Contents
 
 
       Disputes occur when one party presents a plea for re-division of newly found common property after divorce, though relevant items are worked out in the divorce agreement that “Other property under each name is possessed by each party”.
Relevant case
      Mr. Ma and Ms.Liu registered for marriage in 1994, but they got divorced through the court’s mediation at Jilin Province on December.8.2004. The main contents of their divorce agreement via the court’s mediation are listed as follows:
      1) The plaintiff Mr. Ma and the defendant Ms. Liu got divorced by mutual consent.
      2) The premises located at Room XX, 233, Changle Rd. at XYZ District in Jilin Province belong to the defendant Liu.
      3) No other disputes. Other properties under each party’s name are divided according to the ownership.
      The plaintiff lodged an appeal that both parties got divorced via the court’s mediation and signed the divorce agreement at the court of XYZ District, Jilin Province, but after divorce, the plaintiff found the defendant purchased another promises with property right at Changning District, Shanghai without telling the plaintiff during their marriage, worth 1,300,000 Yuan at present. The premises should be divided as common property in line with laws.
      The defendant Ma argued that the plaintiff knew his purchase of the premises located in Shanghai and they have come to agreements that “Other properties under each party’s name is possessed by each party” in their divorce agreement. So, the defendant besought the court to turn down the plaintiff’s appeal.
      The court at X District of Jilin Province made the following judgment: “Articles concerning division of common properties in the divorce agreement are legally binding to both parties, with no exception to the item that “Other property under each name is possessed by each party” in the divorce agreement signed by both parties in August 2004. The plaintiff can’t furnish evidence on her ignorance of the premises owned by the defendant in Shanghai, therefore, the court turned down the plaintiff’s appeal finally.