In 2009, Wang Shaoping, a native of Shaoyang, Hunan Province, and his wife, Li Xiaoxia, registered their marriage at the Danzhou Civil Affairs Bureau in Hainan Province. In 2015, Wang Shaoping wrote a "letter of guarantee" to the effect that if he cheated, he would compensate Li Xiaoxia for 1 million yuan. In December 2018, Li Xiaoxia discovered that Wang Shaoping had really cheated, and the two divorced that month.
In 2019, Wang Shaoping once again issued an IOU to Li Xiaoxia, saying that the marriage broke down due to his marital infidelity, and agreed to compensate her for 1 million yuan. Since then, he has also issued "letters of guarantee" three times, promising not to associate with other women again.
In June 2021, Li Xiaoxia sued Wang Shaoping for the 1 million yuan, and Wang Shaoping's "letter of guarantee" and "IOU" became evidence in court.
On September 8, the verdict in the case was made public. The Shaodong Municipal Court held that the above guarantees and IOUs belonged to the scope of the husband and wife's "loyalty agreement", recognized their validity, and found that the 1 million yuan belonged to the compensation for moral damages. However, based on Wang Shaoping's economic strength, salary and income, etc., he was finally sentenced to pay Li Xiaoxia 200,000 yuan in compensation for mental damages.
Interpretation 1: Why is the "loyalty agreement" recognized?
The Shaodong Municipal Court held that in the case of Wang Shaoping and Li Xiaoxia, the defendant and the plaintiff issued an IOU to the plaintiff after divorce, which was not the defendant borrowing money from the plaintiff or the defendant owed other debts to the plaintiff, and the guarantees and IOUs signed by the two parties belonged to the scope of the husband and wife's "loyalty agreement". The marital fidelity agreement is a reminder of the voluntary restriction and restraint of married citizens on their sexual freedom, which is the result of the agreement between the husband and wife, and is in line with the principles of the Civil Code and public order and good customs.
Wang Shaoping argued that the warranty and IOU issued were written under duress, but did not provide any basis to corroborate them, and the court did not support the defense opinion. The agreement was a quantification of the parties' duty of loyalty and did not violate the prohibitions of the law, which the court upheld.
Interpretation 2: The "loyalty agreement" stipulates 1 million, why is the amount of compensation 200,000?
The Shaodong Municipal Court held that the 1 million yuan IOU issued by Wang Shaoping to Li Xiaoxia was the moral damages that the woman demanded from the other party to prevent the man from cheating in marriage and to determine the infidelity during marriage. The obligation of fidelity between husband and wife is a moral obligation, and an agreement concluded by one spouse in exchange with the other party on the basis of moral obligation as consideration cannot be understood as an agreement to determine specific civil rights and obligations.
As for the amount of compensation for moral damages, according to Article 28 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Several Issues (I), "where compensation for moral damages is involved, the relevant provisions of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Determination of Liability for Compensation for Moral Damage in Civil Torts shall apply", according to the fact that when the parties divorced in this case, the only set of housing was given to the plaintiff, the defendant basically belonged to the net out of the house, the defendant did not have a long-term stable job, and his income was unstable. Combined with the agreement between the two parties and the local socio-economic level, the defendant's ability to bear it, etc., the amount of compensation for moral damages is determined as appropriate to 200,000 yuan.
Case comparison: Couples signing "cohabitation loyalty agreements" are not recognized by the court
Coincidentally. In a recently published judgment document, Yang Li and Wu Hai of Changde, Hunan Province, have been living together as husband and wife for a long time, and after the contradiction between the two parties, they signed an agreement, and when the two confronted each other in court, the court also held that this agreement belonged to the category of "cohabitation loyalty agreement", but unlike the above case, the court did not determine the validity of this "loyalty agreement".
According to the judgment, Yang Li and Wu Hai have lived together as husband and wife since May 2010, after which Yang Li paid most of the house money and purchased a property, and the two have been living in the house since 2012.
In 2017, the two had economic conflicts with their emotional discord, and after the local neighborhood committee presided over mediation, the two sides reached an agreement: Wu Hai should be responsible, use legitimate means to earn money, give Yang Li 3,000 yuan per month living expenses, living expenses are paid by Wu Hai every month, correct bad habits, Wu Overseas debts and Li Haizhen do not have any relationship, and he himself is responsible for paying off. Yang Li gave Wu Hai a one-year observation period, if he did not cash in, he left unconditionally, there was no division of property, and his family members could not find Yang Li.
On November 24, 2020, Yang Li and Wu Hai had a conflict, and Wu Hai locked the door of the house involved in the case, and Yang Li could not enter the house and called the police. Later, Yang Li filed a lawsuit with the court, ordering Wu Hai to immediately move out of the house.
The court held that Yang Li and Wu Hai had lived together as husband and wife for more than ten years without registering their marriage, and their cohabitation relationship was not protected by law. The agreement signed by the two in order to stabilize the cohabitation relationship and determine the obligations during the period of cohabitation of the man, on the one hand, because it only stipulates the obligations and responsibilities of the man, and the obligations of the woman are not mentioned, which is obviously unfair; on the other hand, the cohabitation relationship is not protected by law, and living together in the name of husband and wife without obtaining a marriage certificate is also inconsistent with the general concept of ordinary people, social customs and social morality, which violates the basic principles of public order and good customs. At the same time, the court held that Wu Hai paid part of the purchase price and also funded the renovation of the house, which belonged to the common property of the two people during their cohabitation.
In summary, the court held that the so-called "cohabitation loyalty agreement" signed by Yang Li and Wu Hai based on the cohabitation relationship violated the law and should be an invalid agreement in order to stabilize the cohabitation relationship. In the end, the court dismissed Yang Li's claim. (The parties in this article are pseudonyms)
Source: Xiaoxiang Morning News