Lead:
Recently, Big S once again launched legal proceedings against Wang Xiaofei, involving a dispute over the shares of S Hotel. The outbreak of this dispute once again pushed the grievances between the two to the forefront, causing widespread public concern and heated discussions.
According to the disclosed information, Da S launched the 17th lawsuit against Wang Xiaofei, and the trial time is scheduled for May 20. This time, the lawsuit involves the issue of the shares of S Hotel, which has become another large-scale legal conflict after the last "Four Paintings" snatching war. Since the divorce of Da S and Wang Xiaofei in 2022, the legal disputes between the two have continued, and 17 large and small lawsuits have accumulated, which have become the focus of public attention.
It is understood that the focus of this lawsuit is the ownership of S Hotel shares. Although the hotel has undergone several name changes after the divorce, it was initially named in the name of Big S, and Big S's mother acted as the guarantor of the hotel's debts, which made Big S believe that the hotel shares were still closely related to him.
This new legal conflict has sparked widespread public concern and heated discussions. On the one hand, supporters believe that Big S's demands are reasonable and reasonable, and they are protecting their own rights and interests; On the other hand, there are also skeptics who have raised questions about Big S's motives, believing that the move may just be to vent anger or grab property.
This legal battle has once again pushed the grievances between Da S and Wang Xiaofei to the forefront, and the public will continue to pay attention to the progress of this lawsuit in anticipation of a just and equitable outcome.
It is reported that the core of this dispute is about the ownership of S Hotel shares. Although the hotel has undergone several name changes after Wang Xiaofei's divorce from Da S, it was initially named in the name of Da S, and Da S's mother served as the guarantor of the hotel's debts, which made Da S believe that the hotel shares were still closely related to him.
It is understood that the S Hotel was named after Big S at the beginning of its establishment, and at the same time, Big S's mother, as the guarantor of the hotel's debts, provided certain support and guarantee for its development. Although the hotel has undergone several name changes after the divorce, from Hotel S to Hotel $ and then to Hotel M today, this does not change the situation when the hotel was first started.
Big S believes that the ownership of hotel shares should be protected by the Marriage Law and Property Law, because the hotel was established during the marriage of the two people, so it should be regarded as the joint property of the husband and wife. She believes that her role as one of the naming persons of the hotel at its inception and her mother's role as a guarantor of the debt give her a certain interest and connection in the hotel's shares. As a result, she filed a claim for the hotel's shares and looked forward to a fair ruling by the law.
Public opinion has been mixed for this accusation. Some supporters believe that Big S's demands are reasonable and are protecting their own rights and interests. They argued that the ownership of the hotel shares should be protected by law, especially when the hotel was named after Big S when it was first established, and Big S's mother acted as the guarantor of the hotel's debts, and Big S had a reasonable claim to the hotel shares. Therefore, they support Big S to protect their rights and interests through legal means, believing that this is a reasonable behavior.
However, there are also some skeptics who have raised questions about Big S's motives. They believe that Big S has litigated more frequently in the past and has lost many lawsuits, so they wonder if this lawsuit is just to vent anger or rob property. They believe that Big S's behavior may be motivated by personal motives, rather than purely defending rights and interests. In addition, Big S deliberately chose to launch a lawsuit on 520 day, which was also interpreted by some people as a kind of revenge or pursuit of interests, which further deepened people's suspicions about Big S's motives.
In general, public opinions on the demands of Big S are different. Proponents argue that its efforts to defend its rights are justified, while skeptics question its motives. This controversy is not only about the personal interests of Da S and Wang Xiaofei, but also reflects the society's concern and concern about personal property and legal justice.
In response to this lawsuit, netizens also expressed different views. Some people think that Big S's appeal has a clear goal and is fighting for his own interests. They argued that Big S, as one of the naming persons of the hotel at its inception, and his mother, as the guarantor of the debt, had a reasonable claim to the hotel's shares. Therefore, they support Big S to fight for their rights and interests through legal means, believing that this is a natural behavior.
However, some people questioned Da S's motives, thinking that she was too entangled and affected Wang Xiaofei's life and work. They believe that Big S has filed lawsuits against Wang Xiaofei many times, and this frequent legal dispute not only consumes the time and energy of both parties, but also brings huge pressure to Wang Xiaofei's life. They are worried that this long-term legal dispute may have a negative impact on Wang Xiaofei's life and career, and even affect his mental health.
Therefore, in response to this lawsuit, netizens have different opinions. One party believes that Big S is fighting for her own interests, while the other party is worried that her behavior may have a bad impact on Wang Xiaofei. This collision of different perspectives also reflects the society's concern for individual rights and interests and fairness and justice.
The hotel share dispute once again pushed the grievances between Da S and Wang Xiaofei to the forefront. As a high-profile couple, the legal dispute between them has touched the hearts of countless people. Both supporters and skeptics are watching the progress of this lawsuit and looking forward to a fair outcome.
The outcome of this lawsuit is not only related to the personal interests of both parties, but also will affect the legal profession's understanding and judgment of the joint property of the husband and wife. The definition and protection of the joint property of the husband and wife will be further discussed and examined in this legal dispute, and will also have an important impact on the judgment of similar cases in the future.
We will continue to monitor the progress of this matter and provide readers with the latest reports and analysis. It is hoped that under a fair and transparent judicial trial, a fair ruling can be made on both sides, and a clear legal norm and reference standard can be provided for the public.