
Statutes of limitations vary by state and by the type of claim. In Massachusetts, certain property-related claims must be brought within a specific number of years. The clock may start from the date of the wrongful act, from the date you discovered the problem, or from other triggering events. The safest approach is to consult an attorney as soon as you suspect there may be an issue.
What evidence should I be gathering?
Bank records and wire transfer confirmations showing money sent to the United States or to the other party, especially around the time of a property purchase. Correspondence between your parent and the other party about the property, including email, text messages, WeChat, LINE, or letters. Tax filings that reference foreign property or income. Any documents mentioning US real estate, addresses, property management, or the other party's name. In the Chen case, wire transfer records from Taiwan and a letter to Taiwan's National Tax Bureau were among the most important pieces of evidence.
Does it matter whether my parent was investing from Taiwan or mainland China?
The US legal analysis is largely the same regardless of where your parent was based. The differences relate primarily to inheritance and tax law in the home jurisdiction, and to practical matters like authenticating documents and coordinating with local counsel. Both Taiwanese and mainland Chinese heirs can assert claims in US courts.
How Chang Law Group Can Help
I have nearly 20 years of litigation experience in US courts, including cases involving informal investment arrangements, resulting trusts, and fiduciary duty claims across borders. I speak conversational Mandarin and Taiwanese, and I understand the business practices and cultural dynamics that shape these investment relationships, not from a textbook, but from lived experience working within the Asian business community.
If you believe your parent had an interest in US real estate that is now at risk, or if you hold title to a property and another party is challenging your ownership, I can help you assess the situation, identify the property, gather evidence, and pursue or defend your claim. You do not need to be in the United States to get started.
Chang Law Group LLC One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210
Contact:
Phone: (617) 307-1238
Email: info@jchanglaw.com
WeChat: ChangLawGroupLLC
This article discusses a publicly available court decision, Chen v. Chen, Suffolk Superior Court Civil Action No. 1784CV00590, decided January 15, 2026. The discussion is based on the court's published findings and is provided for informational purposes only.
This article provides general information only and is not legal advice for your specific situation. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship with Chang Law Group. This article may not reflect recent developments or apply to your particular circumstances. Laws governing property rights, trusts, and inheritance vary by state and country, and the application of these principles depends on the specific facts of each case. Consult Chang Law Group LLC to evaluate your specific situation and options.