A gay lover's infidelity leads to a property dispute, a wise lawyer skillfully avoids losses.
By chance, in 2008, a Hong Kong woman named Zhou XX met a Sichuan woman named Yang X in Shenzhen, and by the end of the year, the two began living together as a same-sex couple, addressing each other as spouses. By June 2014, when Yang X went to the United States to study, Zhou XX fell for someone else and unilaterally proposed a breakup to Yang X. During this period, Zhou XX transferred a total of over 1 million yuan to Yang X's account on multiple occasions and also paid for a property purchased in Shenzhen under Yang X's name.
In August 2015, Zhou XX, as the plaintiff, filed another lawsuit in a district court in Shenzhen on the grounds of "unjust enrichment," demanding that the defendant, Yang X, return over one million yuan in "unjust enrichment" funds. Previously, Zhou XX had already sued Yang X to return a substantial amount of unjustly enriched property, but due to a strategic error in that case, Yang X lost both trials, and the property was seized and auctioned to repay debts. Now, Zhou XX resorted to the same tactic again, seeking to recover over one million yuan from Yang X that was not pursued in the previous case. In despair, Yang X and his mother sought out the Zhiming lawyer team at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm by reputation, tearfully pleading for help.
After accepting the case and listening to the case briefing, the Zhiming Law Firm team analyzed that the two parties had lived together for a long time, and their finances were naturally highly commingled in daily life, making their legal relationship akin to both marriage and partnership. Therefore, the opposing party's claim of "unjust enrichment" should not stand, and the client was instructed to collect and provide evidence in this direction. Through the client's efforts, a large amount of evidence was gathered regarding the joint living and consumption of Zhou XX and Yang X, such as joint shopping receipts, joint travel tickets, joint movie tickets, bank transaction records and statements, as well as text messages and WeChat communication records between the two parties. Based on this, in court, our defense counsel vigorously refuted the plaintiff's claim of "unjust enrichment" on the grounds that the parties' property was commingled during their cohabitation and that there were long-term and substantial joint living and consumption expenses. With skilled litigation techniques, the defense also locked in the key fact during the trial investigation phase that the "unjust enrichment" payments claimed by the plaintiff Zhou XX all occurred during the period of their cohabitation.
Accordingly, the district court determined that the涉案款项 claimed by Zhou XX occurred during the cohabitation period when the accounts of both parties were commingled, and that there were justified reasons for the transfer, which did not meet the statutory requirements for unjust enrichment. In January 2016, the court issued a judgment dismissing all of Zhou XX's claims. After Zhou XX appealed, Zhiming Law Firm continued to represent the appellee. In the second instance, the intermediate court ultimately adopted the appellee's attorney's arguments, holding that since the parties had cohabited for over six years and the涉案款项 claimed by Zhou XX were paid in multiple installments over several years, it could not be confirmed that Zhou XX suffered losses while Yang X obtained improper benefits. The court finally issued a final judgment in August 2016, dismissing Zhou XX's appeal and upholding the original judgment, which was recently served to our client. Upon learning of the successful final judgment, the client repeatedly expressed heartfelt gratitude to the attorneys of Zhiming Law Firm.
Post-case reminder:
This case involves a property dispute between same-sex partners during cohabitation, which is a relatively complex civil litigation. From the plaintiff's perspective, this case is neither a typical divorce property dispute between spouses nor a standard partnership property dispute among private individuals. From the defendant's perspective, it is also not a conventional unjust enrichment property dispute. To handle this litigation, it is essential to carefully analyze the facts of the case, make an accurate determination and grasp of the legal relationship attributes, and respond flexibly and precisely during court proceedings, providing the adjudicators with correct judicial reasoning. Otherwise, both the plaintiff and the defendant may face adverse outcomes. (All names in this article are pseudonyms.)
