Dahua Case Analysis | Divorce Agreement Remains Valid After Divorce

Case Summary

On August 3, 2005, Mr. Xu Xuemei and Ms. Qiao Xiaomei registered for marriage.

In May 2007, the legitimate son Xu Mouqing was born; on July 3, 2010, the couple divorced due to the breakdown of their relationship at the Civil Affairs Bureau of a certain district in Shenzhen, with custody of the son awarded to the female party. The "Divorce Agreement" between the two parties stipulated that the property A purchased after marriage belonged to the male party, property B belonged to the female party, and the male party was to pay the female party a compensation of 1 million yuan for the house, which should be settled by December of the same year.

In March 2011, according to the terms of the "Divorce Agreement," the due date for the male party to make the payment had passed by 3 months, but the female party had not received the funds. The female party had repeatedly urged the male party, but he delayed it with various reasons such as financial difficulties, even verbally abused the female party, calling her a money fraudster using the divorce as an excuse, and thereafter stopped answering the phone.

In April 2011, the female party received a lawsuit document from the Bao'an District Court of Shenzhen, where the other party filed a lawsuit to revoke the content of the divorce agreement concerning the payment of 1 million yuan in compensation to the female party.

In May 2011, the female party approached our team, hoping to receive assistance from us to handle the matter fairly and justly, and demanded that the male party pay the corresponding amount according to the "Divorce Agreement."

The focus of the case

After divorce, can the clauses in the divorce agreement regarding property division be altered or revoked again?

Case outcome: Our side won the lawsuit

The court legally supports our claims:

1. Order the male party to pay the female party 1 million yuan in accordance with the provisions of the "Divorce Agreement";

2. Dismissed all the plaintiff's claims.

Summary

1. When requesting to alter or revoke the property division clauses involved in the divorce agreement or the agreement reached for property division due to divorce, attention should be paid to the one-year limitation period for prescription. The limitation period refers to the period during which the right holder may exercise their rights according to law, and this period generally does not interrupt, suspend, or extend for any reason. A request for altering or revoking the divorce property division clauses should be made within one year after the divorce. Otherwise, if the limitation period is exceeded, the consequences of the claim possibly being rejected may arise.

In this case, the male party filed a lawsuit within one year of the divorce, which did not exceed the limitation period. However, the court ultimately rejected the male party's claim because the male party failed to provide evidence to prove that there were fraudulent or coercive circumstances when the divorce agreement was signed between the two parties. In practice, it is not easy to provide evidence to prove the existence of fraudulent or coercive circumstances at the time of divorce, so it is difficult to overturn the divorce agreement once both parties have signed it.

The author solemnly warns all readers: Divorce is not a trivial matter; the agreement must be carefully reviewed, and signing should be done with caution, as it is difficult to change later.

2. For the joint property of the couple that was not divided during the divorce, if either party discovers that the other party has concealed, transferred, sold, damaged the joint property of the couple, or forged debts to attempt toencroachment property, they may request a redivision of the joint property.

3. During the marriage, requests for the division of marital assets are generally not supported by the court, but exceptions are made for certain legal reasons, such as when one party seriously damages the joint property of the couple through concealment, transfer, and other means, or when the person obligated to provide legal support for one party falls seriously ill but the other party does not agree to pay medical expenses, and other special circumstances.

Appendix: Relevant Laws and Regulations

Judicial Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the "Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China" by the Supreme People's Court

Article 8: The clauses concerning the division of property in a divorce agreement, or the agreement reached by the parties regarding the division of property due to divorce, shall be legally binding on both male and female parties.

Article 9: If either party regrets the property division agreement within one year after the mutual agreement for divorce and requests a change or revocation of the property division agreement, the People's Court shall accept the application.

After the People's Court has tried the case, if no fraud, coercion, or other circumstances are found in the process of concluding the property division agreement, the court shall reject the party's lawsuit request in accordance with the law.

Judicial Interpretation (III) of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 4: During the existence of a marriage relationship, if one spouse requests the division of joint property, the People's Court shall not support it, except for the following major reasons and without harming the interests of creditors:

(1) Where one party has concealed, transferred, sold, destroyed, squandered, or forged the joint property of the couple or has engaged in other serious acts that seriously damage the joint property interests of the couple;

(2) Where one party, who is obligated by law to provide support, suffers from a serious illness requiring treatment, and the other party does not agree to pay the relevant medical expenses.

Article 18  After divorce, if one party sues the People's Court for division of property on the grounds that there is still joint property of the couple that has not been handled, and upon review it is confirmed that the property is indeed joint property of the couple that was not involved in the divorce, the People's Court shall divide the property in accordance with the law.