Mr. Chan and Ms. Wang registered their marriage and had a daughter who became adults. The joint property of the husband and wife consists of 3 properties, bank deposits, and **2 vehicles. During the marriage, Mr. Chan kept his lover and had a child born out of wedlock, during which Mr. Chan repeatedly transferred money to his lover, bought a car and paid child support.
Mr. Chen and Ms. Wang gradually developed a discord after marriage, and because Mr. Chen had an extramarital affair and had an illegitimate child with the opposite sex outside of marriage, the relationship between the husband and wife broke down completely. Ms. Wang sued for a divorce, and Mr. Chen agreed, but a dispute arose over how to divide the joint property of the husband and wife. Ms. Wang filed a lawsuit with the court, and the first-instance judgment ruled that the ratio of property division between the husband and wife was 3:7, and Mr. Chen appealed.
Mr. Chan's fault for the breakdown of the marriage and the proportionality of the property.
Mr. Chan was at fault for the breakdown of his marriage.
During his marriage to Ms Wong, Mr Chan had sexual relations with the opposite sex outside of marriage and gave birth to an illegitimate child, which Mr Chan also acknowledged. Mr. Chen's conduct violated the duty of fidelity of husband and wife, violated family ethics and morals, and led to the breakdown of the relationship between husband and wife, and Mr. Chen is liable for the fault. On appeal, Mr. Chen argued that the marital relationship between him and Ms. Wang had broken down long ago, but in order to raise the children and support the elderly, the parties had agreed for many years to maintain a "formal marriage", in which the parties would not interfere with each other's private lives and be financially independent. (2) It is understandable that Ms. Wang had known about Mr. Chen's extramarital affair, but Ms. Wang, as a woman, as a weak person in the marriage, family, and relationship between men and women, chose to forbear, hoping that Mr. Chen would change her mind and did not immediately file for separation or divorce, which is understandable, and this does not prove that the parties have agreed to maintain a "formal marriage" and not interfere with each other. On the other hand, even if there is such an agreement between the parties, it cannot justify Mr. Chen's derailment, let alone ignore the pain and harm caused to Ms. Wang by Mr. Chen's conduct. Therefore, this court does not accept Mr. Chen's appeal in this section.
Mr. Chen and Ms. Wang should divide the joint property of the husband and wife in a ratio of 4 6.
According to Article 1087 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the distribution ratio of the joint property of the husband and wife should follow the principle of taking care of the rights and interests of the children, the wife and the innocent party, so Ms. Wang can appropriately share more of the joint property of the husband and wife, but considering that: (1) Mr. Chen and Ms. Wang's joint property is more and more valuable, and the total value of the three immovable properties of Room 1, Room 503 and Room 1804 alone has exceeded 20 million yuan (only the remaining mortgage of House 1804 is 576775).13 yuan), if the difference in the division ratio is large, the difference in the value of the property obtained by the two parties is too large. In respect of the three immovable properties alone, if the division ratio of 3 7 is followed, Ms Wong will receive about $8 million more than Mr Chan, which is contrary to the principle of fairness. If the punishment of Mr. Chan for his lesser share of property is a punishment for him, the degree of Mr. Chan's fault is not commensurate with the punishment he received. (2) Mr. Chan has made significant contributions to the family economy over the years. In summary, the proportion of property division determined in the first-instance judgment should be adjusted, and the proportion of Mr. Chen and Ms. Wang's division of the joint property of the husband and wife should be adjusted to 4 6.
Beijing Guanying lawyer believes that in this case, Mr. Chen had an extramarital affair during the existence of his marriage with Ms. Wang and had a child born out of wedlock with another person, and there were "other circumstances that led to the breakdown of the relationship between husband and wife" under Article 1079 (5) of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. According to Article 1087 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the distribution of the joint property of husband and wife shall be adjudicated in accordance with the principle of taking care of the woman and the innocent party. In this case, Ms. Wang was the woman and the innocent party, and met the requirements of two of the three articles of the article, and Wang should be given a greater tilt in the distribution of property, but because the value of the joint property between the husband and wife was relatively large, and Mr. Chen's contribution to the family's economy was relatively large, the court of second instance adjusted the division ratio to 4:6 in accordance with the principle of fairness.