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:
In 1990, the client, Chen XX (hereinafter referred to as "the Client"), began cohabiting with Luo XX as a married couple. In 1991, the Client's daughter, Lu XX, was born and lived with the Client from an early age, being raised jointly by the Client and Luo XX. On August 14, 1999, the Client, Luo XX, and Coastal (Shenzhen) Development Co., Ltd. signed the "Shenzhen Real Estate Sales Contract," jointly purchasing the property located at Room 15S, Tower A, Julong Building, Wenjin Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen. On July 19, 2000, the Client and Luo XX signed the "Building Mortgage Loan Contract" with China Construction Bank Shenzhen Branch. Starting from August 19, 2000, the Client began repaying the bank loan through mortgage installments, with the loan repayment bank account registered under the Client's own name. From January 18, 2008, to July 31, 2010, the Client repaid a total of RMB 44,344.74 in loan principal and interest to the bank. On July 13, 2010, the bank loan for the purchased property was fully repaid.
On December 23, 2008, Luo XX passed away in Hong Kong. On December 16, 2011, Lin XX, acting in the capacity of the spouse of the deceased Luo XX, filed a lawsuit against the client, requesting the court to divide the 50% property share of Luo XX in the house where the client currently resides. The appraised value of the property in question at the time of evaluation was 543,680 yuan. Lin XX submitted the "Declaration of Renunciation of Inheritance" made by Luo XX and others on April 23, 2009, and the "Notarial Certificate" (Shenzhen Certificate No. 73239) issued by Shenzhen Notary Office on May 27, 2009.
The Luohu District People's Court of Shenzhen, after trial, hereby rules as follows: 1. The plaintiff, Lin Moumou, holds a 50% ownership share of the property located at Room X, Building X, XX Tower, Wenzhong Middle Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen; 2. The property shall be divided and vested in the defendant, Chen Moumou, and the plaintiff, Lin Moumou, shall assist the defendant, Chen Moumou, in completing the property ownership transfer registration procedures within ten days of this judgment; 3. The defendant, Chen Moumou, shall pay the plaintiff, Lin Moumou, the property division amount of RMB 249,667.63 yuan within ten days from the effective date of this judgment.
The client was extremely disappointed with the first-instance judgment and, feeling at a dead end, sought help from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm by reputation, requesting legal assistance from the author. After accepting the case, the Zhiming lawyers assessed the situation and determined that there was still room for a turnaround. By appealing to both emotion and reason, they resolved the dispute for the client, turning a crisis into an opportunity.
Lawyer Zhiming 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 likewise had not registered their marriage. The appellant's personal and property rights should at least be treated equally to those of the appellee, and the first-instance judgment is clearly unfair. He further pointed out that the so-called estate declaration and inheritance notarization certificate submitted by the appellee in the first instance were primarily based on the appellee's unilateral statements, and the vast majority of their content, especially the portion concerning the marital status of the appellee and Luo Moumou, was purely the appellee's unilateral subjective representation and highly arbitrary. Second, the appellant's daughter, Lu Moumou, and Luo Moumou had a de facto foster relationship and are legally entitled to inherit the property involved in the case. The first-instance court, based on the appellant's cohabitation with Luo Moumou under the guise of a marital relationship, presumed that the bank loan repayments made from the appellant's personal account constituted joint repayment by both parties, yet simultaneously denied the foster relationship between the appellant's young daughter, who lived with them, and Luo Moumou, which is logically contradictory. Third, under the Inheritance Law, the time of the decedent Luo Moumou's death had already fixed and determined the scope of the heirs' property rights. Any appreciation of the property involved in the case resulting from subsequent payments made by the appellant or other considerations has nothing to do with the appellee, and the first-instance erroneous judgment lacks legal basis. He also stated that the appellant is currently facing financial hardship, relying on loans to support her daughter who is attending university, and strongly requested that the second-instance court overturn the first-instance judgment, which violates the law, defies common sense, and improperly favors one party.
In the end, the court of second instance was moved, and the judge was persuaded. The second-instance judgment: First, uphold items one and two; second, amend item three of the first-instance judgment; the appellant, Chen某某, shall pay the appellee 120,000 yuan as the property division payment within ten days from the effective date of this judgment.
