Men for pseudo -couples' common debt, court: less property, compensation!

The young couple handled the property notarization before marriage, and agreed that a set of pre -marital real estate belonged to the common property of the husband and wife. Someone regretted it when I was divorced, and I did a little "small action" ...

According to the Tianhe Court of Guangzhou City, recently, the Tianhe Court concluded such a case. The mother -in -law sued her son and daughter -in -law to a court in a certain province and asked to return the house to borrow. The material caused his wife to carry huge debt "for no reason. In order to safeguard his rights and interests, his wife complained that the two places "broke their legs".

The court believes that although the man's behavior has been punished by judicial order due to severe disrupting the judicial order and caused him to be in an attempt to forge the common debt in the divorce case. The cost of litigation activities of the woman shall bear the corresponding liability for infringement compensation.

Basic case

Xiaoyu (wife, ex -wife pseudonym) registered and married in 2012 with Xiao Gang (husband, ex -husband's name), and handled a notary of husband and wife property. The property belongs to the husband and wife shared property, and the mortgage of the house is repaid by the two.

After marriage, the conflict was heavy and the quarrel continued. In February 2015, Xiaoyu went to work alone in Shanghai, and since then, the two places lived in their lives.

In January 2017, Xiaoyu suspected that Xiao Gang had an extramarital affair, and a fierce conflict broke out. In June, Xiaoyu filed a divorce lawsuit to the court.

During the divorce of the two, Su's (mother -in -law's pseudonym) complained to a paper complaint to a court in other provinces, asking Xiaogang and Xiaoyu to repay her borrowing principal of 122,4517 yuan and interest of 1355283 yuan for her. The "debit" issued by the bank flow and Xiao Gang was provided as evidence.

On January 24, 2018, Xiaoyu, who was in the drum, was participating in the trial of a divorce case in Guangzhou, and he did not know that he had become the defendant of another case.

It turned out that Xiao Gang knew that Xiaoyu worked in Shanghai for a long time, but deliberately concealed the fact that it provided the court of Guangzhou and the Guangzhou number that was not used in Guangzhou. All the delivery materials were "intercepted" by Xiao Gang.

Later, Xiaogang refused to attend the trial of the divorce case on the grounds of "the customs of hometown, and the Laba Festival should not be held in the trial, but went to the trial of the lending case in foreign countries. In the trial of the borrowing case, he acknowledged "all the facts and amounts of his loan with Xiaoyu". The absence of the judgment of the first instance of the foreign court supported all Su's litigation requests.

Later, Xiaoyu learned the lawsuit through checking the litigation in time and appealed to the court. In September 2018, the court of first instance determined that because Xiao Gang deliberately provided the contact information of Xiao Yu's error and the addressing address, and privately signed the lawsuit materials, it seriously disrupted the judicial order, violated the legitimate rights and interests of the light rain, and decided to fined Xiao Gang 50,000 yuan for 50,000 yuan Essence The court of the second instance ruled that the original judgment was revoked and the case was returned to retrial.

In December 2019, the trial, the court believed that the money transferred to Xiaogang was not enough to confirm that it was a borrowing relationship at that time, and it was questioned by the borrowing from the article. The motivation and purpose of debt finally determined that the borrowing relationship could not be established, and all Su Mou's claims were rejected. Su, the court of the second instance rejected the appeal and maintained the original sentence.

In December 2020, Su applied to the court for retrial, and in June 2021, he withdrew the retrial application on the grounds that "various objective reasons were unwilling to conduct related lawsuits on the case".

When Xiaoyu first filed a divorce lawsuit to the court, Xiao Gang said that the relationship between the two sides was still good. Only due to poor communication, there were certain misunderstandings and disputes. The court considered that the marriage between the two parties still had the possibility of rescue, and the request of Xiaoyu was not allowed.

In August 2018, Xiaoyu once again sued the divorce. This time, Xiaogang agreed to divorce, and the court supported Xiaoyu's divorce demand.

