Image source network invasion and deletion
In order to buy a house, Mr. Zhang and Ms. Li signed a "Voluntary Divorce Agreement", but soon after the "fake divorce", the two parties broke up due to the breakdown of their relationship. Ms. Li filed a lawsuit with the court, arguing that the agreement signed at the time of the "fake divorce" was invalid. Recently, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment on this dispute over the confirmation of contract invalidity, finding that the "Voluntary Divorce Agreement" is invalid.
Facts of the case
In order to buy a house, sign a "Voluntary Divorce Agreement"
Mr. Zhang and Ms. Li married in October 2009 and had a son and a daughter after marriage.
Ms. Li was unable to apply for a loan due to credit problems, so in order to purchase another house in her hometown, she signed a Voluntary Divorce Agreement with Mr. Zhang in June 2020 and went through the divorce registration procedures. The Voluntary Divorce Agreement states that the relationship between the husband and wife has broken down due to emotional discord and various reasons, and there is no possibility of reconciliation, and it is agreed that a son and a daughter will be raised by the woman and live with the woman, and the maintenance fee shall be borne by the woman, and the husband does not need to pay any maintenance expenses; All deposits during the marriage belong to the husband, and 2 houses and 1 car belong to the husband.
The day after the divorce, Mr. Zhang signed the Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Commercial Housing (Pre-sale) with a real estate company.
In September 2020, Mr. Zhang and Ms. Li registered their remarriage. In June 2021, the parties divorced again due to emotional breakdown and mediation by the court.
In July 2023, Ms. Li filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting that the provisions on property division, housing division and other matters in the Voluntary Divorce Agreement be invalidated.
Ms. Li said that she and Mr. Zhang signed the "Voluntary Divorce Agreement" because of the need to purchase a house with a loan, but the two also signed the "Marriage Agreement" the day before signing the "Voluntary Divorce Agreement", indicating that when the husband and wife purchased the commercial house, because Ms. Li was unable to apply for a loan, the husband and wife negotiated a "fake divorce", and Mr. Zhang alone handled the loan to purchase the house, and after the loan was approved, the husband and wife would go through the remarriage procedures.
Adjudication Results
First instance: It was determined that the clause was a false expression of intent
During the trial of the first instance, Mr. Zhang raised objections to the authenticity of his signature on the Nuptial Agreement.
Upon Ms. Li's application, the court of first instance entrusted a judicial appraisal agency to evaluate the authenticity of Mr. Zhang's signature in the agreement, and concluded that the signature of "Mr. Zhang" on the Nuptial Agreement was the work of Mr. Zhang.
After trial, the court of first instance held that, based on the facts of the Marital Agreement, the Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Commercial Housing (Pre-sale), the appraisal opinion, and the remarriage of the parties shortly after the first divorce, the court of first instance held that all the contents of the Voluntary Divorce Agreement on property division, housing division and other matters were caused by the "fake divorce" agreed by the parties to the contract, and were not the true expression of the intention of the actual property division after the divorce, and this part of the agreement should be invalid. Although Mr. Zhang argued that the Voluntary Divorce Agreement was an expression of the true intentions of both parties, he did not submit sufficient evidence to refute the contents of the Nuptial Agreement, so the court did not accept his defense.
In summary, the court of first instance ruled that all the clauses in the Voluntary Divorce Agreement concerning the division of property, the division of housing and other matters were invalid.
Second instance: The relevant provisions of the Voluntary Divorce Agreement are invalid
After the first-instance judgment, Mr. Zhang appealed to the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, arguing that the Marital Agreement transferred to the appraisal agency for handwriting evaluation was a photocopy, and that there was no sufficient and reliable basis for determining that the signature on the Marital Agreement and the signature on the sample were from the same person's handwriting, and that the Voluntary Divorce Agreement was signed due to the breakdown of the relationship between the two parties due to Ms. Li's fault.
After trial, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court held that the copy of the "Marriage Agreement" corresponded to the corresponding originals, and combined with the appraisal opinion, the "Commercial Housing Sales Contract (Pre-sale)", and the fact that Mr. Zhang and Ms. Li remarried shortly after the first divorce, it could be confirmed that all the contents of the "Voluntary Divorce Agreement" regarding property division, housing division and other matters were false expressions of intent by Mr. Zhang and Ms. Li. Mr. Zhang claimed that the Voluntary Divorce Agreement was signed due to the breakdown of the relationship between the two parties due to Ms. Li's fault, but the basis was insufficient and it was not accepted. According to the relevant laws and regulations, the civil juristic acts carried out by the actor and the counterparty with false expressions of intent are invalid, and the court of first instance confirmed that all the provisions of the Voluntary Divorce Agreement signed by Ms. Li and Mr. Zhang in June 2020 regarding property division, housing division and other matters are invalid and have a legal basis.
In the end, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Judge's tip
The relevant laws provide that civil juristic acts carried out by the actor and the counterpart with false expressions of intent are invalid.
In this case, Mr. Zhang and Ms. Li chose a "fake divorce" for the purpose of taking out a loan to buy a house, and signed a Voluntary Divorce Agreement for this purpose. In essence, the agreement is a false expression of intent of the parties to agree to dissolve the marriage relationship in order to circumvent the state's control policy on real estate and obtain illegal property benefits, and the agreement on property division in the agreement is not the true way for the parties to dispose of the property.
In judicial practice, the above-mentioned phenomena occur from time to time. There is nothing wrong with acquiring property, but it should be obtained through legal means and due process. On the one hand, Mr. Zhang's and Ms. Li's related acts violated good faith and violated the core values of socialism, and they achieved illegal goals by signing false agreements and took advantage of policy loopholes to obtain benefits, which should be subject to a negative moral evaluation. On the other hand, it should also be noted that there are great legal risks associated with "fake divorce", which can easily lead to the phenomenon of "empty of people and money", which brings opportunities for people with ulterior motives.
Through judicial rulings, the court found that the contract was invalid and corrected the individual cases in a timely manner, so as to avoid the occurrence of multiple disputes and the adverse consequences caused by "fake and real", and to advocate a harmonious, happy and civilized family style.
Source: Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court
Disclaimer: This article is reprinted for the purpose of conveying more information and facilitating the popularization of law. If there is an error in the source labeling or infringement of your legitimate rights and interests, please contact Qinghai Pufa with the ownership certificate, and we will correct and delete it in time, thank you.