Brief facts of the case:
Xiaochi and Xiaolan divorced by agreement, in which the public rental housing and residence agreement were agreed upon, and the housing of both parties was settled by themselves, and at the same time, it was agreed that Xiaochi, Xiaolan, and Xiaozi each accounted for one-third of the housing relocation interests. Later, the house was expropriated and moved, and Xiao Chi signed the relocation compensation agreement as the tenant. Xiao Chi monopolized all the relocation benefits, and Xiao Lan and Xiao Zi sued, demanding that the relocation interests be divided according to the original divorce agreement, and Xiao Lan and Xiao Zi obtained two-thirds of the relocation benefits. Xiaochi believes that it should not be given because, first, it is agreed that the house will be settled by itself, and second, Xiaolan and Xiaozi do not have a household registration in the house, so they are not the objects of demolition and resettlement, and they should not divide and relocate the benefits.
Do you support Xiao Chi, or Xiao Lan and Xiao Zi?
Case source: (2021) Hu 02 Min Zhong No. 5331
Lawyer Yang Qinren's brief comment,
The core dispute in this case is that in the divorce, there is no contradiction between the interests of eviction stipulated in the divorce agreement and the fact that there is no hukou and is not a resettlement target during the relocation.
The court's handling is also consistent with the content of the previous sharing, that is, it is handled according to the agreement, and even if one party has no relocation interest in accordance with the relocation policy, it has the right to divide the relocation interest in accordance with the agreement. Even, the court does not need to review the qualifications of Xiaolan and Xiaozi as cohabitants.
extension problem,
How to deal with the inconsistency between the relocation interests of each member and the actual relocation policy in the prior family agreement?
Handled in accordance with the family family agreement.
Therefore, in order to prevent disputes from arising afterwards, the parties to the house have made a clear agreement on the relocation, so that even if there is a dispute in the future, it can be handled according to the agreement.
Selected Court Judgments,
This court held that although Xiao Chiyan appealed, he argued that the housing should be handled in accordance with the Voluntary Divorce Agreement dated March 11, 2002 filed with the Shanghai Huangpu District Civil Affairs Bureau. However, the agreement only states that the parties will settle the housing settlement after the divorce. There is no contradiction between this agreement and the division of the use of the house in question between the parties as stated in the Divorce by Voluntary Agreement signed by the parties on February 20, 2002. The "Divorce by Voluntary Agreement" is an expression of the true intentions of both parties, and also contains an agreement on how to settle the housing by itself after the divorce. Combined with the fact that Xiaolan and Xiao Chiyan jointly applied for household separation, the actual household registration was separated, and Xiaolan still used and controlled the corresponding parts and paid the rent according to the agreement between the parties after the divorce, the court of first instance found that it was not improper for the agreement in the Voluntary Agreement Divorce to have been actually performed by both parties, and this court agreed. Because Xiao Chiyan was the lessee of the house involved in the case, he signed the relevant documents in the expropriation of the house in accordance with the law, but he did not automatically receive all the compensation benefits of the expropriation. In addition, Xiaolan and Xiaozi claimed their rights in accordance with the provisions of the Voluntary Divorce Letter, and the qualifications of the parties as cohabitants were not examined in this case.
