TheSix.Wang Shizhong v. Li Huilin return the donated property dispute case of the dissolution of a marriage

- about conditional donation

The case features

This case was typical of the donation contract dispute case, the legal issues in the case involved are: what is the legal nature of both men and women after the engagement gift property? Is the donation, or conditional donation? In our country, the law despite the protection of marriage, but marriage in urban and rural areas is extremely common, usually, both men and women to marry, to give each other a property, in recent years, the dispute to the court for the dissolution of a marriage after both men and women give property ownership and the occurrence of cases increased year by year, due to China's current law the processing of such dispute has not been made clear, the people's court in treatment for such cases were different. The purpose of this case is analyzed by using the theory of civil law, the nature of their property after the dissolution of a marriage, and puts forward some suggestions on the future of the marriage and family legislation, in order to provide some reference and help for the legislation and law enforcement.

The case

Plaintiff: Wang Shizhong, male, 27 years old, Zhongda Machinery Factory workers.

Defendant: Li Huilin, female, 25 years old, genius food factory workers.

Summary: the dissolution of a marriage to return the gift property disputes

Wang Shizhong and Li Huilin met and fell in love with colleagues, both parents are very satisfied with this marriage, in order to establish the relationship, Wang Shizhong and Li Huilin's half a year later, both parents for Wang Shizhong, Li Huilin held engagement ceremony, Wang Shizhong's parents gave Li Huilin a gold bracelet (value 3600 yuan), Wang Shizhong gave Li Huilin a gold ring a (value 1800 yuan), after the engagement, Wang Shizhong has repeatedly sent Li Huilin clothing and cosmetics etc.. Live in a year, because two people each other out of character, different hobbies, hard to maintain the relationship, Wang Shizhong offered to terminate the relationship, the dissolution of marriage, Li Huilin also agreed. After the dissolution of a marriage, Wang Shizhong to Li Huilin repeatedly ask for he and his parents gave Li Huilin an engagement gift, Li Huilin to the dissolution of marriage is offered to Wang Shizhong, he is not at fault for not returning to the dissolution of marriage property accepted, Wang Shizhong repeatedly asked for no results, then to the people's court, request the people's court ordered Li Huilin to return the betrothal gifts, gold bracelet a, a gold ring. The defendant Li Huilin in reply said: Wang Shizhong gave me the behavior of property is donated to the behavior made voluntarily, the back, asked me to return the gift has no legal basis, requested the court rejected the plaintiff Wang Shizhong's claim.

The trial result

The people's court that: no legal effect of Wang Shizhong, Li Huilin the engagement, without legal protection, self released, both parties engagement with each other only because of negative moral responsibility, not the negative legal responsibility. After the dissolution of a marriage, the exchange and the property should be returned. In accordance with the requirements of China's "general principles of civil law" and relevant laws, the people's court Li Huilin since the verdict within 3 days from the date of the return of the plaintiff Wang Shizhong gold bracelet, gold ring. After the verdict, the original, the defendant did not appeal, judgment has taken legal effect.

Solution evaluation

Correct handling of the case, actually involves a ubiquitous problems in realistic life, namely: both men and women after the dissolution of a marriage gift of property ownership, this is a not clearly defined, the current legislation of our country but in judicial practice but will face a real problem.

