Divorce Property Dispute: Female Party Failed to Transfer Property as Per Divorce Agreement, First Instance Court Rejected Male Party's Litigation Request, Dao Hua Lawyer Intervened in Second

Dao Hua Marriage and Family Law Firm ·Property disputes after divorceThe female party failed to transfer the property ownership in accordance with the divorce agreement. The first-instance court rejected the male party's lawsuit. Da Hua lawyer intervened in the second-instance trial and successfully helped him regain the ownership of the property.

Case Summary:

The male party: Sun Mou, plaintiff in the first instance and appellant in the second instance (represented by Daohua Law Firm as his second-instance agent).

Female party: Lin Mou, defendant in the first instance, respondent in the second instance.

In January 2013, the plaintiff and defendant signed the "Divorce Agreement," and registered their divorce at the Nanshan Civil Affairs Bureau.

The Divorce Agreement stipulates that the house in Nanshan District under the name of Sun, the male party, belongs to Lin, the female party. If the property is sold, each party shall receive 50% of the proceeds from the sale. The residential building in Nanshan District under the name of Lin shall belong to Sun. If the property is sold, each party shall receive 50% of the proceeds from the sale.

In March 2013, Sun某 transferred the ownership of the house under his name to Lin某, but Lin某 has delayed transferring the residential building back to Sun某's name and has always occupied the building suitable for residential use.

In 2016, Sun某 sued the court, demanding that Lin某 return the residential building occupied by Sun某 and transfer the ownership to Sun某's name, and at the same time, demanding compensation for the economic losses incurred during the occupation of the residential building. Lin某 submitted a bank statement of 1.1 million yuan, with the note "Purchase of residential building," claiming that Lin某 had purchased the residential building from Sun某.

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

Dowah Lawyer Analysis

After taking over the second-instance stage of the case, Dao Hua lawyer began to analyze the situation of the case.

(1) Can Sun某 request Lin某 to transfer the residential building to Sun某's name?

According to Article 9 of our "Property Law", "The establishment, alteration, transfer, and extinction of immovable property rights shall take effect upon registration in accordance with law; without registration, they shall not take effect, except as otherwise provided by law.""Now Article 208 of the 'Civil Code' states that the change of immovable property rights is generally subject to completion of registration as a condition for effectiveness. The agreement on the ownership of immovable property in the divorce agreement signed by both spouses does not directly produce the legal effect of property right change without the change of property right registration."Due to the fact that the property right of a certain apartment in a residential building has not been changed and registered, Lin still holds the registered property right of the apartment, and the property right of the apartment has not been transferred to Sun's name.Sun can only claim the performance of the contract obligation for property right change registration based on the right of claim for performance of the debt.

Regarding the bank transaction record of Lin某 transferring 1.1 million yuan to Sun某.

Based on the bank statement of 1.1 million yuan, the handwritten content in the remarks section can only reflect the declarer's claimed purpose of the funds and cannot prove the existence of an agreement for the transfer of the residential building as claimed by Lin. Additionally, according to the average transaction price table of the second-hand residential market in Nanshan District in 2013 published online by the Shenzhen Statistical Bureau, this statistical data can prove that the market price of the relevant property in the residential building of the involved building in 2013 was far higher than 1.1 million yuan.

Judgment result

The court believes that the "Divorce Agreement" is an expression of the true intentions of both parties. According to the facts ascertained in the original review, both parties should have had sufficient understanding of the joint property involved in the "Divorce Agreement" and the registration status and market value of the two properties involved in the case during the existence of the marriage relationship, and both parties should comply with the agreement.

Based on the relevant bank statements submitted by the appellant in the second instance, the appellant indeed had reasonable grounds for not being aware of the content of the remarks. Therefore, under the mistaken belief that the amount was 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 purpose was the consistent understanding of the nature of the funds between the remitter and the payee, which was biased. Additionally, from the analysis of the reasonable transaction prices of the two properties in this case, the residential building has a floor area of 130.32 square meters, and the property in "Some Residence, Some Pavilion, Some Property" has a floor area of 94.97 square meters. Referencing the average transaction prices of the second-hand residential market in the same area and period, the market prices of the two properties at that time should have been much higher than the full transfer price of 1.1 million yuan claimed by the respondent. Even compared to the valuation price of the property in "Some Building" submitted by the respondent, the 1.1 million yuan is still far from the market price of the property. Based on the above analysis, the 1.1 million yuan is closer to half of the market value of the property in "Some Residence, Some Pavilion, Some Property" at that time. Considering the evidence submitted by both parties and the facts found in this case, there was no addition to the divorce agreement regarding the term or condition for the appellant to claim the obligation of performing the property ownership change registration based on the right of claim for a debt. Now, the appellant requests confirmation that the residential building belongs to them, and requires the respondent to assist in handling the property transfer procedures, returning the property to the appellant's possession. This has factual and legal grounds, and the court supports it. As for the economic loss claimed by the appellant, as they failed to prove that they had requested the respondent to assist in handling the property transfer procedures before filing this lawsuit, and that the respondent's refusal to cooperate led to their economic loss, as well as the reasonableness of the loss calculation standard claimed, in accordance with the principle that "he who asserts must prove," the appellant should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence. The court does not support the appellant's claim. If both parties still have disputes over the 1.1 million yuan involved, as neither party has requested the disposal of the rights and interests of the said amount in this case, the case will not be handled, and the parties may seek legal remedies through other channels. Therefore, the judgment is as follows:

One, revoke the civil judgment No. (2016) YUE 0305 MIN 1XXX1 of the Nanshan District People's Court of Shenzhen.

The residential building at the intersection of a certain avenue and a certain road in Nanshan District, Shenzhen, is owned by the appellant Sun某. The respondent Lin某 shall, within thirty days from the date of thetakes effect of this judgment, hand over the property to the appellant Sun某 for possession and use, and assist the appellant Sun某 in handling the transfer procedures.

Three, reject the other litigation requests of the appellant Sun.

Dao Hua Marriage and Family Law Firm (Ed.)

December 16, 2020