Vang v. Xiong
| Docket Number | Supreme Court No. S-18337 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 2023 |
| Parties | Tong VANG, Appellant, v. Pa Kou XIONG, Appellee. |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
Joe P. Josephson, Josephson Law Offices, LLC, Anchorage, for Appellant.
Richard A. Helm, Law Office of Richard A. Helm, Anchorage, for Appellee.
Before: Winfree, Chief Justice, Maassen, Carney, Borghesan, and Henderson, Justices.
Tong Vang and Pa Kou Xiong were in a three-year relationship and have two children together. They were married according to the customs of the Hmong culture but never legally married. Upon dissolution of the relationship, the superior court determined that Vang owed Xiong $38,000 in damages for three unpaid loans made to Vang and his family during the relationship. Vang now argues the superior court should have resolved the dispute "in light of domestic relations law principles." Specifically he argues the court should have applied a presumption treating the transfer of funds between "close relatives" as gifts. Because both parties conceded they were not legally married and neither party sought to establish a domestic partnership at trial, we decline to apply the presumption. And because the record supports the superior court's finding that Xiong intended the transfers of money to be loans, as well as the court's other factual findings, we affirm the superior court's judgment.
Vang and Xiong entered into a relationship in 2018 and were married according to the customs of the Hmong culture in 2019; they have two children. They never legally married and separated in early 2021.
Xiong subsequently filed for custody of the children and for damages, seeking repayment of $38,000: $3,000 she loaned Vang to make payments on his mother's life insurance policy; $30,000 she loaned him to help pay for his mother's funeral; and $5,000 she alleges was sent to Vang's sister without permission. Vang disputed her claims and counterclaimed for damages, alleging Xiong retained proceeds from his mother's insurance policy and took jewelry belonging to him.
The superior court held a three-day trial, during which the parties produced conflicting evidence and testimony regarding their finances and the payments.
Xiong testified first. She testified that she loaned Vang $3,000 to pay for his mother's life insurance and that Vang told her he would pay her back either from his own funds or from the eventual life insurance payment. She similarly testified that, after Vang's mother died, she loaned his family $30,000 for the funeral. Again she testified that she expected to be paid from the life insurance payment and added that his family members assured her she would be repaid. And finally she testified that Vang, without her permission, wrote a $5,000 check from her bank account to his sister in order to help his sister purchase a house. She testified that the memo line for the check — "for mom insurance" — referred to how she would be repaid.
Xiong explained that she and Vang had separate finances and that she had accumulated significant savings from her employment, parents, and wedding gifts. Of the $30,000 she loaned Vang for his mother's funeral, she stated that $20,000 was from her savings and another $10,000 was from money that was hers but that her parents had been holding for her. She also testified and provided evidence showing that the couple opened a joint account for an expected payment of $50,000 from the life insurance policy, but that Vang emptied the account. Finally she testified that the jewelry that was the subject of his counterclaim had been given to her.
Xiong's mother also testified. She corroborated Xiong's account, saying Xiong informed her two of the payments were loans she expected to recoup. She also testified that she warned Xiong not to make the payments because she did not think Vang could or would pay her back. She confirmed the wedding gifts held by her and Xiong's father were given only to Xiong and not to the couple together. Finally she agreed with Xiong's accounting of the jewelry.
Xiong's brother's testimony was similar. He testified that he helped retrieve the $10,000 being held by his parents on Xiong's behalf and agreed that those funds were always considered Xiong's money. He also testified that he was told in Vang's presence that the funeral payment was a loan. He supported his mother's and sister's testimony regarding the jewelry.