The engagement, also known as engaged or engagement is agreed in advance, men and women both parties to the purpose of marriage and the marriage made. In our country, although the marriage law and the relevant law does not stipulate the engagement, marriage itself is not binding, but in real life, marriage is a marriage"Necessary procedure", under normal circumstances, the engagement to the engagement ceremony, both men and women and their parents but also to the future son-in-law or daughter-in-law donated engagement gifts and money (commonly known as the dowry or bride price), from a formal engagement to marriage, both men and women and their families will always to give property. In recent years, with the increase, improve people's living standards and income after the engagement, both men and women give each other the value of the property will continue to increase, the gold and silver jewelry, the automobile, housing, stocks, due to the increased value of money, gifts, both men and women due to incompatibility and other reasons after the dissolution of marriage dispute over the ownership of the gift giving is increasing. The appeal court cases also increased significantly, a case of this case is many of these disputes in judicial practice, from the practice of view, China's practice of return property disputes after the dissolution of a marriage, there are generally three kinds of claims, a view that: if the recipient name to engagement, deception take the property of it, then not only the engagement was declared invalid, and the property must be returned to the victim; the second view: if after the engagement both or one of the parties voluntarily give property and the property has been the actual delivery, possession for the recipient, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the supreme people's court "on the implementation of 'problems of civil law of the people's Republic'. Opinion (Trial)" the provisions of 128th, according to the donation behavior, acknowledge the legal effect gift, the gift of the property to the donee, no return, this is also the case in point by some of our comrades should the people's court within; third view is that: the engagement in China although not protected by the law, the parties may terminate the engagement, but after the conclusion of both men and women give each other's property is different from the general donative, with Special, is a gift, conditional engagement therefore, once released, both men and women not married, not achievements attached gift condition, donative behavior does not come into their property, of course should be returned, which is affected by some comrades should the people's court, and the court's decision also basically adopted this point of view. Objectively speaking, the list for the first view of the situation, because the recipient of fraud to each other for gospel truth, that the recipient will really with their marriage and the gift property by fraud, violation of the "general principles of civil law" in article fifty-eighth, the donor imposed grant acts in violation of the true meaning of next, the behavior of invalid civil behavior, then ordered the return of property in accordance with the provisions of the law, the list for the second point, if we carefully study will find, the processing result is difficult to convincingly; one, will give property identified as acts of gratuitous act, any person in possession of possession the donated property, did not fully take into account the special nature of the student engagement gift based on behavior, essentially against the property owner (donor) legitimate rights; second, the recipient on the basis of engagement achieved the donated property, after the dissolution of a marriage continue to occupy the property, no legal basis, has been constituted, the people the court ruling by the illegal facts legalization of unjust enrichment in civil law, the principle of fairness against. Undeniable, this situation occurs, is because of our marriage and family legislation on engagement problem there are omissions, the legal consequences of engagement and marriage problems of the current law of our country exists generally in the social life lift were not made, this is the result of people's court decision improper main reason. Since the engagement there are a lot of problems in the real life, and often there is a dispute, then the law of marriage make clear provisions in question is the sensible thing, if our country the legal nature of the engagement, engagement results make clear and specific provisions, so in judicial practice which violate the principle of fairness, violations of the legitimate rights of the parties the decision will not be changed.

As everyone knows, the marriage is not marriage contract, but in the future for the purpose of marriage between men and women of parties is consistent, it is the marriage of reservation, (Note: Jiang Ping: "bourgeois civil law lectures", Beijing Institute of political science and law, 1982 edition page 131st page 132nd.) In other words,"The engagement through the marriage promise and establish."(Note: Jin Baolan: "comparative law" Chinese People's Public Security University press 1995 edition page 244th.) With respect to the contract of marriage, engagement parties obligations in the future to make the establishment of marriage, the marriage, but the obligation of general legal obligation of the universality of the at the same time, also has its own particularity, that is if one of the parties the dissolution of marriage, the law is not mandatory for the fulfillment of marriage obligations, not mandatory the establishment of marriage, whether for breach of contract the responsibility of breach of contract, laws of different countries have different regulations, civil law countries generally believe that marriage is a stage of marriage, but not independent contract, do not admit this is a contractual obligation, so no one may bring suit according to marriage engagement, not breach responsibility; while the common law countries take marriage as marriage, is marriage as a contract act, the purpose of it, may be prosecuted for breach of liability for breach of contract. (Note: Jiang Ping: "bourgeois civil law lectures", Beijing Institute of political science and law, 1982 edition page 131st page 132nd.) Combined with the actual situation of our country, in our country, the marriage is both men and women based on feelings consistent and voluntary basis, the engagement itself has no binding force in law, it is only the prior agreement, both men and women in marriage so, once one party breach of contract, breach of contract not to bear liability for breach of contract.

In China, people generally believe that marriage is a necessary procedure of married men and women, China has established the direction the male engagement gift as a nuptial gift money or property customs, if giving betrothal gifts in the feudal social customs also inevitably includes properties of forced marriage and must explicitly be abolished and prohibited if, then, the equality of men and women especially full equality between men and women in the economy today, giving betrothal custom has rarely contains properties of forced marriage, giving betrothal gifts, is not only the man and the woman and their parents, and parents to the man giving betrothal gifts is also a very common phenomenon, the betrothal gifts has become established a symbol, both men and women love relationship in today, both men and women give each other presents, both to confirm the marriage and marriage is expected in the future, in order to establish the relative relations between the two sides of the marriage in the future, make this relationship more deep, (Note: Kitagawa Shantaro: "the Japanese civil law system" Science Press, 1995 edition page thirty-third.) This is called"Marry within the clan"In general, this is the social customs, but this practice does not violate the law, and no violation"Public order and good customs". Today, people become more and more important, how many is not the gift of economic value, enrich the connotation of it contains and significance of betrothal gifts, they represent then, having this property prices is because one or both engagement and shall return?

