A bizarre romance leads to litigation, lawyer skillfully resolves a chain of cases

Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, another brilliant case from the Zhiming lawyer team to share with everyone!!

I. Basic Case Facts

Ms. Yang and Ms. Zhou met in late 2008 and became very close, subsequently living together until June 2013 when Yang went abroad. During this period, Yang purchased two properties on her own, both registered under her own name. In August 2014, Zhou sued Yang, demanding the return of the two properties and cash totaling 2.6 million yuan. Before the court hearing, Zhou amended her claims three times, ultimately seeking the return of over 1 million yuan in cash and over 700,000 yuan in property appreciation gains. The first-instance judgment ordered defendant Yang to return 1 million yuan to plaintiff Zhou as unjust enrichment, and dismissed Zhou's other claims. The second-instance judgment upheld the original ruling (following Yang's appeal). Zhou has now applied to the enforcement bureau for execution and, in August 2015, filed another lawsuit with the people's court, with the grounds and evidence submitted being virtually identical to those in the previous case.

Zhou stated that, in order to live with Yang on a long-term basis, in addition to purchasing two properties in Yang's name with his own funds in November 2009, he also transferred money on multiple occasions into bank accounts under Yang's name to support her living expenses and overseas studies. On April 30, 2012, May 14, 2012, July 25, 2013, September 19, 2013, and April 8, 2014, he remitted to Yang HKD 254,000 (equivalent to RMB 203,200), HKD 185,000 (equivalent to RMB 145,000), RMB 304,900, USD 32,580 (equivalent to RMB 202,610.96), USD 16,104 (equivalent to RMB 100,224), and USD 16,102 (equivalent to RMB 100,204), respectively. Later, as their feelings faded, both parties proposed to break up and cease living together.

The defendant's family, having heard of Zhiming Law Firm's reputation, sought out their services. Zhiming Law Firm rose to the occasion and assigned Attorney Cao Guanghui to represent Yang. During the representation, the Zhiming legal team, leveraging their extensive case-handling experience and profound professional expertise, conducted a thorough multi-faceted investigation into the case. They explained the interests at stake to the defendant, alleviating the various concerns of the defendant's family.

II. Disputed Focus

The focus of the dispute between the parties in this case centers on:

1. Whether the payment of over 1.05 million yuan from Zhou to Yang constitutes unjust enrichment?

2. Are Zhou and Yang in a same-sex cohabitation relationship?

III. Judgment

After trial by the Futian District People's Court, the judgment is as follows:

1. Reject the plaintiff Zhou's claims.

2. The case acceptance fee of RMB 14,332 yuan and the property preservation fee of 5,000 yuan in this case shall be borne by the plaintiff, Zhou.

4. Case Analysis

Facing Zhou's repeated litigation over the same incident, which wastes judicial resources, Attorney Wang Tengfeng's team carefully analyzed the case and concluded: 1. The disputed amount claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant had already been asserted in the previous lawsuit; the plaintiff merely withdrew part of the claims during the trial, which should be deemed as abandonment and disposition of substantive rights. 2. The existing evidence provided by the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff paid the six disputed sums to the defendant. 3. The two parties were in a same-sex cohabitation relationship, and during their years of living together, their finances were commingled. The defendant's bank card was used jointly by both, and both were aware of the PIN. Even if the six disputed payments existed, they were used for the couple's shared living expenses, travel, and other consumption.

In the end, after thoroughly investigating and analyzing the evidence and the case, the collegiate bench fully adopted the arguments presented by Zhiming lawyers and ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, thereby safeguarding the defendant's lawful rights and interests.