Property and inheritance case: Zhiming lawyer took on the mission at a critical moment, turned danger into safety, fought with chivalry and courage, and successfully appealed.
[2] Case Overview:
[3] In 1990, the client Chen (hereinafter referred to as the client) began living with Luo as a married couple. In 1991, the client's daughter Lu was born and lived with the client from childhood, raised jointly by the client and Luo. On August 14, 1999, the client, Luo, and Coastal (Shenzhen) Development Co., Ltd. signed the "Shenzhen Real Estate Sales Contract," jointly purchasing Room 15S, Block A, Julong Building, Wenjin Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen. On July 19, 2000, the client and Luo signed a "Building Mortgage Loan Contract" with China Construction Bank Shenzhen Branch. Starting August 19, 2000, the client began repaying the bank loan through mortgage installments, with the repayment account under the client's name. From January 18, 2008, to July 31, 2010, the client repaid the bank loan principal and interest totaling 44,344.74 yuan. On July 13, 2010, the loan for the purchased property was fully repaid.
[4] On December 23, 2008, Luo died in Hong Kong. On December 16, 2011, Lin, claiming to be Luo's spouse, sued the client, requesting the court to divide the 50% property share of Luo in the client's current residence. The assessed value of the property at the time of evaluation was 543,680 yuan. Lin provided a "Declaration of Waiver of Inheritance" made by Luo and others on April 23, 2009, and a "Notarial Certificate" (Shenzhen Certificate No. 73239) issued by Shenzhen Notary Office on May 27, 2009.
[5] The Shenzhen Luohu District Court ruled as follows: First, Plaintiff Lin holds a 50% share of the property located at Room X, Building X, XX Building, Wenjin Middle Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen; Second, the property is divided to Defendant Chen, and Plaintiff Lin must assist Defendant Chen in completing the property title transfer registration within ten days of this judgment; Third, Defendant Chen must pay Plaintiff Lin 249,667.63 yuan as the property division payment within ten days of the judgment taking effect.
[6] The client was extremely disappointed with the first-instance verdict. At a loss, the client sought help from the author at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm. Attorney Wang Tengfeng, after accepting the case, assessed the situation and believed there was still room for a turnaround. By appealing to reason and emotion, he aimed to resolve the dispute for the client, turning the crisis into an opportunity.
Attorney Wang Tengfeng pointed out: First, in this case, the client and Luo Moumou had formed a de facto marital relationship, while the appellee Lin Moumou and Luo Moumou also did not have a registered marriage. The appellant's personal and property rights should at least be treated equally to those of the appellee, making the first-instance judgment clearly unfair. Furthermore, the so-called estate declaration and inheritance notarization documents provided by the appellee in the first instance were primarily based on the appellee's unilateral statements, with most of their content—especially regarding the marital status of the appellee and Luo Moumou—being purely subjective and arbitrary. Second, the appellant's daughter, Lu Moumou, had a de facto dependency relationship with Luo Moumou and is legally entitled to inherit the property in question. The first-instance court, based on the appellant and Luo Moumou's cohabitation as a married couple, presumed that the bank loan repayments from the appellant's personal account were joint repayments, yet simultaneously denied the dependency relationship between the appellant's young daughter, who lived with them, and Luo Moumou, creating a logical contradiction. Third, according to inheritance law, the property rights and interests of the heirs were fixed at the time of Luo Moumou's death. Any subsequent appreciation of the property due to factors such as the appellant's payment of consideration should not involve the appellee, and the first-instance court's erroneous ruling lacks legal basis. The appellant also stated that she is currently in financial difficulty, relying on loans to support her daughter in college, and strongly requested the second-instance court to overturn the first-instance judgment, which was illegal, unreasonable, and biased.
Ultimately, the second-instance court was moved, and the judge was convinced. The second-instance judgment: First, uphold items one and two; second, amend item three of the first-instance judgment; the appellant, Chen Moumou, shall pay the appellee 120,000 yuan for property division within ten days of this judgment taking effect.
