Wife fights for her rights, sues to demand the "third party" return assets
□ Reporter Han Jingwei, Correspondent Zhang Xianling
According to reports, a wife unexpectedly discovered an agreement of gift signed between her husband and the third party while organizing his clothes. Believing that this agreement violated her rights, she requested the court to order the third party to return the assets already paid by her husband and to compensate her with 10,000 yuan for emotional distress. Yesterday, I learned from the Guancheng People's Court of Zhengzhou that the case has been settled. The first-instance ruling declared part of the agreement signed between the plaintiff's husband and his lover as invalid and ordered the third party to return 135,000 yuan to the wife.
Hongmei and her husband He Yi had been married for many years and they have a son together. Unexpectedly, He Yi cohabited with another woman named Xiaoge and had a son with her. On October 3, 2005, He Yi also signed an agreement with Xiaoge. The content of the agreement was as follows: "One, He Yi is responsible for paying Xiaoge’s 300,000 yuan housing loan; Two, He Yi pays Xiaoge and her son a monthly living allowance of 2,000 yuan; Three, He Yi pays the son's maintenance and education fees totaling 500,000 yuan (to be paid off in six years)."
To date, He Yi has already paid Xiaoge 270,000 yuan in cash. In order to protect her own rights, Hongmei sued Xiaoge, the "third party," as the defendant and her husband He Yi as the third party to the court.
Xiaoge, on the other hand, acting as the guardian of the child, filed a lawsuit with the court demanding that He Yi fulfill the agreement.
After reviewing the case, the court believed that although the cohabitation relationship between He Yi and Xiaoge is not protected by law, since they have a son together, He Yi, under his own true intentions and within his capability, committed to pay Xiaoge’s 300,000 yuan housing loan and has already paid 270,000 yuan. However, these assets belong to the joint marital property of Hongmei and He Yi. He Yi did not consult with Hongmei before disposing of these assets, thereby infringing upon Hongmei's legitimate rights and interests. From the perspective of fairness, the content of the agreement should be deemed partially invalid. Finally, the court ruled that Xiaoge must return 135,000 yuan to Hongmei within ten days after the judgment takes effect and rejected Hongmei's other litigation requests.
After the first-instance verdict was announced, both parties appealed. Currently, the case is under second-instance review. (All names in the article are pseudonyms.)
Share to: Comments welcome. I want to comment. Microblog recommendation | Today's microblog hotspot (Editor: SN001)