Beijing Family Court Clash Over Seven Apartments: Daughter Sues Father for Property Compensation as He Demands Alimony.

When the couple divorced in 2018, the parties reached an agreement aimed at protecting their only child’s future. The settlement stipulated that all seven residential units the family owned would be legally transferred to the daughter. In exchange, the parents would retain the right to continue living in three one‑bedroom apartments for the mother and three two‑bedroom apartments for the father. The arrangement was meant to be a clean break: the daughter would own the properties outright, while the parents would keep short‑term usage rights.

Life after the divorce, however, altered the balance of that agreement. The father remarried and started a new family, while the mother remained single. When the daughter, now an adult, and her mother moved to formalize the transfer of the titles, the father stalled. He told his ex‑wife that he could not sign over the deeds because doing so would leave him without any property of his own. He initially demanded that his name be added to the certificates, a request the mother flatly rejected.

In an attempt to de‑escalate the standoff, the daughter offered a compromise: she would allow her father to reside for the rest of his life in whatever of the seven units he chose. The proposal was accepted, and the paperwork appeared to be moving forward.

The situation took another dramatic turn when three of the apartments were slated for demolition as part of a municipal redevelopment project. The compensation for the—more than one million yuan (roughly $140,000)—was meant to be divided according to the original agreement. Instead, the father quietly collected the entire sum for himself. The daughter filed a civil suit demanding that the compensation be split as originally intended. The court ruled in her favor and ordered the father’s bank accounts to be frozen pending payment.

Feeling the pressure of the frozen accounts, the father filed a counter‑suit in August 2024, seeking a monthly alimony payment of 5,000 yuan (about $700) from his daughter. He argued that without access to his funds, he could not support his basic living expenses, brushed on his deteriorating health, and claimed that his financial obligations had increased now that he was supporting a new household.

The daughter and her mother have countersued, insisting that the father’s claim is baseless. They point out that, at the time of the divorce, both parents received a lump‑sum pension fund of 1.5 million yuan, which the father has already withdrawn in cash. Moreover, the apartments in question generate rental income that, even after the father allegedly shares a portion with his sister, exceeds the average household earnings in Beijing. The mother argued that the father’s obligations to his new family are his own responsibility and not a justification for extracting money from his adult child.

The father’s health concerns have also entered the courtroom. He has submitted medical documentation indicating chronic conditions that he claims impede his ability to work or manage his finances, bolstering his request for alimony. The daughter’s legal team, however, has questioned the timing and relevance of the medical reports, suggesting they are being used merely as a strategic lever.

Judges have yet to deliver a final verdict. The case remains in a state of limbo, with the frozen bank accounts still in place and the alimony claim awaiting a hearing. Legal experts observing the proceedings note that the dispute raises broader questions about the enforceability of post‑divorce property arrangements in China, especially when one party remarries and acquires new dependents. The situation also highlights the challenges families face when trying to balance filial obligations with personal financial stability.

The saga has attracted considerable attention on Chinese social media, where netizens have expressed a mixture of sympathy for the daughter—who appears to be honoring a promise made to her mother—and frustration at the father’s perceived breach of trust. Some commentators have warned that the case could set a precedent for future disputes over split‑family property settlements, urging courts to clarify the legal weight of such divorce agreements.

As the courtroom drama continues, the family’s once‑simple plan to secure a daughter’s future through the transfer of seven homes has become a cautionary tale about how remarriage, new responsibilities, and financial entanglements can upend even the most meticulously crafted settlements.