A fierce inheritance battle ignited after a brother claimed he dropped his ‘film industry’ career to look after his parents but his siblings branded him a ‘disappointment’ and ‘financial drain’
A man dubbed a “parasite” by his siblings for “lounging around watching movies non-stop” while his elderly mum looked after him is locked in a £600,000 inheritance battle.
Robert Chung, 62, moved back into his parents’ Essex home more than 30 years ago and stayed there until his dad and mum died. The son claimed the house was promised to him because he gave up a “well-paid” job in the “film industry” to care for them when he was still in his 30s. Robert claimed he sacrificed his career to work in a Job Centre for over two decades while looking first after his dad, Victor, and mum, Irene Chung, until her death in 2016.
A massive row broke out after his successful siblings – senior accountant Marina Bennett, 60, and IT manager Richard Chung, 58 – argued the house and the rest of her estate should be split three ways.
The siblings labelled Robert a “disappointment” and a “financial drain” on their parents who never cared for them. They also claimed the mum had actually cared for Robert by cooking his meals and washing his clothes while her health deteriorated.
The brother and sister dubbed Robert a “pathological liar” with a “grandiose view” of himself, who never properly flew the nest and whose claims of involvement in the “film industry” amounted to a job in a Blockbuster video shop. Central London County Court heard Victor and Irene Chung brought up their three children in a three-bed detached home, now worth about £400,000, in South Woodford.
Barrister Faisel Sadiq, representing Robert’s siblings, told Recorder Lawrence McDonald that they had always instilled a sense of “self-reliance” in their children. But while Marina and Richard had gone off to forge successful careers – Marina in the US and Canada, and Richard in London – Robert had been a “disappointment.”
Robert had moved out of the family home to Berkshire but moved back in 1990. Giving evidence, Robert told the judge that he went back home because he had been asked to do so to provide care for his elderly parents.
His father had cancer and died in 1998, but asked that he stay on to look after his mum, who Robert said needed help with cooking and cleaning. He claimed both his parents promised that if he did he’d get the house, but that a will his mother drew up in his favour during her final days was not executed before her death in 2016.
As she died intestate, her estate was to be split three ways with his two siblings, leading to an eviction notice from the professional administrator of the estate, sparking Robert’s court fight for ownership of the house. Representing himself, he said he had acted to his detriment in moving back home in 1990, leaving behind his “film industry” job.
Robert told the judge: “I didn’t want to end up working in a Job Centre, but that’s what I did for 22 years. That’s a choice I made for my parents.” Outside court, he said he had worked for Blockbusters, but had also written promotional copy for movies and also worked in merchandising.
Mr Sadiq however said it was his siblings’ case that no promises were made about the house and it would have been out of character for their parents to have done so. He also claimed the parents did not need, nor get, any care from their son but he became a “financial drain”.
The barrister added that Robert’s claim of moving back in because his dad had been diagnosed with cancer was “simply untrue” as the diagnosis was not until 1992. He said: “Our case is that you were the son that was a bit of a disappointment, who didn’t leave home and was financially dependent on his parents.”
He added: “Your father didn’t need or get any care from you at any point before he died. His cancer did not lead to him needing any care, save for the last month of his life. Your mother didn’t need any help or care until the last couple of years. She remained the strong, determined woman she had been.
“In fact it was the position that it was your mother who looked after you until the last year of her life. She cooked your meals, did your laundry. When her health deteriorated, you didn’t provide her with the care she needed, did you? You provided your mum with no care. You didn’t feed her, didn’t really deal with her dirty clothes, and you left the house a tip.”
Responding, Robert denied that, telling the judge that he always made sure his mum’s clothes were clean and arranged her meals before he left for work. In her evidence, Marina said she had been a regular visitor of her mum even after she emigrated to North America, but missed 2015 and been shocked when she came home the following year.
The sister said: “She had lost 30lbs in weight. For someone supposedly looking after mum, Robert Chung had failed.” She described her brother as a “pathological liar” and accused him of “just lounging in the living room watching movies non-stop, with mum doing everything around you”.
She said: “Robert has a grandiose view of his importance. He boasts he was self-employed when in reality he worked in a video store.” Addressing him directly, she added: “Mum and dad wanted you to live on your own and have your own house. They would have supported you in that respect, but everything I have seen so far doesn’t support a promise that you would have the house.”
Denying she hates her brother, Marina told the judge she instead ignores him, as she has done since she was a small child, because to dislike him “would require energy and emotion.” But Robert told the judge that the evidence of his sister and brother should be treated with caution due to the obvious bad feeling between them and the fact they will benefit financially if he doesn’t get the house.
After a week in court, Recorder McDonald reserved his decision on the dispute until a later date. The case has been brought by the professional administrator of Irene Chung’s estate, who is asking the judge to rule that Robert has to get out of the house so it can be sold and the proceeds divided up.
Robert is defending the possession claim, while counterclaiming for ownership of the house on the basis of the alleged promises made to him by his parents. The administrator is also claiming almost £200,000 from Robert on behalf of the estate in rent for the years he has remained in the house since first being asked to leave after his mum’s death.
