[Case Summary]This case involves a post-divorce property dispute. After Ms. Wang and Mr. Zhang agreed to divorce, they continued to live together. Mr. Zhang paid Ms. Wang more than 1.73 million yuan as the divorce settlement and the discounted value of the cohabitation property in the form of a down payment for a house. Later, Mr. Zhang's current wife, Ms. Xu, sued Ms. Wang to demand the return of the money. In the first instance, Ms. Wang lost the case and the judgment was upheld on appeal. Therefore, Ms. Wang entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for her.Li YonghuiA lawsuit was filed against Zhang * to pay a discounted price of 800,000 yuan for post-divorce property disputes. The core controversy is whether the 800,000 yuan in the divorce agreement has been paid in full and whether the transfer of 900,000 yuan can be offset against it. Both the first-instance and second-instance courts supported Ms. Wang, and the judgment ordered Zhang * to pay 800,000 yuan. The applicable legal provisions are the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law.

I. Review of the Case Facts

"Can I sue again if the agreed discounted price in the divorce agreement hasn't been paid?" and "Does the ex-husband's purchase of a house with joint property count as fulfilling the divorce agreement?" are typical issues in post-divorce property disputes. Ms. Wang and Mr. Zhang agreed to divorce on February 25, 2005, stipulating that their child would be raised by Ms. Wang and Mr. Zhang would pay 3,000 yuan per month in alimony; all jointly owned real estate, cars, and company assets would belong to Mr. Zhang, who would pay Ms. Wang 800,000 yuan in cash over ten installments in ten years. After the divorce, the two continued to live together and had a second child in 2006. During their cohabitation, they jointly purchased a villa in Beijing, a Buick car, and houses in Nanjing and Hubei, with the sale proceeds all in Mr. Zhang's hands. Mr. Zhang agreed to fulfill the divorce agreement and the discounted price of the cohabitation property by paying the purchase price. In 2018, he paid over 1.73 million yuan to XX Company to purchase two houses, which were registered under the names of their child and Ms. Wang. Unexpectedly, in 2021, Ms. Xu sued Ms. Wang as Mr. Zhang's wife, demanding the return of over 1.73 million yuan. The first-instance court ruled that the gift was invalid and ordered Ms. Wang to return the money, and the second-instance court upheld this ruling. Ms. Wang subsequently entrusted a lawyer to handle the case.Li YonghuiA lawsuit was filed over the property disputes arising after the divorce.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Has the discounted price of 800,000 yuan stipulated in the divorce agreement been paid off by the transfer of the No. 05 house and the transfer of 900,000 yuan as a down payment?Zhang * claimed that he had fulfilled his obligation by using the house as payment and paying an additional 900,000 yuan.
  • Focus Two: Whether the purchase price of over 1.73 million yuan in 2018 was paid in accordance with the divorce agreement.Zhang's current wife claimed in the lawsuit that the money in question was their marital joint property, so the 800,000 yuan in the divorce agreement was never paid in the first place.
  • Focus 3: Statute of limitations.Zhang * claimed that Ms. Wang's request to be paid 800,000 yuan had long since expired.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The party involved (the plaintiff, Ms. Wang) claimed that:The divorce agreement stipulates that Zhang * shall pay a discounted price of 800,000 yuan, but this has never been actually fulfilled. Zhang * sued on behalf of Xu * to demand the return of the purchase price, which precisely proves that the 800,000 yuan in the divorce agreement was never paid from the outset. I request the court to order the payment.

The defendant (Zhang *) argued that:In 2008, Property No. 05 was transferred to Ms. Wang to offset the debt of 800,000 yuan, and the current market value exceeded the amount paid; the purchase of the property in 2018 was for her parents and children to live in, and had nothing to do with the divorce agreement; in 2008, another 900,000 yuan was transferred to Ms. Wang as a repayment of the divorce agreement; and the statute of limitations for Ms. Wang's lawsuit has long since expired.

