Image source: Internet

[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.

[3] Case Overview:

[4] In March 2010, Liang XX, a man from Shenzhen, met a male fitness coach named Li X by chance. Four months later, the two, sharing similar interests, began a romantic relationship and jointly bid for a property as their "love nest," starting a cohabiting life as a same-sex couple.

[5] This "love nest" in Luohu District was acquired through a bid in Li X's name in March 2011, costing a total of 1,122,000 yuan. For this property, between April and November 2011, Liang XX deposited a total of 390,000 yuan into Li X's mortgage bank account, in addition to paying property transaction taxes, purchasing furniture and appliances, covering management fees, and renovation costs totaling 5 yuan.

[6] Unexpectedly, in November 2011, Liang XX and Li X broke up due to accumulated conflicts over time. Liang XX was subsequently evicted from the property, and Li X took sole possession of it, without mentioning the 400,000 yuan Liang XX had advanced. Feeling aggrieved, Liang XX filed a lawsuit against Li X, demanding the return of the 400,000 yuan loan he had paid for the property purchase.

Because Liang XX could not provide evidence of the loan in court, he lost the first instance. After receiving the first-instance judgment, Liang XX's spirits plummeted into an icy abyss. Later, pulling himself together with a glimmer of hope, Liang XX sought out the Wang Tengfeng legal team from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm and entrusted them to represent him in the second-instance appeal.

After accepting the case, the Wang Tengfeng legal team carefully studied the case materials and found that the original direction of the private lending lawsuit proposed by Liang XX in the first instance was incorrect. Continuing with the second-instance appeal would likely result in another loss, so they advised Liang XX to withdraw the appeal in the private lending case.

In the second-instance court, the plaintiff's lawyer submitted sufficient evidence to the court, proving that Liang XX had spent approximately 400,000 RMB to bid for and move into the property in question. However, the purchased property was registered solely under Li X's name, and Li X should return the share of property belonging to Liang XX.

The plaintiff's lawyer argued that the cohabitation of the same-sex partners in this case differed from heterosexual cohabitation under traditional marriage law and fell under a broader definition of cohabitation. According to the relevant provisions of the Property Law, property acquired during cohabitation is considered co-owned by shares. When the cohabitation relationship ends, dividing the shared property based on actual circumstances has sufficient factual and legal basis.

Based on this, the second-instance court found the plaintiff's lawyer's reasoning clear, reasonable, and lawful, and ultimately ruled in May 2013 that Li X must return approximately 400,000 RMB to Liang XX.

Post-case note:

This case involves a property dispute during same-sex cohabitation, which is a relatively complex civil litigation. Handling such cases requires clarifying the legal nature of the relationship and determining the correct litigation direction based on facts and law. Fortunately, the Wang Tengfeng legal team promptly adjusted the litigation strategy, refiling the lawsuit on the grounds of dividing co-owned property by shares, and ultimately received consistent support from both the first- and second-instance courts, securing a victory for the client. Otherwise, with the wrong direction, the outcome would inevitably have been a loss.

(The names in this article are pseudonyms)