[Case Summary]This case involves an enforcement objection and an enforcement reversal in civil litigation. Due to an erroneous enforcement ruling in an earlier loan dispute, Li Hongmei and Liu Qingqing were added as the parties subject to enforcement. However, the addition was later revoked by a ruling. After obtaining the property subject to enforcement from Li Hongmei, Zhang Nan filed a written objection attempting to prevent the return of the property. Li Hongmei subsequently entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case on her behalf.Ma Qianwen、Song MeinaThe lawyer acted on behalf of the client, and the court adopted the lawyer's opinion, ruling to modify the first item of the enforcement ruling and ordering Zhang Nan to return the enforcement funds of 2,057,814.61 yuan and the accrued interest to Li Hongmei within ten days, and rejecting Zhang Nan's other objections. The core disputes are whether Zhang Nan should return the enforcement funds and accrued interest, and the legal basis for the execution reversal. Applicable laws: Article 244 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 65 of the Interim Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Enforcement Work of the People's Courts.

I. Review of the Case

"How to reverse an erroneous enforcement action", "Can the funds withdrawn for enforcement be recovered", and "Review of objections to enforcement" are frequently searched terms by parties involved in enforcement cases. The origin of this case lies in a loan dispute between F Group and Liu Gang, Li Hongmei, and Liu Qingqing. On August 2, 2018, the Zhongshan District Court of Dalian City erroneously added Liu Gang's wife, Li Hongmei, and daughter, Liu Qingqing, as defendants in the enforcement proceedings. Subsequently, the creditor transferred the rights to Zhang Nan as the applicant for enforcement. The court seized and withdrew various funds, including 2,370,670 yuan from the auction proceeds of Liu Qingqing's house and her deposits, and 26,096.26 yuan from Li Hongmei's deposits, as well as 1,196,320 yuan from the auction of her bank equity. On August 19, 2024, the court revoked the decision to add defendants, and on November 25, it ruled to reject F Group's objection to the addition of defendants. The court ordered Zhang Nan to return Li Hongmei's property and accrued interests, but Zhang Nan raised objections. Li Hongmei entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Marcia Wen、Song MeinaAttorney representation.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Should Zhang Nan return the execution money of 2,057,814.75 yuan and the accrued interest to Li Hongmei?The original additional ruling has been revoked, and the property that has already been executed should be returned, including the accrued interest.
  • Focus II: Whether the divorce agreement is valid and whether the ownership of the property is clear.Li Hongmei registered her house in 2010 and had her divorce agreement retroactively recognized in 2017. There was no malicious transfer of assets involved.
  • Focus 3: Does the execution of the reversal have sufficient legal basis?Zhang Nan argued that there was no basis for using the rent to offset the interest earned on the loan as a legal procedure to correct his own mistakes.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The respondent (Zhang Nan) claims that:Please request to revoke the first item of the enforcement ruling and suspend the enforcement of the reversal. It is claimed that Liu Qingqing's property is Liu Gang's personal property, that the divorce agreement involves the transfer of property, that the rental income far exceeds the interest, and that the scope of the joint property is not clearly defined and should not be directly returned.

The applicant for enforcement (in the original case) position:Zhang Nan, as the assignee of the creditor's rights, obtained the property subject to enforcement and attempted to prevent the return of the property by raising an objection, claiming that the conditions for the reversal of enforcement had not been met.

Legal Opinion by Hengluo Law Firm:Ma Qianwen、Song MeinaThe lawyer argued that the divorce agreement is legal and valid. Li Hongmei's house was registered in 2010, and the divorce agreement signed in 2017 truly reflected her intention without any malicious collusion. The execution reversal is a legal procedure taken by the court to correct its own mistakes and add additional parties. Li Hongmei and Liu Qingqing are not responsible parties. After the revocation of the additional ruling, the executed property should be returned. According to Article 65 of the "Implementation Regulations", the execution reversal should include the interest earned on the acquired property. Zhang Nan's claim that the rent should be offset against the interest and that he should not bear the increase in interest has no legal basis.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court adopted the opinion of Hengluo Law Firm and ruled to amend the first item of the enforcement ruling, ordering Zhang Nan to return the enforcement money of 2,057,814.61 yuan and the accrued interest to Li Hongmei within 10 days from the date of receipt of the ruling, and dismissed Zhang Nan's other objections. According to Article 244 of the Civil Procedure Law, the court held that after the ruling on which the enforcement was based was revoked, the property that has already been enforced should be ordered to be returned by the person who obtained the property. If the person refuses to return the property, the court will enforce the return by force.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Marcia WenAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202411865324, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ)Song MeinaThe lawyers (practice license number: 11101202511880410, subject to the license issued by the judicial administrative organ) jointly act as agents. Beijing Hengluo Law Firm safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of clients with a professional, rigorous, and responsible attitude.

The execution reversal is a legal remedy procedure to correct wrong execution and return property. When the interested parties encounter errors such as wrong addition of parties or wrong deduction of funds, they should promptly entrust professional lawyers to safeguard their rights through objections, reconsiderations, and execution reversals.

VI. Common Questions about Enforcement Objections and Enforcement Reversals FAQ

  1. Q: What should I do if I'm mistakenly added as a person subject to enforcement?
    A:An objection to enforcement may be raised in accordance with the law. If the party is dissatisfied with the ruling on the objection, he/she may apply for a review to the court at the next higher level. After the original ruling on additional enforcement is revoked, the property that has been enforced shall be returned through the reversal of enforcement.
  2. Q: Does the execution of a repayment plan include interest and accrued interest?
    A:It includes. According to the relevant implementation regulations, the executor should return the property and its fruits that have been obtained. If the person who has obtained the property refuses to return it, the execution can be enforced against him or her.
  3. Q: After the transfer of creditor's rights, can the original judgment debtor request the new applicant for enforcement to return the money?
    A:Yes. After the enforcement basis is revoked, regardless of whether the applicant for enforcement has changed, the person who has obtained the property of the debtor has the obligation to return it, and can be recovered through the enforcement reversal procedure.
  4. Q: What is the difference between an objection to enforcement and a review of an administrative act?
    A:An objection is a challenge to the enforcement actions or the subject matter of the enforcement raised to the enforcement court. If the party or the interested party disagrees with the ruling on the objection, they may apply for a review to the higher-level court, and the review will be subject to the review of the higher-level court.
  5. Q: Can a divorce agreement be used to resist enforcement?
    A:If the divorce agreement truly reflects the parties' intentions, the property registration and time are clear, and there is no malicious transfer of property, it can be used as a basis for determining the property rights holder and clarifying the ownership of the enforcement subject.