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

Case Summary

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

The parties have disputes over the property division issue, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to divide the real estate. After consultation with a legal team, the defendant summarized the main disputes between the parties as follows: (1) whether the plaintiff acquired the property right of the house 1 through the gift; (2) whether the plaintiff's request to divide the house 2 has factual and legal basis.

Regarding jurisdiction issues

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

Regarding the issue of property division · House 1

House 1 was constructed by the defendant during the existence of the marriage relationship, and the house should be considered as the joint property of the plaintiff and the defendant during the marriage relationship. After the divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant did not propose to divide House 1, which was in accordance with the current status of the property registration of House 1 and House 2. The confirmation of the plaintiff's acquisition of House 1 should be regarded as the overall disposition behavior of both parties regarding the division of joint property.

Regarding the issue of property division · House 2

Regarding the issue of whether there are factual and legal grounds for the plaintiff's request to divide house 2. On this point, our Marriage Law has a clear stipulation: at the time of divorce, the joint property of the couple shall be handled by mutual agreement; if the agreement fails, the People's Court shall make a judgment based on the specific circumstances of the property, taking into account the interests of the children and the female party. In this case, the issue of child custody between the plaintiff and the defendant has been handled by a Hong Kong court; their joint property should be house 1 and house 2, and neither party has made a written agreement on the division of the two houses. From the current situation of the parties' control over the houses at the time of divorce: the plaintiff has, as a 100% owner, reported house 1 under his name in accordance with the procedures for handling historical illegal private houses in the XX District of Shenzhen; the defendant has also obtained the ownership certificate of house 2 as a 100% owner and obtained the real estate certificate on Xth day of X month, 2006.

The facts of the case show that although the parties did not sign a written agreement regarding the division of joint property, the fact that each party received a house is acknowledged; and from the location of House 1 and House 2, the value of House 1 is significantly higher than that of House 2. The disposition of the two houses does not harm the plaintiff's interests, and according to the specific circumstances of the property held, it has reflected a balance in the interests of dividing joint property. Therefore, the plaintiff's demand for the division of House 2 despite having already received House 1 goes against the principle of fairness, and thus the final judgment of this case has rejected all of the plaintiff's claims.