Vang testified next, disagreeing with Xiong's account. He did not address the $3,000 payment but disagreed with her account of the $30,000 payment. He testified that his mother's funeral was paid for by another, larger life insurance policy. He stated that he had intended to hold leftover proceeds from that payment on behalf of several of his siblings, but that at Xiong's request, he let her control those funds, and she wrongfully retained them. He also testified that Xiong agreed with the $5,000 payment to his sister, which he indicated was initially paid for from the insurance proceeds but was then reimbursed from his mother's estate. He testified that the note on the memo line incompletely showed the source of the funds. He also testified about the jewelry he claimed was his, and suggested that he and Xiong could split the wedding gifts.
Vang's uncle also testified. He testified that in Hmong culture, wedding gifts on the bride's side are given to the couple together and that if a wife initiates the divorce, "then she must split that money evenly among them." He also testified that he collected $29,000 in gifts from the bride's side. And he testified generally about the expenses associated with a traditional Hmong funeral but he did not know the exact breakdown of costs for Vang's mother's funeral or where the funds came from.1
Vang's sister testified next. She stated that she had taken out, initially paid for, and managed a $100,000 life insurance policy in anticipation of the funeral. She testified that Vang was the beneficiary of a second $50,000 policy that had been taken out to provide for their younger siblings. She testified that after she received the payment from the larger policy, she sent two payments totalling $34,000 for the funeral. She testified that about $10,000 was split between the siblings, that she personally gave Xiong $3,600 of that to be held for some of the younger siblings, and that Xiong kept this money after the couple separated. She testified that she kept about $40,000 from the policy. When questioned by counsel and the court, she could not provide exact amounts of funeral expenses but testified that other relatives contributed money and estimated the total cost was around $50,000.
Another of Vang's sisters testified about the $5,000 check she received. She indicated the money was her share of the life insurance payment and was "never for a down payment for a house." She declined to tell the court how she used the money, instead telling Xiong's attorney that "it's my own personal matter and I can use it however I want to."
Xiong testified in rebuttal and provided a more detailed breakdown of funeral expenses, estimating that the total cost was around $55,000. She reiterated that the wedding gifts were "only given to me," though she acknowledged that wedding traditions could vary from family to family. She testified some more about the jewelry Vang claimed was his, and denied that she had money belonging to Vang or his siblings, saying their shares of the insurance payment were spent immediately on various purchases. Xiong again testified that she did not approve of the $5,000 check, that she and Vang opened a joint account to hold the insurance proceeds, that some of the proceeds were supposed to be a repayment for her loans, and that Vang took this money.
After both parties provided written closing arguments, the superior court issued an order and subsequently a judgment awarding Xiong full damages plus interest and fees. In a footnote the court "note[d] that neither party attempted to prove a domestic relationship" and instead "acknowledged that they were not legally married" but were instead "culturally married."
The court found that Xiong was credible with respect to the $3,000 that she asserted was a loan. The court also observed that Vang had not contradicted her testimony.
Turning to the $30,000 loan, the court noted its initial skepticism that Xiong would have been able to make such a large loan but stated it had been persuaded by her credible testimony about her savings. The court also acknowledged initial doubts about Xiong's account of the funeral but ultimately found that "the testimony ... fit Ms. Xiong's version of events rather perfectly." It emphasized that Vang's sister, who held the larger insurance policy, testified to sending only $25,000 for funeral costs despite also testifying that the funeral likely cost around $50,000. Because Vang and his family had testified about leftover proceeds, the court concluded there must have been a loan to close the gap. The court also credited Xiong's testimony that the wedding gifts belonged to her — noting that they were held by her family — and that she "expected to be repaid."
Regarding the $5,000 loan, the court credited Xiong's testimony because it found that Vang's testimony was inconsistent with his sister's. The court did not believe that Xiong had kept insurance proceeds meant for Vang's siblings and concluded that Vang owed Xiong $38,000.
Finally, the court concluded that of the three pieces of jewelry in Vang's counterclaim, one belonged to Xiong, one belonged equally to both parties, and the existence of the third had not been established.
Vang appeals, alleging the superior court committed legal error by treating the couple as unrelated and arguing that it should have treated them as spouses, "close...
To continue reading
Request your trial