[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the division of family assets (a domestic dispute) arising during the divorce litigation. During the divorce litigation between Li Xinyong and Zhao Huqin, Liu Shufen and Li Zhiqiang sued Li Xinyong on the grounds of family asset division, claiming that he held 590,000 yuan of family financial assets on their behalf. Zhao Huqin entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Xue SuhuaThe lawyer included the third party with independent claims in the litigation. The lawyer pointed out that the entrusted financial management relationship was not established, and Zhao Huqin's litigation status was legitimate. Both courts rejected all the defendant's claims. The core disputes are whether the entrusted financial management funds of 950,000 yuan were established, and whether Zhao Huqin was a third party with independent claims. Applicable laws: Article 303 of the Civil Code, Articles 59 and 145 of the Civil Procedure Law.

I. Review of the case

When the parties search for "What should I do if the other party's family sues for the division of marital property during the divorce?" "What should I do if relatives maliciously sue for the division of marital property during the divorce?" and "How to protect my rights if the couple's joint property is transferred?", this case is highly instructive. Liu Shufen and her husband, Li Pingyuan (who died in 2021), had two sons, Li Zhiqiang and Li Xinyong. Li Xinyong and Zhao Huqin were remarried couples who initiated divorce proceedings due to a breakdown in their relationship, with the division of property becoming the core dispute.

During the divorce litigation, Li Xinyong's mother, Liu Shufen, and his younger brother, Li Zhiqiang, suddenly joined forces to sue Li Xinyong for family property division disputes, claiming that he had long held family financial funds on behalf of the family and still owed 950,000 yuan that had not been returned. Previously, Liu Shufen had also sued Li Xinyong for civil loans, demanding repayment of more than 3.09 million yuan, which was dismissed in the first instance. Zhao Huqin realized that her property rights had been maliciously infringed and entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for her.Xue SuhuaThe lawyer participates in the litigation as a third party with an independent right of claim.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the "investment and financial management funds" of 950,000 yuan exist.It is necessary to determine whether there is a mutual agreement on entrusting financial management, the delivery of funds, and clear objectives.
  • Focus Two: Zhao Huqin's litigation status.As Li Xinyong's spouse, is she a third party with independent rights of claim and can she independently assert her rights?
  • Focus 3: Allocation of the burden of proof.The question is whether the party proposing to entrust financial management has fulfilled its burden of proof, and whether bank transaction records can be used as the sole basis for creditor's rights.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The plaintiffs (Liu Shufen and Li Zhiqiang) allege that:It is alleged that Li Xinyong has long been holding the family's financial assets on behalf of others, and still owes 950,000 yuan. It is requested to confirm the family's joint property and order the return of the funds; the appellant claims that he has provided complete bank transaction records showing a balance of 950,000 yuan.

The position of the appellee and the third party (Zhao Huqin):Zhao Huqin claimed that the funds in question were the couple's joint property and firmly opposed their being "legally" transferred out. She has entrusted a lawyer to defend her rights.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Xue SuhuaThe lawyer analyzed in detail: Firstly, the entrusted wealth management relationship must simultaneously meet three requirements: the consent to wealth management, the delivery of funds, and a clear target. The other party only provided a general bank statement, without specifying the transfer time and amount corresponding to the 550,000 yuan, nor did they have a written agreement. The bank statement cannot be used alone as a basis for creditor's rights. Moreover, it was revealed that the transfer of 710,000 yuan did not match the transaction details, and the fixed deposit of 1 million yuan could not be proven to have been delivered. Secondly, citing Article 59 of the Civil Procedure Law, Zhao Huqin is an independent claimant with a legitimate and valid litigation status. Thirdly, it emphasized that if the other party's claims are supported, a large amount of funds will flow out of Li Xinyong's name, directly diluting Zhao Huqin's divisible marital joint property.

IV. Outcome of the case

The first-instance court held that the determination of the family's jointly owned property was not established and the burden of proof had not been fulfilled. In accordance with Article 303 of the Civil Code, Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, and Article 145 of the Civil Procedure Law, the court ruled to dismiss the litigation claims of Liu Shufen and Li Zhiqiang, and ordered them to bear the case acceptance fee of 13,300 yuan. The second-instance court upheld the original judgment, and Zhao Huqin achieved a complete victory in both courts. The judgment in this case was made in accordance with Article 59 of the Civil Procedure Law (Third Party Participation in Litigation).

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

During the divorce litigation, a relative of one party may sue on grounds such as family division, loan, etc., which may aim to dilute the couple's joint property. This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Xue SuhuaThe attorney (practice license number: 11101201211769926, subject to the documents issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Attorney's advice: When encountering serial litigation by relatives, the attorney should actively defend the case as a third party with independent rights of claim, and refute the case by focusing on the three elements of "consent + delivery + subject matter". Bank transaction records only show the flow of funds and cannot prove the creditor's rights alone. When necessary, the attorney should promptly entrust a professional lawyer to fix the evidence.

VI. Common Questions About Protecting Divorce Assets - FAQ

  1. Q: What should I do if the other party's family sues for the division of marital property during the divorce process?
    A:The third party with an independent right of claim may participate in the litigation to provide evidence that the funds claimed by the other party are actually the couple's joint property, and refute their creditor's claim.
  2. Q: Can only bank transaction records prove a loan or a proxy holding of funds?
    A:No. There must be evidence such as a financial management agreement, fund delivery, and clear targets. The transaction records merely show the flow of funds and cannot be used as the sole basis for creditor's rights.
  3. Q: What is a "third party with independent right of claim"?
    A:People who have an independent right of claim to the subject of the litigation and who sue as a co-litigant with the original defendant and the defendant as the defendants enjoy a legal litigation status in accordance with Article 59 of the Civil Procedure Law.
  4. Q: How can I prevent the other party from maliciously suing to transfer assets during the divorce process?
    A:Apply for property preservation in a timely manner, actively respond to lawsuits and provide evidence, firmly refute unfounded serial lawsuits, and, if necessary, argue that the other party should receive a smaller share or no share at all.
  5. Q: Will handling the division of marital assets in a separate case affect the outcome of the divorce?
    A:The court often requires that these issues be dealt with together in divorce cases. If the case has already been litigated in another court, the third party can be added to the case to avoid the assets being diluted.