Photo source: Photo Network

At the same time, the court determined that Xiaogang had an attempt and behavior that intentionally forged debts. According to relevant laws and regulations, Xiaoyu and Xiaogang were determined to divide the common property of husband and wife at a ratio of 6: 4.

In this regard, Xiao Yu believes that Su and Xiaogang's mother and son gave her a fictional facts in order to give her less part of the property in the divorce dispute. , Travel expenses and other expenses, the physical and mental suffering, the mother and son of Xiaogang should compensate her with a loss of 276457.3 yuan.

Su Mou and Xiao Gang believed that the two had never colluded with fictional debt. The court fined him because of Xiao Gang's behavior hindering the judicial order, and Xiao Gang's behavior had nothing to do with Su Mou. Su did not forge the evidence. When the two divorced cases divided the husband and wife's common property, the court believed that Xiaogang had a falsification of debt, so he divided the property according to the ratio of 6: 4 between Xiaoyu and Xiaogang. The liability for compensation should be aggravated.

Does the behavior of ex -husband and mother -in -law infringe on the property rights of their ex -wife?

The judge said that Xiao Gang deliberately concealed the correct contact information of Xiaoyu, and signed the lawsuit materials of Xiaoyu privately, seriously disrupting the judicial order and obstructing civil lawsuits. Essence

Although Xiao Gang's behavior has been punished by the court 50,000 yuan and led to his event in the divorce case, he was found to have an attempt to forge the common debt. Based on this, the common property of the husband and wife was about 400,000 yuan, which has received public power and public power and public power and public power and public power and public power and public power and public power and public power and public power and public power and power The separation of private property, but it does not cover the category of all reasonable losses, so Xiaogang should bear the corresponding infringement compensation liability for the cost of litigation activities of Xiaoyu. Su Mou had previously transferred to Xiaogang. When his son and daughter -in -law were facing a marriage crisis, he chose to claim money to the court in a lawsuit and request that the money was actually borrowed. by law.

The response to the first and second trials of the post -review of the post -review is based on the corresponding activities derived from the legal right of Su Mou. Although it will indeed cause disturbance to the light rain, it is still through the existing legal relief channels to protect the scope of their own rights to protect their own rights. Inside. In addition, the court did not identify Su Mou's common behavior that hindered civil lawsuits. The existing evidence was not enough to confirm that Su Mou constituted a false lawsuit and should not be identified as infringement.

As mentioned earlier, the infringement loss of Xiaoyu shall be limited to the additional increasing the original trial of the second trial of the second trial of the civil lending dispute over the case of civil lending disputes. The lawyer's fee is not an inevitable litigation expenditure, and the court does not support it.

As far as the specific amount is concerned, there are multiple litigation links before and after the case of civil loan disputes, and the case of the case has a close relationship with the dispute between the divorce case, and it is difficult to separate the extra expenditures caused by the infringement. Therefore, according to the general standards of litigation lawyers, the courts are based on the traffic and accommodation costs that occur objectively in the light rain, and considering the observance of the principles and green principles of integrity and green in civil activities, the amount of loss is 30,000 yuan.

The referee result: After trial, the court ruled that Xiao Gang compensated Xiaoyu 30,000 yuan to reject other litigation requests of Xiaoyu.

After the verdict, Xiao Yu and Xiaogang refused to accept it and appealed.

In the case of divorce litigation, in order to achieve the purpose of being more allocated or less assigned by the other party, if there is a fake evidence and fictional common debt, the court may be fined and detained according to the circumstances of the circumstances to constitute a crime. Essence

If the behavior of one party constitutes the infringement of the other's property rights and interests, it shall bear the corresponding infringement compensation liability for the other party.

In addition, one party who fakes the joint debt of the husband and wife in an attempt to occupy the other's property. When divorcing the divorce division of the common property of the husband and wife, the party can be less or indiscriminate. After the divorce, the other party found that if there is the above behavior, a lawsuit may be filed to the people's court, and the joint property of the husband and wife can be divided again.

Daily Economic News Comprehensive Tianhe Court

Daily Economic News

- END -