Adding a name to the property before marriage doesn't necessarily mean an equal split in divorce.

Property purchased with full payment before marriage, with a spouse’s name added to the property deed after marriage—when a divorce happens, is that property necessarily split equally? Recently, the People’s Court of Futian District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, concluded a divorce property dispute case. Taking multiple factors into comprehensive consideration and making a discretionary judgment accordingly, the court clarified the division principle for a pre-marriage property whose deed was amended during the marriage by adding a name.

Ms. Lai and Mr. Wang registered their marriage in February 2020. After they married, they had no children, and the couple’s relationship gradually became distant. To ease the relationship, in August 2021, Mr. Wang gifted Ms. Lai a 50% share of the marital home that had been given to him by his parents before marriage. The two parties signed an agreement and completed the relevant registration, but this did not save their relationship, which was nearing collapse. In April 2023, the couple began living separately.

After some time, Ms. Lai filed for divorce. She claimed that Mr. Wang had a sexual-function impairment that caused the marriage to break down, that she suffered a loss of reproductive rights, and that the court should divide the property at issue by 50% according to the market price of the property. Mr. Wang agreed to the divorce, but argued that the property was his personal property prior to marriage. He said Ms. Lai made no contribution, and that adding her name was only to maintain the marriage rather than a gratuitous gift. He also alleged faults by Ms. Lai, such as verbal “cold violence” and refusing to perform marital obligations, and requested the court to order that the property belong to him personally and that no compensation be paid.

After hearing the case, the court held that the parties’ marital relationship had indeed broken down, so the divorce was granted. Although the property at issue was originally Mr. Wang’s personal property before marriage, it had been changed and registered as joint ownership of both parties. As a person with full capacity for civil conduct, Mr. Wang should have had sufficient awareness of the act of disposing of the gifted property. Therefore, the property should be treated as the couple’s joint marital property for division.

As to the division ratio, the court comprehensively considered three factors. First, the source of the property: the original acquisition of the property and the appreciation before the change in registration, for which Ms. Lai had no direct contribution. Second, the status of the marriage: the two parties married in February 2020 and began living separately in April 2023. Their actual cohabitation as spouses lasted only three years, which falls under the situation of “a relatively short duration of the marital relationship,” and they had no children. Third, the issue of fault: Ms. Lai claimed that Mr. Wang had a sexual-function impairment and that she suffered a loss of reproductive rights. However, she did not submit sufficient medical evidence. This situation does not constitute statutory “major fault.” Current law also does not treat a loss of reproductive rights as an independent ground for independent compensation in property division. Mr. Wang argued that Ms. Lai had fault, but he also did not meet the recognition standard for adjusting the division ratio.

Ultimately, the court ruled to grant the divorce between the two parties. The property at issue was awarded to Mr. Wang. Mr. Wang was ordered to pay Ms. Lai a housing compensation payment equal to 25% of the property’s current total market price. The judgment has now come into effect.

The judge said that adding a spouse’s name to pre-marriage property during a marriage is a common way to dispose of romantic-marital property. The original intention is mostly to maintain the relationship, but divorce property-division disputes arising from this happen frequently. When defining the division ratio, the court will make a comprehensive discretionary judgment by combining multiple factors, such as the original source of the property, the length of time the marriage lasted, the parties’ actual contributions, and the true purpose of the gift, balancing legal spirit with public order and good customs. In divorce property division, where one party asserts that the other party is at fault and seeks to adjust the division ratio, two statutory requirements must be met: first, the fault circumstances must fall within the scope of “major fault” as provided by the Civil Code, such as domestic violence, abandonment, gambling, etc.; second, sufficient and valid objective evidence must be submitted to support the claim.

The judge reminded that a spouse’s disposition of marital property during marriage must be based on a genuine expression of intent, and that parties should take a rational view of gifts of marital property. The core of marriage lies in emotional support and sharing responsibilities. Whether dealing with agreements on marital property during marriage or resolving disputes in divorce, both parties should adhere to the principle of honesty and good faith, respect each other’s lawful rights and interests, and maintain a healthy and harmonious family order.

By our reporter　Tang Rong

Reporter from the paper　Lu Ping

Source: Legal Daily