Daohua Family Law Firm ·Property Dispute After Divorce: The female party failed to transfer the property ownership of the house as agreed upon in the divorce agreement. The first-instance court rejected the male party's lawsuit request. Daohua lawyers intervened in the second-instance trial and successfully helped him regain ownership of the property.

Case Summary:

Male Party: Sun某, plaintiff in the first-instance and appellant in the second-instance (Daohua lawyer acting as his second-instance agent).

Female Party: Lin某, defendant in the first-instance and respondent in the second-instance.

In January 2013, the parties signed the "Divorce Agreement" and registered for divorce at the Nanshan Civil Affairs Bureau;

The Divorce Agreement stipulated that the house in Nanshan District under the name of Sun某 would belong to Lin某, and if the property was sold, the proceeds would be divided 50/50; Lin某's residential building in Nanshan District would belong to Sun某, and if the property was sold, the proceeds would be divided 50/50;

In March 2013, Sun某 transferred the property ownership of the house under his name to Lin某, but Lin某 delayed transferring the residential building to Sun某's name and continued to occupy and use the building;

In 2016, Sun某 sued the court, demanding that Lin某 return the residential building to Sun某's occupation and transfer the property ownership to Sun某's name, and also demanding compensation for Sun某's economic losses during the occupation. Lin某 submitted a bank statement of 1.1 million yuan, marked as "Purchase Price for Residential Building", claiming that Lin某 purchased the residential building from Sun某.

In 2017, the court ruled to reject Sun某's lawsuit request.

Analysis by Daohua Lawyers

After Daohua lawyers took over the second-instance stage of the case, they immediately began to analyze the case:

(I) Can Sun某 require Lin某 to transfer the residential building to Sun某's name?

According to Article 9 of the "Property Law of the People's Republic of China" "The establishment, alteration, transfer, and extinction of immovable property rights shall take effect upon registration in accordance with law; unless otherwise provided by law, the transfer of immovable property rights shall not take effect without registration." (Now Article 208 of the "Civil Code"), the principle of immovable property rights is that the completion of registration is the effective condition for the change of immovable property rights. The agreement on the ownership of immovable property in the divorce agreement signed by the couple does not directly produce the legal effect of the change of property rights without the change of property registration. Because the property rights of the residential building and the house have not been changed and registered, Lin某 remains the registered property owner of the property, and the property rights have not been transferred to Sun某's name. Sun某 can only claim the performance of the contractual obligation of property ownership change registration based on the right of claim.

(II) Regarding the bank transfer of 1.1 million yuan to Sun某 by Lin某.

Only with the 1.1 million yuan bank statement, the handwritten content in the remarks column can only reflect the declarant's claim of the purpose of the funds, and cannot prove the existence of the agreement between the parties to transfer the residential building as claimed by Lin某. In addition, according to the average transaction price of the second-hand residential market in Nanshan District in 2013 published on the Shenzhen Statistical Bureau's website, this statistical data can prove that the market price of the residential building involved in the case was much higher than 1.1 million yuan in 2013.

Judgment Result

The court believes that the Divorce Agreement is the expression of the true intention of both parties. According to the facts ascertained by the original trial, both parties should have sufficient understanding of the common property involved in the Divorce Agreement and the registration status and market value of the two properties involved in the case during the marriage relationship, and both parties should comply with the agreement.

According to the relevant bank statements submitted by the appellant in the second-instance, the appellant also has reasonable reasons to be unaware of the content of the remarks. Therefore, under the mistaken belief that the funds were half of the sale proceeds of the residential building, the appellant did not timely raise an objection to the content of the remarks. The first-instance court, based on the bank seal affixed to the statement, determined that the use of the funds was the consistent understanding of the payer and payee of the nature of the funds, which was biased. In addition, from the reasonable transaction price of the two properties involved in the case, the residential building has an area of 130.32 square meters, and the residential building of a certain building has an area of 94.97 square meters. Referring to the average transaction price of the second-hand residential market in the same area and period, the market price of the two properties at that time should be much higher than the full transfer price of 1.1 million yuan claimed by the respondent. Even compared with the evaluation price of the residential building of a certain building submitted by the respondent, the 1.1 million yuan is far from the market price of the property. Based on the above analysis, the 1.1 million yuan is more likely to be half of the market value of the residential building of a certain building at that time. Considering the evidence submitted by both parties and the facts ascertained in the case, the divorce agreement does not attach a term or condition for the appellant to claim the performance of the contractual obligation of property ownership change registration based on the right of claim. Now, the appellant sues to confirm that the residential building belongs to him, and requires the respondent to assist in handling the property transfer procedures and return the property to the appellant's possession, which has factual and legal basis, and the court supports it. As for the appellant's claim for economic losses, as he failed to prove that he requested the respondent to assist in handling the property transfer procedures before filing this lawsuit, and the respondent's refusal to cooperate led to his economic losses and the rationality of the calculation standard of the losses claimed, in accordance with the principle that "he who asserts must prove", the appellant should bear the adverse consequences of failing to prove. The court does not support the appellant's claim for other litigation requests. If both parties still have disputes over the 1.1 million yuan, as both parties have not requested the disposition of the rights and interests of the funds in this case, this case does not handle it, and both parties may seek legal remedies through other channels. Therefore, the judgment is as follows:

1. Set aside the judgment of the Nanshan District People's Court of Shenzhen (2016) Yue 0305 Minchu 1XXX1 Civil Case;

2. The residential building at the intersection of Da Da Road and Mo Road in Nanshan District shall belong to the appellant Sun某. The respondent Lin某 shall, within thirty days from the date of the judgment, hand over the property to the appellant Sun某 for possession and use, and assist the appellant Sun某 in handling the property transfer procedures;

3. The other litigation requests of the appellant Sun某 are dismissed.

Daohua Family Law Firm (Ed.)

December 16, 2020