Vietnam: Case study on "dispute over determining ownership rights of a house, land use rights during xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 marriage period."

Content of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case

Mr. Le Van De and Mrs. Ho Thi Nhu L got married in 1988 and have two children, Mr. Le Van H (born in 1989) and Ms. Le Thi Phuong Tr (born in 1994). According to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 plaintiff's account, in 2004, Mr. De's family built a house and acquired land at 89 Hoang Van T, in K city, K province, and constructed xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 house in 2011, 2012, and 2015. On April 20, 2015, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People's Committee of K city issued a Certificate of Land Use Rights, Ownership of Residential House, and other assets attached to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land, registered under xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 name of Ho Thi Nhu L, with a land area of 333.6m2, a construction area of 314.35m2, and a floor area of 1657.5m2.

Due to Mrs. L's debts to Mrs. Dinh Thi Kim T, Mrs. Vu Thi H, Mrs. N Thi Thanh H, Mrs. Truong Thi L, Mrs. Duong Thi Thu T, Mrs. Do Thi Tuyet N, Mrs. Nguyen Thi S, which were resolved through effective legal judgments and decisions, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Execution Department of Civil Judgments of K province issued Decision No. 68/QD-CCTHA on March 26, 2015, to seize xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 aforementioned property. Mr. Le Van De disagreed with this decision and filed a lawsuit, requesting xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court to determine that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 property is jointly owned by him, Mrs. L, and their children, Mr. Le Van H and Ms. Le Thi Phuong T, with a value of 18,000,000,000 VND (10 billion VND for xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land and 8 billion VND for xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 house) and to determine their respective ownership and usage rights as follows: Mr. De - 30%, Mrs. L - 30%, Mr. H - 25%, Ms. T - 15%. At xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 same time, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court also determined that Mrs. T, Mrs. H, Mrs. H, Mrs. L, Mrs. T, Mrs. N, and Mrs. S were individuals with rights and obligations related to this case.

During xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 resolution process, Mrs. L, Mr. H, and Ms. T all agreed with Mr. De's lawsuit. According to Mr. Hung's testimony, from a young age, he received money from family members to purchase assets. In 2012, Mr. Hung, as xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Chairman of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Board of Directors of a joint-stock company S, transferred an amount of 4,385,300,000 VND to his parents to build xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 house at 89 Hoang Van T. According to Ms. Trinh's testimony, from a young age, she also received money and gifts from family members to purchase assets and engage in business while still studying. xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 total amount Ms. Trinh contributed to building xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 house was 1,505,000,000 VND. However, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 individuals with rights and obligations related to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case did not agree with xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 plaintiff's lawsuit because they believed that Mrs. L borrowed money from them to build xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 house at 89 Hoang Van T, so Mr. De and Mrs. L must sell xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 property to repay them.

Decision of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Court

xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first-instance judgment on marriage and family case No. 07/2016/HNGD-ST dated January 27, 2016, of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People's Court of K city decided to accept Mr. Le Van De's lawsuit, recognize xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land use rights at 89 Hoang Van T, K city, as joint property of Mr. Le Van De, Mrs. Ho Thi Nhu L, Mr. Le Van H, and Ms. Le Thi Phuong T. Mr. De and Mrs. L were each entitled to own and use 33.735%, Mr. Hung was entitled to own and use 24.17%, and Ms. Trinh was entitled to own and use 8.36% of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 value of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 property.

Within xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 legal deadline, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 individuals with related rights and obligations, Mrs. T, Mrs. H, Mrs. H, Mrs. L, Mrs. T, Mrs. N, and Mrs. S, appealed xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 entire first-instance judgment, and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People's Procuracy of K province lodged a protest against xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first-instance judgment.

xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate judgment on marriage and family case No. 04/2016/HNGD-PT dated June 20, 2016, of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People's Court of K province decided to partially accept xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appeal of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 parties concerned, accept xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 protest of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 People's Procuracy of K province, and recognize xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land use rights at 89 Hoang Van T as joint property of Mr. Le Van De, Mrs. Ho Thi Nhu L; Mr. De and Mrs. L were each entitled to manage and use 50% of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 property. xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 ownership rights of Mr. Le Van H and Ms. Le Thi Phuong T were not mentioned in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 judgment.

Unsatisfied with xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate judgment, Mr. Le Van De and Mrs. Ho Thi Nhu L filed a cassation appeal to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Supreme People's Court of Vietnam, requesting xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court to review and overturn xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate judgment.

