Too calculated! A Shanghai woman obtained a 99% share of a multi-million-yuan property through a "flash marriage"! After a "flash divorce," she sued to divide the property…

Recently, the Ningbo People’s Court in Shanghai’s Changning District

(hereinafter referred to as “Changning Court”)

handled a bizarre property dispute case after divorce

that has attracted attention.

Li Lin (pseudonym), 44 years old, filed for divorce for the first time when the couple had only been separated for three months. Because her husband Liu Liang (pseudonym) did not agree to the divorce and the legal conditions for divorce were not met, the court ruled against it.

A year later, Li Lin filed again with a firm attitude. Seeing that the marriage was beyond saving, Liu Liang finally agreed to mediation, and the marriage was officially dissolved. In both divorce cases, Li Lin did not mention property division at all.

Unexpectedly, just after the marriage was dissolved, Li Lin filed a third lawsuit against Liu Liang… In court, Li Lin produced a property deed, clearly marked with “Li Lin, 99% ownership share.” In this lawsuit, Li Lin demanded the division of the property, insisting on receiving her full share.

▲ Image source: Visual China

A marriage that started with a “hitchhiking ride” and a quick wedding

The story began with an accidental encounter. In March 2018, 36-year-old Li Lin met 23-year-old Liu Liang while sharing a ride. Li Lin worked in real estate, was divorced, and had a daughter; Liu Liang had recently been discharged from the military and worked in sales at a securities company, unmarried.

One month after meeting, they established a romantic relationship. In January 2019, they registered for marriage. From their first meeting to registration, only ten months passed. During this period, neither set of parents had met, nor was there a wedding ceremony. In the early days after marriage, they still lived separately with their parents and did not cohabitate.

Liu Liang’s parents were ordinary workers with modest incomes. Several years earlier, their old house was demolished for a relocation, and they received two houses as compensation, which became the family’s main assets.

• The smaller house was rented out to supplement family income;
• The larger house, valued at nearly ten million yuan at the time, was registered in Liu Liang and his parents’ names, and the whole family lived there.

After marriage, Li Lin proposed that her child wanted to attend a better school and needed to transfer the household registration to Liu Liang’s home, preferably with a share in the property. Liu Liang sincerely valued the relationship and loved Li Lin’s daughter, so he persuaded his parents to transfer the property to him. His parents initially disagreed, but Liu Liang convinced them by saying “inheritance might be subject to estate tax in the future.”

On July 13, 2019, Liu Liang’s parents signed a gift contract at the Natural Resources Rights Registration Office (hereinafter “Real Estate Registration Center”), transferring their property share to Liu Liang. Four days later, without his parents’ knowledge, Liu Liang and Li Lin returned to the Real Estate Registration Center and registered 99% of the share in Li Lin’s name, leaving only 1% for himself.

Liu Liang admitted in court that when asked about the ownership ratio at the registration center, he did not think deeply but impulsively decided to show his loyalty.

However, this marriage, which began with an encounter, did not last long. By the end of 2019, the couple was living separately in a rented apartment. Less than six months after their marriage, they separated. Less than half a year after divorce, Li Lin, holding the property deed with a 99% share, filed her third lawsuit against Liu Liang, demanding division of the property according to the registration ratio.

▲ Image source: Visual China

A probe that pierces the “appearance” of registration

“This case is very unusual,” recalled Xu Li, a judge of the Juvenile and Family Case Trial Division at Changning Court. During the third lawsuit, Li Lin’s attitude was unusually firm, unlike typical cases where emotional ties still influence the parties. What’s more suspicious is that she did not mention property in her first divorce filing, nor in her second; only after divorce did she sue separately, seemingly deliberately avoiding property issues—quickly ending the marriage first, then pursuing property rights afterward.

“Generally, when couples divorce based on emotional bonds, there is room for negotiation over property division. But Li Lin only discussed property throughout, not feelings,” Xu Li said.

The practical dilemma before the judge was:

The property deed clearly states Li Lin owns 99% of the share.

Can she take the nearly ten-million-yuan property?

At this point, the “Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Chapter of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China” (draft for comments) happened to provide relevant provisions for similar situations. Although not yet in effect, as an elaboration and refinement of the Civil Code, it offers valuable guidance for the court’s reasoning. The tribunal believed that this case could be fully addressed within the existing Civil Code framework.

