Sihai network

Do you want to return the lottery money after the lovers split up?

For small couples, it's common to have some money gifts in love, but if the two break up, do you want to return the gifts? The first trial of Baiyun District Court of Guangzhou City decided that the 1.14 million yuan 'red envelope' should be returned. After the man appealed, the Guangzhou middle court recently changed its judgment in the second instance to think that more than 1.14 million yuan belongs to the general gift of the woman, and the final judgment rejected the woman's claim for refund.

"Local heroes fall in love" throw millions of gifts and "red envelopes"

After being introduced by relatives and friends, a Juan and a Jun (both pseudonyms) established their love relationship at the beginning of March 2015. At the end of the same month, a Jun bought a big diamond ring in Tianhe City, Guangzhou, and presented it to the woman on the spot.

Before the Qingming Festival, a Jun planned to take a Juan back to her hometown to visit the tomb. But the woman said that according to the custom of the woman's hometown, you can't follow the man to go home and visit the tomb without engagement. The man has to offer a dowry of 3 million yuan to show his sincerity. The man is full of sincerity and is also very proud. He transferred 3 million yuan decisively. The woman followed the man home to worship her ancestors.

On April 18 of the same year, the two held an engagement ceremony and banquet at the Shangri La Hotel in Guangzhou. At the ceremony, the man also paid 108880 yuan to the woman's parents. After their engagement, they built a love nest in a city in Sichuan and lived together for more than half a year. However, during the period of cohabitation, a Juan and a Jun often quarreled because of their different personalities, and finally they broke up in November 2015.

The man asked the woman to return more than 3.1 million yuan in diamond rings and gifts. However, before and after the break-up, a Juan transferred a total of RMB 114799928 to a Jun through her bank card account for many times. Some of the money was transferred by bank or sent by wechat red packet.

So, in that side, a Jun sued ah Juan to court for the return of the bride price. In this side of the box, a Juan takes a Jun to the court and demands the return of more than 1.14 million yuan transferred to him.

In the first instance, the man was sentenced to return 1.14 million 'red packets' sent by the woman

As for the lawsuit of a Jun suing for returning the bride price, the Baiyun District Court of Guangzhou recently ruled that the bride price is the money and things paid by one party to the other for the purpose of marriage. If the marriage relationship cannot be concluded, the purpose of paying the bride price cannot be realized, and the payer has the right to request for return. Considering that the two parties have lived together for more than half a year since the engagement ceremony, the court, in accordance with the provisions of the judicial interpretation of the marriage law, decided that the defendant a Juan should return more than 2.9 million yuan to the plaintiff a Jun. After the first trial, neither party appealed.

In the first instance of Guangzhou Baiyun District Court, it was held that the dispute in this case is whether the a-jun should return the above-mentioned funds. As far as this case is concerned, the two parties are in love. It is human nature for men and women to give money and property to each other during their love to enhance their feelings. However, within one year of contact between the two parties, ah Juan has given over 1.14 million yuan to ah Jun, which is obviously unreasonable. From the perspective of general social cognition, it is also inconsistent with the daily consumption level between lovers. Combined with the fact that yuan and a Jun were engaged on April 18, 2015, and the implication of the transfer amount of '52000', '8888.88' and '88888.88', it can be shown that a Juan paid a lot of a Jun's property in order to enter into a marriage with a Jun, that is to say, her behavior was a conditional gift. Now, ah Juan's expected marriage purpose has not been realized, and the act of ah Jun's possession of the donated property is unjust enrichment. Now a Juan requests a Jun to return his property, and a Jun is obliged to return it. In the first trial, a Jun returned RMB 1.14799752 million to a Juan.

The second trial has revised the judgment that 1.14 million red packets belong to women's' gifts' which do not need to be returned

The army appealed. In his opinion, the transfer of money from ah Juan to her occurred during the period of love. The situation that one of the lovers provided money to the other for free for the purpose of enhancing personal friendship belongs to the kind offer during the period of love and does not belong to the adjustment scope of civil law. In addition, most of the money transferred by a Juan has been used for the expenses of the two parties during their love period, and is squandered by the two. Moreover, 'we do not agree that the present case is a conditional donation act according to a Juan. Ah Juan has no evidence to prove that the 26 payments transferred to ah Jun are gifts for marriage. '

According to the second instance of Guangzhou intermediate court, ah Juan did not give sufficient evidence to prove that the gift of the above money was based on marriage and should be a general gift, and ah Jun did not need to return it to ah Juan. The reasons are as follows: first, the above-mentioned funds are irregular and quota transfer within the past year, with large or small amount. No matter the payment is made by bank transfer or wechat red packet, there is no evidence that ah Juan clearly states that the transferred payment is conditional on the future marriage between the two parties. Second, when she sued in this case, she claimed that the money involved in the case was a loan, and then changed her petition to a conditional gift. This reflects that when a Juan transfers money, she does not explicitly take marriage as the condition. Third, during the donation period, both parties have lived together. In combination with the uncertainty of transfer time and amount, part of the money is not excluded to be used for the common life of both parties. After the two sides broke up, ah Juan still transferred money to the army. From the implication of a Juan's multiple transfer amount figures of '52000', '8888.88', it shows that a Juan's transfer should be for the purpose of connecting feelings and expressing love and redeeming a Jun's mind, which does not reflect the transfer on the condition of marriage. Fourth, although the total amount of the above-mentioned funds is relatively high, the existing evidence shows that the personal economic conditions of ah Juan are good, and the payment of the above-mentioned funds does not exceed the reasonable range.

According to the judgment of Guangzhou intermediate court, according to the contract law, ah Juan did not give sufficient evidence to prove that the above-mentioned money was a conditional gift, so it was a general gift during the love period. Ah Juan has paid the above-mentioned money to ah Jun. now, she requests to cancel the gift and return the money without factual and legal basis. The court does not support it, and the final judgment rejects ah Juan's claim.

Do you have to return the unmarried bride price

The return of bride price has always been the focus of many cases of property disputes. Although the law stipulates that the return of bride price is necessary, it must meet the legal conditions. Let's take a look at the details.

According to Article 10 of interpretation 2 of the marriage law, if a party requests to return the bride price paid according to custom, the people's court shall support it if it is found that:

(1) both parties fail to go through the formalities of marriage registration;

(2) the two parties go through the formalities of marriage registration but do not live together;

(3) giving money before marriage and causing difficulties in the life of the payer.

The application of items (2) and (3) of the preceding paragraph shall be conditional on the divorce of both parties.

In this case, although the two married, they did not fulfill the marriage procedures. Therefore, it is legal for the parties to request the return of the bride price, and the court also supports it,

However, it is not necessary to return all the money returned. The amount can be reduced if the following conditions are met:

(1) if the marriage contract is terminated due to the reason of the party who pays the bride price, the amount of the returned bride price may be reduced according to the degree of fault, the economic situation of both parties and other factors.

(2) where both men and women live together for more than one year and less than two years without going through the formalities of marriage registration, and one party requests the other party to return the bride price:

1. The amount returned shall not exceed 30% of the total amount of the bride price;

2. For those who have lived together for more than three months within one year, the amount returned shall generally not exceed 50% of the total amount of the bride price;

3. If they have lived together for less than three months, the amount returned shall not exceed 70% of the total amount of the bride price;

4. If the cohabitation relationship is terminated due to the reason of the party who pays the bride price, or the woman is pregnant or miscarried during the period of common life, it can be reduced by 5% to 20% on the basis of the previous paragraph.