Issues that need to draw on experience

There are still many contradictions in determining xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 property rights of Mr. Le Van H: Mr. Le Van H is xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Chairman of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Board of Directors of S Marketing Joint Stock Company. In 2012, Mr. Hung transferred an amount of 4,385,300,000 VND to Mr. D. However, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Court did not require Mr. Hung to provide any documents related to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 financial report of S Marketing Joint Stock Company in 2012 for comparison; it did not clarify how much of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 total amount mentioned above Mr. Hung transferred to Mr. De for building a house, for business purposes, in order to provide a basis for resolving xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case as not complying with xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 provisions of Article 97 of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Criminal Procedure Code on verification and collection of evidence. On xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 other hand, Mr. Hung stated that this amount of money was obtained from xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 favorable business results. However, in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 "Request for Exemption from Court Fees", Mr. Hung stated: "I have just graduated, currently in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 phase of studying and working, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 salary and wages are only enough for daily expenses, so I don't have xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 ability to pay xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 court fees...". Thus, Mr. Hung's statement about his financial ability is contradictory, and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Court of first instance and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Court of appellate jurisdiction failed to clarify this contradiction.

Contradictions in determining xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 property rights of Ms. Le Thi Phuong T: Ms. T stated that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 money contributed to building a house for her parents was given by relatives in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 family, red envelope money, and additional business income while she was studying. According to xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 "Money Gift Documents," Ms. Trinh was given a total of 650,000,000 VND, but xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 amount she contributed to building xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 house was 1,505,000,000 VND. So where did xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 remaining money come from? Ms. Trinh believed that she had additional business income while she was a student, but considering that Ms. Trinh was born in 1994 and only became a student in 2011, how much profit did she make in such a short period of time, and is it reasonable for her to transfer money to Mr. De from November 2011? On xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 other hand, Ms. Trinh studied and worked in Ho Chi Minh City and transferred money to Mr. De from Ho Chi Minh City, but xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transaction documents showed that Ms. Trinh directly deposited money at Saigon Thuong Tin Commercial Joint Stock Bank - K Branch. This contradiction was also not clarified by xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Court of First Instance and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Court of appellate jurisdiction.

There are also many contradictions in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 money gifts: In xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 money gift documents, on March 10, 2004, Mr. Ho Huu Cuong (uncle) gave Mr. Hung and Ms. Trinh 150,000,000 VND each; on October 15, 2004, Mr. Ho Huu Hung (grandfather) gave Mr. Hung and Ms. Trinh 200,000,000 VND each; on July 10, 2004 and November 1, 2004, Ms. Than Thi Buoi (grandmother) gave Mr. Hung and Ms. Trinh 100,000,000 VND each; on August 16, 2006, Mr. Ho Huu Hien (uncle) gave Mr. H and Ms. T 150,000,000 VND each; on October 7, 2007, Ms. Ho Thi Mai L (aunt) gave Mr. Hung and Ms. T 50,000,000 VND each. These people all have close relationships with each other, and no one witnessed xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 transactions. Mr. H, Ms. T, Mr. H's uncle, and aunt all stated that xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 money was given to express gratitude to Mrs. Lien for raising and providing financial support for education, but they gave a large amount of money to Mr. Hung and Ms. Trinh. On xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 other hand, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 act of giving money should be documented, and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Court of first instance and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Court of appellate jurisdiction should verify and clarify xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 income and financial conditions of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 givers to determine whether it is true that Mr. H and Ms. T were given such a large amount of money and request an appraisal of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 "Money Gift Documents" to determine if they were written between 2003 - 2007 (or if they were written later to legitimize xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 source of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 money). From there, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 Court would have a basis to determine whether Mr. H and Ms. T contributed money to Mr. D and Mrs. L.

Although xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 issues mentioned above have not been clarified, xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 first-instance court has recognized xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 house and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 land use rights at 89 Hoang Van Thu as xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 joint ownership of four individuals and determined xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 ownership ratio for each person. xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 appellate court's recognition of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 house at 89 Hoang Van Thu as xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 joint ownership of four individuals and xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 determination of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 ownership ratio for each person are not sufficiently solid grounds, showing signs of asset dispersal and seriously affecting xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 lawful rights and interests of xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 parties with related rights and obligations in xem bóng đá trực tiếp vtv2 case.

Source: Supreme People's Procuracy

 

Key word: land use rights | Vietnam | Case study | marriage |

PleaseLoginto be able to download