|
|
|
|
 |
| |
In the divorce agreement, the amount of common property hasn’t been accurately calculated. In practice, some couples have oral agreement while not stated in the written agreement, and in this case, the court will not deal with the properties not included in the agreement. In this way, we usually consider the provisions in the agreement concerning properties division should never be too clear..
Relevant case
Mr. Liu and Ms. Li got married in May.1998 and they decided to get divorced by agreement at the Civil Affairs Bureau of X District in Shanghai in March.2004. They signed a divorce agreement on the day for divorce registration. Agreements on the common property are listed as follows:
1) The ownership of the premises located at Rome X5, 1-XYZ, Lane 19XX, Pudong Avenue is possessed by Liu and the rest loans shall be redeemed by Liu.
2) Cash, stocks and negotiable securities under each party’s name belong to each party respectively.
3) Each party shall take responsibilities of each party’s debts respectively.
The plaintiff Liu claimed that both parties got married in May 1998 and they decided to get divorced by agreement at the Civil Affairs Bureau of XYZ District in Shanghai in March 2004. Both parties signed a divorce agreement on the day of divorce registration. After the divorce registration, the plaintiff found that the defendant concealed the premises located at Room 202, 9XX, South Pudong Rd., purchased during their marriage on purpose, which should be regarded as common property possessed by both parties. The defendant’s act had led to the unfair division of common properties, which seriously harmed the plaintiff’s rights and interests. So, the plaintiff appealed to re-divide the premises located at Room 202, 9XX, South Pudong Rd. or the defendant should pay 1,000,000 Yuan to the plaintiff.
The defendant argued that what the plaintiff depicted was not true. In May 2004, both parties registered for divorce due to marriage breakdown. The divorce agreement and methods on division of common property were drawn and agreed on by the plaintiff. The plaintiff knew the fact that he purchased the premises located at South Pudong Rd. Before the purchase, both parties orally agreed that the defendant possessed the premises and properties division, so the defendant should shoulder all the loans himself. Therefore, in the divorce agreement, the plaintiff agreed that there was no need to include the premises into common properties
The court made the judgment that articles concerning division of common properties in the divorce agreement are legally binding to both parties. Although the defendant argued that the plaintiff knew the fact and both parties orally promised that the defendant was provided with the premises, he couldn’t afford relevant proof; furthermore, the plaintiff denied the defendant’s argument. Hence, the defendant should make housing depreciation payment of 900,000 Yuan to the plaintiff pursuant to relevant laws and regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