Legal Opinion of Hengluo Law Firm:Li YonghuiThe lawyer stated that he agreed with the first-instance judgment but disagreed with the appeal request: Firstly, there is no connection between House No. 05 and the 800,000 yuan divorce agreement; Secondly, in 2018, the two parties agreed that Zhang would purchase two houses to offset the divorce agreement amount. However, Zhang sued Ms. Wang in Ms. Xu's name to demand the payment of over 1.73 million yuan for the purchase of the houses, so the 800,000 yuan in the divorce agreement was never paid from the outset. Regarding the additional 900,000 yuan transfer mentioned by Zhang in 2008, firstly, Zhang did not mention it in the first-instance trial. Such a large sum of money would not be easily forgotten, and it had nothing to do with the divorce agreement. When transferring ownership of House No. 05, the loan had not been fully repaid. Ms. Wang borrowed money to repay the loan, and the bank loaned 900,000 yuan to Zhang's account. However, the two parties agreed that House No. 05 would be offset by 200,000 yuan against the Changping house, so the 900,000 yuan should not be given to Zhang. Zhang has already returned the money to Ms. Wang, which has nothing to do with the divorce agreement.

IV. Outcome of the case

The first-instance court adopted Henglue Lawyer's opinion and claims, and ruled that: the defendant, Zhang *, shall pay 800,000 yuan to the plaintiff, Ms. Wang, within seven days after the judgment takes effect; and the case acceptance fee shall be borne by the defendant. Zhang * appealed against the judgment, claiming that the transfer of the house in 2008 was offset, the purchase of the house in 2018 was unrelated, and he paid an additional 900,000 yuan in 2008 to offset the amount. The second-instance court held that Zhang *'s claims in the second instance contradicted his claims in the first instance. Based on the evidence of both parties, it was not sufficient to determine that the 900,000 yuan he paid to Ms. Wang on July 8, 2008 had offset the 800,000 yuan in the "Divorce Agreement". Therefore, Zhang *'s claim that he had paid 800,000 yuan was not accepted. In summary, the judgment ruled: to dismiss the appeal and maintain the original judgment; and the second-instance case acceptance fee of 11,800 yuan shall be borne by Zhang *.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Li YonghuiAgent. The property division payment stipulated in the divorce agreement shall be performed in accordance with the agreement. If a party claims to offset the payment with the transfer of the house or a separate transfer, they must have sufficient evidence and consistent statements; contradictory statements will not be accepted by the court. In post-divorce property disputes, it is important to keep the divorce agreement, payment receipts, and communication records, and to assert rights in a timely manner.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Property-Related Cases after Divorce

  1. Q: If the agreed upon discounted price in the divorce agreement has not been paid, can I sue again?
    A:Yes. The divorce agreement is legally binding. If one party fails to fulfill the property division agreement, the other party may sue to demand its performance.
  2. Q: Does my ex-husband's purchase of a house with our jointly owned property count as fulfilling the divorce agreement?
    A:If the house is purchased to offset the divorce settlement amount and registered under the name of the party concerned or their children, it can be deemed as fulfilling the obligation; otherwise, it will not be automatically offset.
  3. Q: What should I do if the other party says they've already paid in full, but the evidence contradicts this claim?
    A:The court reviews whether the statements made before and after the trial are consistent and whether there is sufficient evidence. Claims that are contradictory and unsupported by evidence are usually not accepted by the court.
  4. Q: Can I still claim the depreciation compensation even though I've been divorced for many years?
    A:For claims based on a divorce agreement, the statute of limitations applies. However, the continuous non-performance and the existence of evidence of interruption or suspension of performance may affect the calculation of the statute of limitations.
  5. Q: If the current spouse sues to recover the purchase price of the house, will it affect the original divorce agreement?
    A:The outcome of the lawsuit can be used to determine whether the funds stipulated in the original divorce agreement were actually paid, which is an important factual basis for resolving property disputes after divorce.