{"id":6142,"date":"2024-10-18T11:15:36","date_gmt":"2024-10-18T04:15:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/?p=6142"},"modified":"2024-10-24T15:49:05","modified_gmt":"2024-10-24T08:49:05","slug":"tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html","title":{"rendered":"DISPUTE OVER MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE"},"content":{"rendered":"Dispute<\/b>: Breach of the monogamy regime and request for division of matrimonial property upon divorce.<\/span><\/p>\n

Facts of the Case:<\/b><\/p>\n

Mr. M and Ms. N were married on April 26, 2011, as evidenced by the marriage certificate issued by the People’s Committee of Ward 26, Binh Thanh District. After a period of cohabitation, Ms. N discovered that Mr. M was cohabiting with another woman and had a child out of wedlock. This led to conflicts and disagreements in their marital life. As a result, Mr. M and Ms. N have decided to divorce by mutual consent. The parties have disputes regarding the division of their joint property, including:<\/span><\/p>\n

– A house located at Y Nguyen Xi Street, Ward 26, Binh Thanh District, with an estimated value of VND 1,000,000,000 (One billion Vietnamese Dong);<\/span><\/p>\n

– A Honda Civic car, with an estimated value of VND 600,000,000 (Six hundred million Vietnamese Dong);<\/span><\/p>\n

– A SH i150 motorcycle, with an estimated value of VND 65,000,000 (Sixty-five million Vietnamese Dong); and<\/span><\/p>\n

– A SH Mode motorcycle, with an estimated value of VND 35,000,000 (Thirty-five million Vietnamese Dong).<\/span><\/p>\n

Client\u2019s Request:<\/b><\/p>\n

Ms. N requests to receive 60% of the value of the disputed property (approximately VND 1,020,000,000 – One billion two hundred million Vietnamese Dong). Ms. N has requested TAPHALAW to represent and protect her lawful rights and interests in the division of joint property with Mr. M.<\/span><\/p>\n

Attorney’s Work Performed:<\/b><\/p>\n

1. The attorney provided advice to Ms. N regarding the principles of dividing matrimonial property upon divorce. Specifically, the attorney explained that: <\/span>The division of matrimonial property upon divorce is generally determined by agreement between the spouses. <\/span>If the spouses cannot reach an agreement, the court will typically divide the matrimonial property equally, but may consider the fault of each spouse in violating their marital duties. <\/span>In this case, Mr. M’s violation of the monogamy requirement led to the divorce. Thus, legal grounds and evidence could be used to demonstrate Mr. M’s fault in breaching his marital duties during a court hearing, should the parties be unable to reach a property division agreement.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. On behalf of Ms. N, the attorney negotiated with Mr. M, proposing a resolution regarding the division of matrimonial property.<\/span><\/p>\n

Outcome of the Dispute:<\/b><\/p>\n

After two negotiation sessions between the attorney and Mr. M, the attorney successfully negotiated a property division agreement on behalf of Ms. N that maximized her interests. Specifically, Mr. M agreed to transfer 70% of the matrimonial property (equivalent to 1,190,000,000 \u0111\u1ed3ng) to Ms. N. After the parties executed a matrimonial property division agreement drafted by TAPHALAW, Mr. M voluntarily transferred the agreed-upon amount to Ms. N via bank transfer.<\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dispute: Breach of the monogamy regime and request for division of matrimonial property upon divorce. Facts of the Case: Mr. M and Ms. N were married on April 26, 2011, as evidenced by the marriage certificate issued by the People’s Committee of Ward 26, Binh Thanh District. After a period of cohabitation, Ms. N discovered […]\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6143,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[96,92,114],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6142"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6142"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6142\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6195,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6142\/revisions\/6195"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6143"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6142"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}