News
Is the dowry given before the wedding jointly owned by the couple
Time:2025-08-28 Views:1991
The plaintiff and defendant established a romantic relationship in January 2000 and completed the procedures on March 24th of the same year. In April of the same year, the two parties held their wedding ceremony according to traditional customs. The plaintiff and defendant have been separated since December 2000 due to their short acquaintance before marriage, lack of understanding, incompatible personalities, and frequent conflicts over family matters. The plaintiff later filed a lawsuit with the court on the grounds of the breakdown of their marital relationship, requesting a divorce from the defendant. In the lawsuit, the defendant agreed to the divorce, but requested that one motorcycle, which was jointly owned by the couple, be awarded to them and a purchase invoice be provided. After investigation, it was found that the car was sold after the plaintiff and defendant registered their marriage and before the wedding, to purchase a dowry as a gift for the bride's family. When both parties handle notarization before the purchase, the notary department proves that it is the plaintiff's premarital property, while the time stated on the car purchase invoice provided by the defendant is after the wedding of both parties. The car purchase invoice provided by the defendant was reissued afterwards. The court believes that the plaintiff and defendant have reached a consensus on the issue of divorce and should be granted divorce. The focus of this case is whether the motorcycle in dispute is the joint property of the couple or the personal property of the female party. The revised Article 17, Paragraph 1 stipulates: "The following property obtained by spouses during their existence shall be jointly owned by the spouses: (1) wages and bonuses; (2) income from production and operation; (3) income from intellectual property; (4) property obtained through inheritance or gift, except as provided in Article 18, Paragraph 3 of this Law; (5) other property that should be jointly owned. (4) One party's exclusive daily necessities; (5) Other property that should belong to one party The motorcycle in dispute by the defendant, although purchased during the existence of the marriage, was actually a dowry sent by the bride's family. The prenuptial property notarization certificate handled by both parties shows that the car is the plaintiff's prenuptial property. As the car has not been purchased at the time of notarization, this notarization violates the principle of objectivity and truthfulness and should not be accepted. If only the time of marriage registration is used as the boundary between the joint property of husband and wife and the personal property of one party, and the car is recognized as the joint property of both parties, it is obviously contrary to folk customs and will inevitably have a negative social impact. If traditional customs are respected and the car is recognized as the personal property of the woman, it does not violate the legislative principles and spirit of the Marriage Law. The fifth item of Article 18 of the Marriage Law, "Other property that should belong to one party", is a supplement to the aforementioned four items, so the determination of ownership of the vehicle should be subject to the provisions of this item. Therefore, through mediation presided over by the court, the plaintiff voluntarily offset the car with the dowry given by the defendant before marriage and kept it for the defendant.
review
The motorcycle in dispute in this case was purchased by the bride's family as a dowry before the wedding ceremony, after both parties completed the marriage registration procedures. Before the purchase, the prenuptial property was notarized and certified as the plaintiff's prenuptial property. The following issues need to be addressed in determining whether the property arising from this abnormal situation is the joint property of the couple or the plaintiff's premarital property: 1. After both parties register their marriage, the marriage relationship is established in accordance with the law. Generally speaking, the property obtained by spouses during the existence of their marriage relationship, as stipulated in Article 17, Paragraph 1 of the Marriage Law, shall be jointly owned by the spouses. Obviously, the defendant's claim that motorcycles are joint property of the couple is based on the reason that they were acquired during the existence of the marital relationship. However, according to the provisions of this clause, motorcycles can only be recognized as joint property of husband and wife if they are recognized as "gift income" or "other property that should be jointly owned". According to the third item of Article 18, if the property gifted is not clearly owned only by one party, it should be interpreted as gifted to both parties. Formally speaking, the dowry sent by the bride's family is "obtained during the existence of the marriage relationship" after the legal establishment of the marriage relationship between the two parties, and this kind of dowry may also be recognized as a "gift". However, according to the traditional customs and traditions in many parts of China, the dowry sent by the bride's family should be her premarital property or personal property belonging to her, rather than being a gift to the married couple as common property. Therefore, in the absence of a clear legal definition of its nature, according to folk customs and traditions, the provision in Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the Marriage Law regarding "one party's premarital property" should be interpreted as including "the bride's dowry" and as the bride's personal property. That is to say, although the law uses the time of marriage registration as a boundary between the joint property of husband and wife and the personal property of one party, it is not the only condition, but only a preliminary necessary condition. It should also be determined substantively and finally based on the source of the acquired property. The substantive issue here is how to interpret the scope of "one party's premarital property". This interpretation also limits other interpretations. 2、 The content of notarization further plays a role in determining the nature of disputed property. Although the disputed property has not yet been purchased at the time of notarization, both parties have a clear agreement on the legal ownership of the property to be purchased and used for the household they have formed. This agreement is the true expression of both parties' intentions, and notarization aims to fix this agreement. So, in terms of proving the content of the agreement or the true expression of intention, this notarized proof does not violate the principle of objective truth and should be accepted. This notarized certificate is actually a specific manifestation of the agreed property system in the parties' marital relationship. 3、 In fact, there is indeed an irregular problem, that is, after marriage registration, both parties still consider the property acquired afterwards as one party's premarital property and notarize it. There is both a lack of legal knowledge among the parties involved and the influence of customs and habits. In many parts of our country and among the general public, holding a wedding ceremony is often regarded as a symbol of marriage. It can be said that why did the parties involved in this case, after registration,The agreement and notarization of the acquired property as premarital property before the wedding is a product of this influence. Although it is not standardized, in any case, this agreement is intended to exclude joint ownership by husband and wife, and is determined to be owned by one party personally. It is the true expression of the intentions of both parties and is in line with the provisions of Article 19 of the Marriage Law. So, based on the true intentions of both parties, whether the disputed motorcycle belongs to the husband and wife jointly or to the plaintiff personally, the provisions of Article 19 of the Marriage Law can be fully applied to resolve the issue, without having to go around Articles 17 and 18. [page] Sichuan Faneng Law Firm is dedicated to serving you.