Mother Sues Son to Refund College Fees, and Wins

[ATTACH=full]148412[/ATTACH]
Taiwan’s top court has ordered a man to pay his mother almost $1m (£710,000) for raising him and funding his dentistry training.

The mother signed a contract with her son in 1997, when he was 20 years old, stating he would pay her 60% of his monthly income after qualifying.

She took him to court after he refused to pay her for several years.

The son argued it was wrong to demand a financial return for raising a child, but the court ruled the contract valid.

He has been ordered to make back payments, as well as interest, to his mother.

[SIZE=5]‘Responsibility to provide’[/SIZE]
The mother, identified only by her surname Luo, raised both her sons after she and her husband divorced.

Ms Luo said she had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars funding both her sons through dentistry school, but became worried they would be unwilling to care for her in old age.

Subsequently, she signed a contract with both of them stipulating they would pay her a portion of their earnings as repayments for the school fees, up to a total of $1.7m.

The elder son reached an agreement with his mother and settled the contract for a smaller amount, local media report.

However, the younger son, identified by his last name Chu, argued that he was very young when he signed the agreement, and the contract should be considered invalid.

Mr Chu also argued that he had worked in his mother’s dental clinic for years after graduating and had helped her make more than the amount he was now ordered to pay her.

A Supreme Court spokeswoman told the BBC the judges had reached their decision mainly because they thought the contract was valid since the son was an adult when he signed it and was not forced to do so.

Under Taiwan’s civil code, adult offspring have the responsibility to provide for their elderly parents, although most parents do not sue if their children fail to take care of them in old age, the BBC’s Cindy Sui in Taipei reports.

This case is seen as particularly unusual because it involves a parent-child contract, our correspondent adds.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42542260?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

Buda boss Ebu send your Mukuruz that G kabla ujipate mbele ya Oduol refunding school fees.

ms luo well played well played

1 Like

People who have children as an investment should never have been allowed to have kids in the first place.

Why did you even get kids if you weren’t able to plan for your own future?

15 Likes

You think you have heard and seen it all…

the mother is also a dentist ,ama you are too naive to see that?

I think the mother is right here. Imagine selling all your “ng’ombes” to take another “ng’ombe” to school. Then the damn “ng’ombe” fails to archive. That’s when you start thinking like a Maasai, I should have reared the ng’ombe and gotten many ng’ombes rather than having unproductive “ng’ombe” that knows only shisha and gambling as a way of earning.

2 Likes

if she didn’t want to spend her money on kids, then she should never have had any

7 Likes

This was a contract between two adults (son was 20 years old when he signed the contract). Parents are only responsible for raising children until they are adults (18 years). However, I agree that it is weird to raise kids as investments. I think the verdict was valid on all fronts mostly because the son was an adult when he signed that contract. I wasn’t personal, just business.

1 Like

Never have children until you learn the definition of the word “parent”.

2 Likes

:oops:

1 Like

Legally a parent is only responsible for a child until they teach age 18.
Socially a parent is responsible for their child for the rest of the child’s life.
He’s referring to the first type of responsibility

If you need to take the time to look at a person from a legal standpoint, it isn’t really your child … or a human for that matter.

At the base of the relationship between a child and it’s parent is the law. The law provides the minimum conditions a parent must meet to keep that child.

Don’t have children. Humans are not a piece of furniture you can resell or throw out when you get tired.

2 Likes

You lost me there

Just don’t procreate, mkay?

Still lost

You are the type of people who still want to pet their 35 year old “children”

mtu umbwa kama @uncle nyam mwenye amejaza mafi kwa kichwa mama yake pia anaweza mu sue ?

Uncle nyam ana hasira za waarabu kumi