**Wan Fan Incentive Plan The man's mother will give the house to her son and daughter-in-law to marry and live, and the gift agreement stipulates that if the man is at fault, half of the property will be divided to the woman, and if the woman is at fault and file for divorce, she has no right to divide the property. In this post-divorce property dispute case, the house was recognized as the joint property of the husband and wife, and the woman was at fault, and the court rejected the woman's claim to divide the house in the husband's name.
Case Review] Plaintiff: female, born in 1990, Defendant: male, born in 1979, the parties got married in June 2012. They have a son in January 2013. In December 2021, the woman sued the man over a divorce dispute. In February 2022, after court mediation, the two divorced. After the divorce, due to property disputes, the woman filed a lawsuit again, asking the court to divide a house in the husband's name.
After investigation, during the existence of the marital relationship between the two, the man's mother signed the "Gift Agreement" with the young couple, and the man's mother voluntarily donated the house to her son and daughter-in-law (including property rights), stipulating: if the man is grossly negligent, the house property will be divided equally between the two, and if the woman is negligent and voluntarily files for divorce, she has no right to divide the property. Later, the house involved in the case was changed and registered in the man's name.
During the trial, the husband provided the woman's hospitalization certificate and ultrasound examination report in April 2021, proving that the woman was at fault for having children with others during the marriage.
In this regard, the woman said that she was pregnant at the time, afraid of divorce trouble, and did not want her husband to know, the contact person filled in the name of a colleague, and the hospitalization was for **, accompanied by a female friend.
The man asserted that the two parties separated in 2015 and that the child could not be his own.
The woman asserted that the parties lived together in the disputed house from 2015 to May 2021, only sleeping in separate rooms, and the children belonged to the man.
The court obtained the mediation transcript of the divorce case in 2021, and the woman said during the mediation that the parties had begun to separate in May 2015. The woman asserted that the discount of the house involved in the case should be divided, or that the house should be awarded to her, and that she should pay the corresponding discount to the husband, and at the same time apply for an appraisal of the present value of the house involved in the case.
The court of first instance held that a gift contract is a contract in which the donor gives his property to the donee free of charge, and the donee expresses his acceptance of the gift. In this case, based on the ascertained facts, it can be determined that a gift contract was established between the defendant's mother and the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the house in question had been transferred to the house, and that the house involved in the case was the joint property of the plaintiff and the defendant.
The gift agreement also stipulates that if the husband is grossly negligent, the property of the house shall be divided equally between the two parties, and if the woman is negligent and voluntarily files for divorce, she has no right to divide the property. Both the plaintiff and the defendant signed the agreement, so both parties should divide the house in accordance with the agreement.
On the question of whether the woman is at fault. According to the hospitalization certificate and ultrasound examination report provided by the defendant, during the existence of the marital relationship between the two, the plaintiff underwent ** surgery, but filled in the names of other men in the contact office and the husband and wife in the relationship office. The defendant has completed the preliminary burden of proof that the plaintiff was negligent during the existence of the marital relationship, and the plaintiff explained that he was afraid of the trouble of divorce and did not want the defendant to know, so he filled in the name of his colleague and *** The court thought that the plaintiff's explanation was contrary to common sense. Based on the divorce case and the separation stated by the parties in this case, the court accepted the defendant's claim that the plaintiff was at fault during the existence of the marital relationship. According to the terms of the gift agreement, the plaintiff had no right to divide the property. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for division of the house involved in the case was not supported.
The court of first instance ruled that all of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed. The court of second instance held that the court of first instance did not violate legal procedures in obtaining and accepting the woman's statement in another trial, and rejected the appeal on February 20, 2023, and upheld the original judgment.