Key Facts

• Ms. Xu worked as a housekeeper and nanny for Ms. Yang beginning in April 2019.
• Between June 2019 and April 2020, Ms. Xu advanced approximately $600,000 to $700,000 to Ms. Yang.
• Ms. Xu claimed these advances were made based on a promise from Ms. Yang to put her name on the property title and share profits from its sale.
• Ms. Yang denied making such a promise, stating the funds were for investment purposes.

Issues

1. Whether Ms. Yang promised Ms. Xu an interest in the property.
2. The amount of money Ms. Yang owes Ms. Xu.

Court Findings

• Promise of Property Interest: The court found no credible evidence that Ms. Yang promised Ms. Xu an interest in the property. Ms. Xu's claim for an equitable interest in the property failed.
• Debt Claim: Ms. Xu's claim was recognized as a debt claim. Ms. Xu is entitled to repayment of the advances made to Ms. Yang, totaling $396,115.20.

Legal Doctrines Considered

• Equitable Mortgage, Partnership, Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust: All claims based on these doctrines were dismissed due to lack of evidence.
• Resulting Trust: The court found no evidence to support a resulting trust as the advances were deemed loans, not contributions to a property purchase.

Conclusion

• Ms. Yang is ordered to repay Ms. Xu $396,115.20.
• No prejudgment interest was awarded.
• Each party was ordered to bear their own costs due to mixed success at trial.