Shenzhen 10 million-level twin house division dispute, first instance judgment for transfer and concealment of property, bears 60% of the debt, second instance smoothly mediates for maximum property

Case Summary:

Mr. Huang (pseudonym) and Ms. Bai (pseudonym) registered their marriage in Shenzhen. After marriage, they had a daughter. The couple later purchased a twin house in Bao'an District, Shenzhen, with one registered in the name of Mr. Huang and the other in the name of Ms. Bai. Due to the breakdown of their relationship, the couple filed for divorce in 2022. The first-instance court found that Mr. Huang had transferred and concealed joint marital property, and Mr. Huang was responsible for 60% of the debt. Mr. Huang appealed the first-instance judgment. One week before the expiration of the appeal period, he specially sought the help of the Daohua Family Law Firm, hoping to achieve greater property rights in the second-instance trial.

Investigation process:

After accepting the commission, the Daohua Family Law Firm assigned lawyers Sui Yueran and Yuan Ruqing to handle the case. Both parties submitted nearly 2,000 pages of evidence at the first instance. In order to meticulously organize the case files within the limited time, clarify the flow of each part, the team worked tirelessly to organize the facts of the case and conduct research and analysis.

After sorting out the cash flow, it was found that the first-instance trial omitted some facts. In the cash flow of the dual-pinyin room, part of the amount was paid by the male party using his personal property before marriage, about 2 million yuan. However, the first-instance court did not divide and allocate the property in the house that belonged to Mr. Huang individually and the joint property of the couple.

Case outcome:

During the second-instance trial process, with the increase in litigation costs, fluctuations in housing prices, and the particularity of twin houses, in order to shorten the litigation costs of the parties and reduce the litigation risks, the Dahuo lawyer actively promoted mediation between the two parties. After analyzing the first-instance case, a clear calculation was made for the property division. Finally, the two parties reached a mediation agreement. Our party's client secured the maximum interests compared to the first-instance judgment. The property was evenly divided with each party holding a 50% share, and the debts were also evenly shared by both parties.

Relevant regulations:

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