List of high-quality authors The property donated by one of the husband and wife to a third party constitutes unjust enrichment and needs to be returned.
Introduction:Recently, a friend consulted and said that her husband had another lover outside and spent a lot of money on this lover, she was very angry and asked the author if she could get the third party to return the money. Because she is a full-time mother, she has no job, and her family's income is mainly based on her husband, and now that this has happened, although she is anxious and angry, but considering the child, she will not divorce her husband, so she wants to find this third party to get the money back, and she is angry. So how will the court deal with such a situation? Next, take a look at this case.
What happened by:Plaintiff Tang and Tan were husband and wife, and their marriage was registered on January 31, 1994. Tan and Xiao met in October 2018 and developed a lover relationship; During the relationship between Tan and Xiao, a total of 206202 were transferred to Xiao through bank cards and WeChat transfers$4. Because Xiao was unwilling to return the above property, Tang then sued Xiao to the court. Xiao believed that he did not need to return the above-mentioned property, and proposed: 1. The defendant Tan in this case was at fault for deceiving Xiao's feelings, and the defendant Xiao was a bona fide gainer and was not at fault. Tan knew that he had a spouse and still had improper relationships with other women, which was to deceive women, and Xiao did not know that the benefits he obtained had no legal basis when he obtained them; 2. The benefits obtained by the defendant Xiao no longer exist, and he does not bear the obligation to return the benefits. The benefits obtained by Xiao have been used to rent a house and share living expenses with Tan, and Xiao did not go to work at Tan's request, so Tan should compensate Xiao 3,000 yuan per month, and a total of 108,000 yuan should be compensated for three years; 3. Tan's act of transferring money to Xiao is not a gift contract that violates public order and good customs, nor is it a private gift contract without the consent of the husband and wife. Of the more than 200,000 yuan, 108,000 yuan was used for Tan and Xiao's joint expenses for three years, and the other 108,000 yuan was a compensation contract given by Tan to Xiao for not going to work for three years, and there was no legal relationship with outsiders.
Plaintiff Tang'sClaims:
1.The defendant Xiao returned the unjust enrichment to the plaintiff in the total amount of RMB 2062024 yuan and interest on the occupation of funds (206202 in principal from the date of filing the lawsuit4 yuan as the base, according to the People's Bank of China authorized by the National Interbank Lending Center to announce the loan market ** interest rate, that is, according to 37% until the date of payment);
2.The defendant bears the litigation costs of the case (including litigation costs, property preservation fees, etc.).
The Court held that:Where there is no lawful basis for obtaining improper benefits, causing losses to others, the improper benefits obtained shall be returned to the person who suffered the losses. The conditions for constituting unjust enrichment are that one party obtains a property benefit, the other party suffers a loss, and there is a causal relationship between the benefit and the damage, and there is no legal basis for the benefit. In this case, Tan transferred a total of 206202 to Xiao from October 13, 2018 to September 20, 2021$4. Xiao accepted Tan's transfer, there is no legal basis, and the 2062024 yuan is the joint property of the plaintiff and Tan, and Tan disposed of the joint property of the husband and wife without the consent of the plaintiff, which is invalid and should be returned by the beneficiary. Defendant Xiao claimed that he had been deceived during his relationship with Tan, that he was a bona fide gainer, and that all of his profits had been used for living expenses such as renting a house with Tan, so he should not bear the obligation to return the benefits. However, Xiao did not submit relevant and strong evidence such as rental contracts and receipts to support his above-mentioned defense, and Tan did not accept this, so this court did not accept his defense.
During the existence of the marital relationship, unless otherwise agreed, the husband and wife shall jointly enjoy the ownership of the joint property without any share, and neither husband nor wife shall have the right to dispose of the joint property of the husband and wife separately except for the needs of daily life. In order to maintain an improper relationship outside of marriage, Tan paid money to Xiao without the consent of his wife Tang, which not only violated the provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China on "husband and wife shall be faithful to each other and respect each other", but also contrary to public order and good customs, so Xiao obtained the 206202The 4 yuan sum has no lawful basis and is unjust enrichment, and shall be returned in accordance with law.
The Court's Decision:
1. Defendant Xiao shall return 206202 to plaintiff Tang within 5 days of the effective date of this judgment$4 and interest (interest in 2062024 yuan as the base, starting from March 11, 2022, in accordance with the People's Bank of China authorized by the National Interbank Lending Center to announce the loan market ** interest rate standard until the date of actual payment).
Lawyer reminds:According to the provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China on "husband and wife shall be faithful to each other and respect each other" and the provisions on the joint property of husband and wife, one of the husband and wife shall not dispose of the joint property of the husband and wife without permission. Secondly, the current law does not protect the third party, because this behavior violates public order and good customs, so you must check it out before falling in love, so as to avoid being treated as a "three", losing your wife and losing your soldiers. In addition, it should be noted that the premise for determining the joint property of the husband and wife is that there is no agreement on the division of marital property, that is, the husband and wife have not distinguished the ownership of their respective property, and if there is a property agreement between the two parties to separate their respective property, the act of one of the husband and wife to dispose of their own property is valid.
If you need to consult, please send a private message in the background).