Case Summary:

Mr. Huang (pseudonym) and Ms. Bai (pseudonym) were registered as married in Shenzhen. After marriage, they had a daughter and purchased a twin house in Bao'an District, Shenzhen. One house was registered in the name of the husband, and the other in the name of the wife. The couple later divorced due to a breakdown in their relationship and filed for divorce in 2022. The first-instance court found that Mr. Huang had transferred and concealed joint marital property and held him responsible for 60% of the debt. Mr. Huang appealed the first-instance judgment and, one week before the expiration of the appeal period, sought the assistance of the Dao Hua Family Law Firm to争取 greater property rights in the second-instance hearing.

Case Handling Process:

After accepting the委托, the Dao Hua Family Law Firm assigned lawyers Yang Yue Ran and Yuan Ruo Qing to handle the case. Both parties submitted nearly two thousand pages of evidence in the first instance. To meticulously sort through the case files within the limited time, the team worked tirelessly to organize the facts of the case and conduct research.

After sorting through the financial records, it was discovered that the first-instance judgment had omitted certain facts. In the financial records of the twin house, some amounts were paid by the husband using his pre-marital personal property, totaling approximately 2 million yuan. However, the first-instance court did not separate the personal property of Mr. Huang from the joint marital property in the division of the property.

Case Outcome:

During the second-instance hearing, with the increase in litigation costs, fluctuations in property prices, and the uniqueness of the twin house, to reduce the litigation costs for the parties and minimize litigation risks, the Dao Hua lawyers actively promoted mediation between the parties. After researching the first-instance case, a clear calculation of the property division was made, and ultimately, the parties reached a settlement. Our client secured the maximum benefit compared to the first-instance judgment, with the property divided equally between the two parties, each holding a 50% share, and the debt shared equally between them.

Relevant Laws:

According to Article 1063 of the Civil Code, "The pre-marital property of one party is the personal property of that party."; according to Article 26 of the Interpretation of the Family Law (Part One), "The income generated from the personal property of one party to the marriage after marriage, except for interest and natural appreciation, should be regarded as joint marital property."; according to Article 31 of the Interpretation of the Family Law (Part One), "The personal property of one party to the marriage as stipulated in Article 1063 of the Civil Code shall not be converted into joint marital property due to the continuation of the marital relationship.".