[3] Shenzhen gay couple breaks up over property; Zhiming lawyer takes alternative approach to cleverly protect rights

[2] When Liang XX received the second-instance victory verdict from the lawyer at Zhiming Law Firm, he breathed a long sigh of relief, finally putting his mind at ease.

Case details:

In March 2010, a man named Liang XX from Shenzhen met a male fitness coach, Li X, by chance. Four months later, the two, who shared similar interests, began addressing each other as lovers and jointly bid for a property as their "love nest," starting their life of same-sex cohabitation.

This "love nest" in Luohu District was purchased at auction in March 2011 under the name of Li X, with a total cost of 1,122,000 yuan. For this property, Liang XX deposited a total of RMB 390,000 into Li X's mortgage bank account in installments between April and November 2011, and additionally paid 5 yuan for real estate transaction taxes and fees, purchasing furniture and appliances, paying management fees, and renovation costs.

Unforeseen storms may arise at any time. In November 2011, Liang XX and Li X broke up due to conflicts accumulated over time. Subsequently, Liang XX was driven out of the property in question, and Li X took sole possession of it, yet made no mention whatsoever of the 400,000 yuan that Liang XX had advanced. Feeling deeply aggrieved, Liang XX filed a lawsuit against Li X, demanding the return of the 400,000 yuan loan that Liang XX had paid out during the purchase of the property.

Because Liang XX could not provide evidence of the loan in court, he lost the case in the first instance. After receiving the first-instance judgment, Liang XX's heart sank into an ice cellar. Later, regaining his composure, Liang XX, with a glimmer of hope, sought out the Zhiming lawyer team of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm by reputation and entrusted the Zhiming lawyers to represent him in the second-instance proceedings.

After accepting the commission, the Zhiming lawyer team carefully studied the case materials and discovered that the private lending lawsuit direction originally proposed by Liang XX in the first instance was erroneous, and that continuing with the second-instance proceedings would likely result in another defeat. They therefore advised Liang XX to withdraw the appeal in the private lending case.

At the court of second instance, the plaintiff's counsel submitted sufficient evidence to the court, proving that Liang XX paid approximately RMB 400,000 for the auction, purchase, and occupancy of the property in question, yet the purchased property was registered solely under Li X's name. Li X should therefore return the property share of Liang XX that is in Li X's possession.

I, as counsel for the plaintiff, submit that in this case, the cohabitation of the same-sex partners differs from heterosexual cohabitation in the usual sense under marriage law; it constitutes cohabitation in a broad sense. Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Property Law, the property accumulated during the period of cohabitation between the parties is characterized as property held in common by shares. Upon the termination of the cohabitation relationship, there is sufficient factual and legal basis for the equitable division of the jointly held property between the parties.

Accordingly, the appellate court held that our plaintiff's counsel's arguments were clear, reasonable, and lawful, and therefore in May 2013 finally ruled that Li X return approximately 400,000 yuan to Liang XX.

Post-case reminder:

This case involves property disputes between same-sex partners during cohabitation, which is a relatively difficult type of civil dispute litigation. In handling such cases, it is particularly important to clarify the nature of the legal relationship involved based on the facts and law, and to determine the correct litigation direction. Fortunately, the lawyers at Zhiming timely adjusted the litigation direction, refiled the lawsuit on the grounds of partition of property held in shares, and ultimately received consecutive support from both the first-instance and second-instance courts, securing a victory for the client. Otherwise, with a wrong direction, the inevitable outcome would have been defeat.

(The personal names in this article are all pseudonyms.)