Case Study On Divorce House Division Agreement And Litigation Case Of Execution Objection

As the divorce rate continues to rise,the number of disputes between spouses over divorce agreements continues to rise,one of which is that the divorce agreement stipulates that during the period of marriage,the common property belongs to one of the spouses or the children,and afterwards,for various reasons,the property has not been transferred,resulting in the owner of the real estate register and the agreed owner are not in agreement,the implementation of the court based on the "appearance of rights" to seize the agreed property,resulting in the outsiders(the agreed owner)proposed by the implementation of the objections to review and implementation of the objections to the complaint.In an enforcement challenge,the focus of the court’s proceedings is on whether the person outside the subject matter of the enforcement is entitled to exclude enforcement.This determination requires an identification of whether an outsider has a civil interest in the subject matter of enforcement and then an examination of which of its civil interests has priority over the rights of the legal instrument under which the applicant for enforcement is based.We analyze the basic facts of the case,the focus of the dispute,the main points of the decision,the results and the reasons for the decision by studying the cases of the execution of objections based on the divorce house division agreement between 2013 and 2019.The main focus of the disputes in such cases is on the effects of the divorce settlement in rem,the nature of the rights of strangers based on the divorce settlement and whether the divorce settlement precludes enforcement in the event of non-completion.Firstly,the divorce house division agreement alone can not produce the legal effect of changes in property rights;secondly,the divorce house division agreement as a civil contract involving the field of marriage and family matters,after the divorce,one party according to the agreement has the right to claim the nature of the claim,one party can request the other party to assist in changing the registration of the property,that is,the outsider has the right to claim the claim;again,the court should not exclude the outsider’s right to the house on the grounds of failure to register the house,should fully consider whether there is malicious collusion in the divorce house division agreement,the sequence of time and the establishment of the debt,whether the outsider is at fault for failure to register the house,whether the outsider is actually in possession of the property and survival rights and guarantees,and determine whether the civil rights and interests of the outsider should be specially protected,and sufficient to exclude the implementation.