Is it valid that the divorce agreement stipulates that the house belongs to the woman and daughter and that the daughter may not sell it until she is eighteen?

Case number

Trial court: Intermediate People's Court of Bengbu City, Anhui Province

Case No.: (2021) Anhui 03 Min Zhong No. 2824

Cause of action: Property dispute after divorce

Trial date: September 27, 2021

Summary of the Trial

The provisions on the disposition of property in the divorce agreement are legally binding on both men and women, and both parties shall perform them in accordance with the agreement.

Although the daughter is not the counterparty to the divorce agreement, her participation in the lawsuit as a plaintiff shows that her attitude towards the parents' gift is a positive pursuit, which has a major interest in the outcome of this case.

According to the divorce agreement, the two plaintiffs requested that the change of ownership of the house be registered in their name, and the defendant was obliged to assist in handling it.

Litigation Claims

Otome and A submit a litigation request to the court of first instance: Man A assists Otome and A to handle the registration procedures for the transfer of property rights to the house.

Basic facts of the case

Woman A and man A are originally husband and wife, and Otome is a married daughter of two people.

Man A is the owner of the real estate rights involved in the case, and woman A is the co-owner.

On April 10, 2006, A and A agreed to divorce at the Civil Affairs Bureau, and the two parties signed the "Divorce Agreement", which stated "The first reason for divorce: Due to the discord between the feelings of the man and the woman, they often quarrel over daily trivial matters, resulting in the breakdown of their feelings, and they are no longer able to live together." Article 2 Arrangements for Children: Otome, who is born in wedlock, is 11 years old and is raised by the woman, and the man pays a monthly maintenance fee of 300 yuan until the 18th birthday of the otome born in wedlock. Article 3 Property Treatment: The current house is located in unit ×× No. ××, and the full property rights belong to the woman and the otome born in wedlock, and the woman is not allowed to sell the property before the 18th birthday of the wedlocked daughter, and the existing property in the home belongs to the woman".

On May 8, 2021, after the court of first instance presided over the mediation, A and A voluntarily reached a mediation agreement, and the agreement on the disposition of property in Article 3 of the Divorce Agreement above was valid.

At present, Otome and Otome and Otome asked Otome and Otome to cooperate in handling the transfer formalities, but Otome and Yona A sued the court.

The focus of the controversy

Should a man assist in the registration of a change in property rights?

Opinion of first instance

The court of first instance held that this case was a dispute between the parties due to the performance of the property division clause of the divorce agreement, and it was a property dispute after divorce. The provisions on the disposition of property in the divorce agreement are legally binding on both men and women, and both parties shall perform them in accordance with the agreement.

In the divorce agreement, A and A man clearly agreed that the property rights of the house located in unit ×× of the ×× belonged to A and Otome, and the agreement did not violate the provisions of the law and was legal and valid. Although Otome is not the counterparty to the divorce agreement, her participation in the lawsuit as a plaintiff shows that her attitude towards the parents' gift is a positive pursuit, which has a major interest in the outcome of this case. Now, according to the provisions of the divorce agreement, A and Otome request that the change of ownership of the house be registered in their name, and A man is obliged to assist in handling it, so the litigation claims of Otome and Otome should be supported according to law.

Regarding Man A's argument that Otome was required to compensate him for the purchase price of 92,000 yuan, there was no factual and legal basis and was not supported.

According to Article 69 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Part of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (I), it is ruled that within 15 days from the effective date of the judgment, Man A shall assist Woman A and Otome in registering the change in the property rights of the house involved in the case (property certificate number: Real Estate Rights Mussel Private Character No. ××) in the names of Lady A and Otome.

Appeal Opinion

Facts and reasons for male appeal:

1. The house involved in the case was purchased by the father of the man A with a contribution of 46,000 yuan and the joint property of the husband and wife with a contribution of 27,000 yuan, a total of 73,000 yuan. The agreement in the divorce agreement of A to belong to Otome shall be regarded as a gift, and this case shall be a dispute over the donation. Before the transfer of the property, Otome did not acquire the property, and A, as the donor, had the right to withdraw the gift and refuse to perform the third item of the divorce agreement.

2. The divorce agreement between a man and a woman is not the true intention of man A, because in less than two years from the time of buying a house to the time of divorce, it is false for a woman to remarry a man for the purpose of occupying the property, and the actual purpose is to obtain the property.

3. Man A reserves the right to claim alimony from Otome, if Otome and Yona insist on handling the property involved in the case, the market value of the house is about 210,000 yuan, and Man A requires the two of them to return the 46,000 yuan that their father invested when he bought the house, considering the appreciation of the existing house, and now requires Otome and A to refund 92,000 yuan to Man A or Man A to Otome and Woman A to 120,000 yuan to solve it at one time.

Otome and A argue that when Otome and Ago divorced, they had agreed on the property rights of the house, and the (2021) Anhui 0304 Min Chu No. 1677 Mediation Letter once again confirmed that the house involved in the case belonged to Otome and A-Nü. Man A has applied for retirement salary and has repeatedly stressed that he can pay a high purchase fee. In summary, the court of second instance is requested to uphold the original judgment.

Second-instance opinion

During the second instance trial of this court, the parties did not submit new evidence and had no objection to the facts ascertained by the court of first instance, but A Nan believed that the (2021) Anhui 0304 Min Chu No. 1677 Civil Mediation Document was not his true expression of intent. This Court shall confirm the facts to which neither party has any objections.

This court held that the Civil Mediation Letter of the People's Court of Yuhui District of Bengbu City, Anhui Province (2021) Anhui 0304 Min Chu No. 1677 stipulates that "the third item of the divorce agreement between the plaintiff A woman and the defendant A man, the property treatment: the current housing ×× unit no. ××, the full property rights belong to the woman and the married woman Otome, and the woman shall not sell the property before the 18th birthday of the wedlocked woman." The agreement is valid. The agreement was confirmed, and the mediation document had taken legal effect, so the court of first instance accordingly ruled that "within fifteen days from the effective date of the judgment, man A and otome shall assist A and Otome to register the change in the property rights of the house involved in the case (property certificate number: property rights clam private word No. ××) in the names of A and Otome." "There is a basis for the law.

In summary, Man A's appeal request cannot be established and should be dismissed; the first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear and the law was correct and should be upheld. In accordance with the first paragraph of article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.

Source | Li Jie's speech, law lecture hall

This article is for exchange and learning only, if the source is incorrectly marked or infringes your rights and interests, please let us know and we will delete it immediately.