An inheritance dispute worth £600,000 has arisen involving a man labeled a “parasite” by his siblings for his lifestyle of watching movies while his elderly mother cared for him. Robert Chung, aged 62, returned to his parents’ residence in Essex over three decades ago and remained there until both his parents passed away. He contended that the house was pledged to him as he abandoned a lucrative career in the film industry to look after his parents in his 30s by working at a Job Centre for more than 20 years.
Tensions escalated when Robert’s siblings, Marina Bennett, 60, a senior accountant, and Richard Chung, 58, an IT manager, argued that the estate, including the house, should be divided equally among them. They criticized Robert as a burden on their parents who allegedly did not provide any care for them. They also alleged that their mother had attended to Robert’s needs by preparing meals and doing his laundry as her health declined.
Robert’s siblings portrayed him as a “pathological liar” with an inflated sense of self-importance, highlighting his minimal contribution to the household compared to their successful careers. The family home in South Woodford, currently valued at around £400,000, was where the siblings were raised. The court heard that while Marina and Richard pursued thriving careers in different countries, Robert’s presence at home was deemed disappointing.
Robert claimed that his decision to move back home was based on his parents’ request to assist with their care, particularly after his father’s cancer diagnosis in 1998. Despite promises of inheriting the house, a will in Robert’s favor was not executed before his mother’s death in 2016, leading to an estate division among the siblings. This triggered a legal battle initiated by Robert to secure ownership of the property.
The court proceedings revealed conflicting narratives, with Robert asserting his sacrifices for his parents’ well-being, including leaving his film industry job for a Job Centre role. His siblings, represented by barrister Faisel Sadiq, disputed Robert’s assertions, claiming that no assurances were made regarding the property and questioning his caregiving role.
After a thorough week of hearings, Recorder Lawrence McDonald postponed the verdict on the matter. The case was brought by the estate’s professional administrator, seeking Robert’s eviction to facilitate the property’s sale and equitable distribution of proceeds. Robert, in turn, defended his right to the house based on alleged assurances from his parents and contested the rental fees demanded by the estate.
The legal dispute remains unresolved, pending the court’s final decision on the conflicting claims and counterclaims regarding the inheritance and property ownership.