Hong Kong couple fails to reach an agreement on the disposition of Shenzhen property after divorce, the case successfully resolves jurisdiction and property division issues

Summary of the Case

The plaintiff and the defendant were registered as married in Hong Kong in XX month XX, 1985. After marriage, they had one son, Luo Ximin, and one daughter, Luo Xiyi. The defendant invested in the construction of a 3-story house (hereinafter referred to as House 1) at XX alley, XX community, XX street, XX district, Bao'an District, Shenzhen City in 1991. On December 28, 2002, the plaintiff, as the sole owner of 100%, declared House 1 in his name in accordance with the "Implementation Measures for Handling Historical Illegal Private Houses in XX District, Shenzhen City", with the declaration number: TX-1XXX-A0XXXX. The defendant built a 2-story house (hereinafter referred to as House 2) at XX street, XX district, XX district, Shenzhen City in 1994. On February 22, 2006, the plaintiff and the defendant were divorced by the Hong Kong court. Their son Luo Ximin has become an adult, and their daughter Luo Xiyi is being supported by the plaintiff, with the defendant bearing the child support. No written agreement was signed between the parties regarding the division of the two houses at the time of their divorce. After the divorce, House 1 was rented out by the plaintiff, while House 2 was unused. On August 30, 2006, the defendant obtained the real estate certificate for House 2 (Shenzhen Real Estate No. 5XXXXXXX). The defendant is the sole owner with a registered price of 24XXXX yuan.

Later, the parties had a dispute over the property division, and the plaintiff sued for the division of the property. After the defendant was entrusted, the lawyer team discussed and summarized the main disputes between the parties: (1) Whether the plaintiff acquired the ownership of House 1 through a gift; (2) Whether the plaintiff has factual and legal grounds to request the division of House 2.

Jurisdiction Issue

For the part of the Hong Kong marriage involving Shenzhen real estate, jurisdiction at the time of the lawsuit is particularly important. In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant have a dispute over the division of real property after the divorce, as the real property is located in mainland China. All civil relations related to the ownership, sale, lease, mortgage, and use of real property should be governed by the law of the place where the real property is located; and the People's Courts of our country also apply our country's law to disputes over property division arising from divorce. Therefore, the dispute in this case is subject to the laws of the mainland of the People's Republic of China.

Regarding the issue of property division · House 1

House 1 was originally built by the defendant during the marriage. This house should be considered as the joint property of the plaintiff and the defendant during the marriage. After the divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant did not propose to divide House 1, which was in line with the current status of the ownership registration of House 1 and House 2. The disposal of House 1 by the plaintiff and the defendant should be regarded as an overall disposal of the joint property.

Regarding the issue of property division · House 2

Regarding the issue of whether the plaintiff has factual and legal grounds to request the division of House 2. In this regard, our Marriage Law has clear provisions: at the time of divorce, the joint property of the couple shall be handled by mutual agreement; if the agreement cannot be reached, the People's Court shall decide according to the specific circumstances of the property, taking into account the interests of the children and the female party. In the case of the divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant, the issue of child custody has been handled by the Hong Kong court. Their joint property should be House 1 and House 2, and the parties have not reached a written agreement on the division of the two houses. From the current situation of the control of the houses at the time of the divorce: the plaintiff has declared House 1 in his name as the sole owner, in accordance with the procedures for handling historical illegal private houses in XX District, Shenzhen City; the defendant has also obtained the real estate certificate for House 2 as the sole owner and obtained the real estate certificate on XX day of XX month, 2006.

The above facts of the case show that although the parties did not sign a written agreement on the division of joint property, they implicitly recognized the fact that each party received one house; and from the location of House 1 and House 2, the value of House 1 is far higher than that of House 2. The disposal of the two houses does not harm the interests of the plaintiff, and the specific property situation has reflected the balance of the interests of the parties in dividing joint property. Therefore, the plaintiff's request to divide House 2 after having received House 1 is contrary to the principle of fairness, and the final judgment of this case has rejected all the plaintiff's claims.