Two lawyers argued over disputes according to the law, and the weak woman's property appreciated and received compensation.
[Lead Attorney: Zhiming Law Firm; Author: Wang Liyuan] I. Case Background
Ms. Liu ×× and Mr. He ×× began dating in March 2005, and in 2008, the couple decided to purchase a house and get married. Accordingly, in August 2009, they jointly funded the purchase of the property located at Room 702, Building 2, Haoyuan, Qiaoxin Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen. The property certificate was issued in both names, stating a 50% ownership share for each. The parties also agreed that Mr. He ×× would pay the down payment, while Ms. Liu ×× would cover the renovation costs and all mortgage payments. Subsequently, due to Mr. He ××'s violent behavior toward Ms. Liu ××, their relationship broke down irreparably, and the couple separated, with Ms. Liu ×× moving out of the property in August 2010. Since then, Mr. He ×× has exclusively occupied the jointly purchased property. Ms. Liu ×× repeatedly approached Mr. He ×× to discuss the division of the jointly owned assets, but Mr. He ×× refused to divide the appreciation portion of the property, citing that he alone had borne the down payment. As a result, Ms. Liu consulted several lawyers without receiving satisfactory answers, and in November 2010, she approached the lawyers at our firm. After a precise and patient analysis by our firm's lawyers, Ms. Liu's confidence was greatly boosted, and she decided to retain the lawyers of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to assist in protecting her rights. Consequently, the lawyer, accompanied by assistant lawyer Yan Xiaoying, jointly undertook the case.
II. First Instance Victory
After receiving this case, the two lawyers communicated with Ms. Liu multiple times, conducted detailed inquiries, and carefully analyzed the matter. They concluded that although the down payment for the property in question was paid by He ××, the property was jointly purchased by Ms. Liu and He ×× for the purpose of marriage. The respective contributions were the result of an agreement between the two parties at the time, with He ×× paying the down payment and Ms. Liu paying the mortgage installments and renovation costs. After careful calculation, the lawyers determined that Ms. Liu's contribution was actually higher than He ××'s. During the court debate, He ×× repeatedly emphasized that he was the one who paid the down payment and that most of the mortgage payments were made by him withdrawing cash from the bank and giving it to Liu ××, who then paid through her mortgage account. He presented bank statements as evidence of his withdrawals, matching the amounts and dates with the mortgage payment schedule to prove that the down payment and most of the mortgage were paid by He ×× himself, and therefore the property should rightfully belong to him, with only the renovation costs and mortgage payments to be reimbursed to Liu ××. The lawyers from our firm pointed out that although He ×× paid the down payment, the property was jointly purchased by Liu ×× and He ×× for the purpose of marriage, and the contributions were the result of an agreement between the two parties at the time. After careful calculation by the lawyers, Liu ××'s contribution was actually higher than He ××'s. He ××'s bank statements merely reflected his personal daily expenses and could not prove the purpose of the withdrawn funds. The property in question was registered under both parties' names, with each holding a 50% share, constituting a co-ownership by shares. According to Articles 78 and 99 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, this property falls under co-ownership by shares, and in the absence of an agreement between the parties, a co-owner by shares may request partition at any time. Therefore, Liu ××, as a co-owner by shares of the property, could request partition at any time. Thanks to the series of strenuous efforts made by the lawyers from our firm based on facts and law, and after an appraisal of the property, because He ×× demanded ownership of the property, the Nanshan District People's Court of Shenzhen finally issued a first-instance judgment in June 2011, ordering He ×× to pay Liu ×× a property compensation amount and other costs such as renovation expenses. Liu ×× achieved a complete victory, receiving 50% of the property's appreciation, amounting to nearly 500,000 yuan.
III. Reflections on This Case
As a highly competent and responsible professional lawyer, one must not only possess a dedicated and persevering professional spirit in handling cases, but also be diligent in analyzing and studying case materials, adept at identifying unique circumstances, and capable of creatively applying and leveraging the law in conjunction with them. Only in this way can one effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of clients to the fullest extent.