From a legal perspective, giving betrothal gifts is a free gift, but the gift is not simply to free transfer property rights for the purpose, in fact this gift is a condition of grant acts, the lifting of the conditions attached to the gift, is donative behavior have legal effectiveness, not achievement agreement the conditions of the parties retain their original effect (grant legal acts exist), when the conditions are fulfilled, the effect is eliminated, termination of the rights and duties of parties (gift delegalize), giving betrothal gifts behavior, is actually expected future engagement performance (both men and women married), and to the marriage termination for termination conditions donative behavior, wherein, the dissolution of engagement is attached conditions, if the conditions are not achievement (not cancelled, so a marriage) and continue to be effective, the betrothal gifts to the donee all; if the conditions for achievement (marriage dissolved), donative behavior loses legal effect, the rights and duties of parties of course, lifting, gift property shall be restored to the state before the engagement, betrothal gifts should be returned to the donation People, therefore, presents its legal nature, is actually"The engagement was established and proved to be a marriage as the prerequisite and the relatives and the mutual friendship for the purpose of a gift", (Note: Shi Shangkuan: "family law", (Taiwan) Rong Taiyin Library of Limited by Share Ltd in 1980 edition page 138th.) It is a condition of a gift, it has the characteristics of ordinary gratuitous acts do not have.

Because the bride price is a gift with dissolving conditions on the dissolution of a marriage, as a condition, therefore, the betrothal gifts that have certain property price of the goods is from one party to another delivery, namely grant acts, but because of the existence of marriage and the legal relationship (marriage exists), with the release of men and women both parties engagement, causes the gift betrothal gifts to be destroyed, in other words, the people have lost the possession of betrothal gifts and legally in after the dissolution of a marriage, because after the dissolution of a marriage by the bride price continue to occupy and legal basis to disappear, then according to the fair principle of the civil law, property will be restored to the state before the marriage contract is fair and reasonable, therefore, after the dissolution of a marriage, the donee shall return the betrothal gifts to the donor, if the donee refuses to return and continue to occupy the betrothal gifts, constitute unjust enrichment of civil law, the so-called unjustified enrichment, means no legitimate according to make others suffers losses and their own benefit, "according to the provisions of the general principles of the civil law", unjust enrichment a upon its founding, creditor debtor relationship that occurs between the parties, the victim has the right to request the beneficiary beneficiary of restitution of unjust enrichment, negative The return of unjust enrichment of the obligation, in giving betrothal gifts behavior, on the one hand, although the property has been transferred to the donee possession, but due to legal relations become the property of the transfer reasons not (marriage dissolved), both men and women not married, looking forward to the party relations is not established, this means that the purpose of giving and receiving the betrothal gifts can not reach, the donee due to lack of accept betrothal gifts in law, which can be interpreted as accept betrothal gifts constitute unjust enrichment, in accordance with the law, to grant the right to request the return of the donated property, the donee may have their marriage produced based on unjust enrichment return all obligations.

In conclusion we can draw a conclusion as follows: the marriage of men and women giving betrothal gifts behavior, is a civil legal act a conditional, is a gift, envisioned future marriage establishment of this gift is established, both sides of male and female engagement and relationship was established, and in the future is a formal marriage relationship, once the dissolution of marriage, the bride price to occupy the legal basis has not existed, the donor has the right to claim of unjust enrichment claim the donee return based on, the donee has the obligation of restitution of unjust enrichment. Therefore, in this case the court the court to order the defendant to return the gift gift to the plaintiff's right.

Because of the engagement exists widely in China, after the dissolution of a marriage dowry ownership disputes increase day by day, in order to fair and reasonable solution to these problems, our future family law marriage should be clear, specific provisions of the legal consequences after the dissolution of a marriage, marriage and in view of this, we believe, our future marriage and family legislation should be clear, specific make specific requirements for the engagement and related problems.

In conclusion, we think, the original, the defendant on the basis of engagement in fact entered into a contract of gift, but the gift contract is conditional contract, due to the dissolution of a marriage, the entry into force of the contract no longer exists, the parties shall be returned to the donated property, therefore, the people's court decision is entirely correct.