Chief Judge Wang Fei proposed a key idea: to see through the surface of property registration and return to the law’s essence. Article 209 of the Civil Code states that real estate rights become effective upon registration, unless otherwise provided by law. But the marriage and family chapter of the law should take precedence in property relations, which falls under the “unless otherwise” clause. Article 220 further states that a rights holder or interested party can apply for correction of errors in the real estate register, indicating that registration itself is not the sole or unchangeable proof of ownership. It is merely a form of evidence of rights. For example, property purchased with joint marital assets, even if registered only in one spouse’s name, still belongs to the marital estate.

Wang Fei further pointed out that Article 1065 of the Civil Code clarifies that spouses’ property agreements “shall be made in writing.” The legislative intent is that property arrangements should be based on mutual, careful negotiation and genuine consent, not impulsive or unconsidered actions. In this case, Liu Liang transferred 99% of the property rights to Li Lin without formal written agreement or evidence of thorough negotiation on the property ratio. Therefore, the registration ratio cannot be automatically deemed as mutual agreement.

Regarding Li Lin’s defense that “the 99% ownership share has been fully gifted,” Wang Fei noted that gifts between spouses differ from ordinary commercial transactions. They are often based on the expectation of a long-lasting marriage and are a special type of gift with a purpose. Such gifts cannot be applied straightforwardly under general gift contract rules without considering the marriage context and relevant legal provisions.

A ruling that returns to the essence of marriage

Since the registration ratio

cannot be directly used as the basis for division,

how much should Li Lin actually receive?

The tribunal conducted a comprehensive assessment from multiple core perspectives.

From the origin of the property, it was obtained from the demolition of Liu Liang’s parents’ old house. Liu Liang was only 11 years old at the time and had no contribution to the property. Li Lin had no contribution either. Allowing her to take 99% would mean that Liu Liang’s parents, as the original owners and major contributors, might lose their residence. This would be extremely unfair to the elderly.

Considering the duration of the marriage, although the marriage lasted about three and a half years, the couple only cohabited for about six months. It was a quick marriage and quick separation, with no wedding ceremony or children. Taking nearly ten million yuan worth of property after only a few months of cohabitation creates a clear imbalance of interests.

From the perspective of fairness, Li Lin is 13 years older than Liu Liang and works in real estate, with extensive social experience. During the property transfer process, she knew the source of the house but did not communicate with Liu Liang’s parents or remind Liu Liang to consider carefully. Liu Liang’s gift was impulsive but made in good faith toward Li Lin and her daughter. It would be unfair and unreasonable for her to suffer significant losses due to her good-faith actions during divorce.

From the aspect of fault, there is no evidence that either party’s fault caused the divorce, nor are there special considerations for children or the wife. Li Lin did not raise such claims.

Meanwhile, the tribunal also considered that Liu Liang, as a fully capable adult, should bear responsibility for his actions, compensate Li Lin for her reliance interests, and that Li Lin paid over 119,000 yuan in taxes and fees for the property transfer. The couple’s six months of cohabitation should also be factored into the judgment.

In summary, the Changning Court’s first-instance judgment was: the property involved belongs to Liu Liang; Liu Liang must pay Li Lin 500,000 yuan as the property’s market value; Li Lin must cooperate to handle the property transfer registration.

Li Lin was dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed.

On February 1, 2025, the Supreme People’s Court officially implemented the “Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Marriage and Family Chapter of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China.” Article 5, paragraph 2, states: “During marriage or while the marriage relationship exists, if one party transfers their property registration to the other party or both parties’ names, and there is a dispute over ownership or division in divorce proceedings that cannot be resolved through negotiation, and if the marriage duration is short and the transferor has no major fault, the people’s court may, based on the plaintiff’s request, determine that the property belongs to the transferor, and, considering the purpose of the transfer, comprehensively consider factors such as the duration of cohabitation, the existence of children, fault in divorce, contributions to the family, and the market price of the property at the time of divorce, to decide whether the transferee should compensate the transferor and the amount.”

This regulation provides a clear legal basis for similar cases.

On March 31, 2025, the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court rendered a final judgment: dismissing the appeal and upholding the original decision.

“China’s Marriage Law has been amended multiple times, always emphasizing that love is the foundation of marriage, and prohibiting marriage for the purpose of property acquisition. Meanwhile, the law fairly protects the interests of both spouses, and when a marriage dissolves, it also considers each party’s contribution to the family.”

Wang Fei said that the essence of intra-marital gifts is good intention; they should not evolve into emotional transactions or be used as marriage consideration. This aligns with the values promoted by the Civil Code and the core socialist values.