Perspective | After Mediation of Divorce Without Disputes, Do the Male Party's Parents' Claims of Marriage Property Disputes Constitute Repetitive Litigation? - Taking the Case of Li's Mother's Civil Appeal as an Example
Published:
2025-01-07
After both parties have mediated a divorce without disputes, if the male party's parents file a lawsuit for a marriage property dispute against the female party and her parents, the "subjective scope of res judicata" should be applied to determine that the parties in the subsequent lawsuit are the same as those in the previous lawsuit, thus constituting a duplicate lawsuit. Consequently, the court should rule to "dismiss the lawsuit."
[Content Summary]After the couple has mediated their divorce without disputes, the male party's parents filed a lawsuit against the female party and her parents regarding the marriage property dispute. The "subjective scope of res judicata" should be adopted to determine that the parties in the subsequent case are the same as those in the previous case, thus constituting a repeated lawsuit, and the court should rule to "dismiss the lawsuit."
[Keywords]Mediated Divorce Marriage Property Dispute Repeated Lawsuit Dismiss Lawsuit
I. Basic Case Facts
On November 8, 2019, Zhao (female) and Li (male) mediated their divorce at the A County Court, reaching the following agreement: 1. Plaintiff Zhao and Defendant Li are divorced; 2. Plaintiff Zhao shall pay Defendant Li 15,000 yuan immediately; the television, refrigerator, and washing machine, which are the plaintiff's premarital property, shall belong to Defendant Li; 3. There are no other disputes between the parties.
On May 24, 2023, Li's mother filed a lawsuit against Zhao and Zhao's father in A County Court regarding the marriage property dispute, requesting the return of the betrothal gifts and other items without evidence. On July 12, 2023, A County Court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff Li's mother's lawsuit.
Li's mother was dissatisfied and appealed to the X City Intermediate Court. On November 1, 2023, the X City Intermediate Court found that the appellant Li's mother's appeal request was not established and should be dismissed. The first-instance judgment was clear in fact, correctly applied the law, and should be maintained, ruling to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment. Li's mother was dissatisfied with the X City Intermediate Court's second-instance civil judgment and applied to the Provincial High Court for retrial, which was ruled to dismiss the retrial application.
In May 2024, Li's mother, dissatisfied with the X City Intermediate Court's second-instance civil judgment, applied to the X City Procuratorate for supervision.
II. Disagreement of Opinions
There is a dispute over whether the marriage property dispute case filed by Li's mother against Zhao's father and Zhao (subsequent case) constitutes a repeated lawsuit with the divorce dispute case between Li and Zhao (previous case), which in turn affects whether the X City Intermediate Court's decision to "dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment" is appropriate.
Viewpoint One:In this case, the marriage property dispute filed by Li's mother against Zhao's father and Zhao (subsequent case) does not constitute a repeated lawsuit with the divorce dispute between Li and Zhao (previous case). Because the parties in the previous divorce dispute were Li and Zhao, while the parties in the subsequent marriage property dispute were Li's mother, Zhao's father, and Zhao, the parties in the previous and subsequent cases are not the same, which does not meet the requirement of repeated lawsuits as stipulated in Article 247, Paragraph 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law"). Therefore, the X City Intermediate Court's judgment to "dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment" is not inappropriate.
Viewpoint Two:In this case, the marriage property dispute filed by Li's mother against Zhao's father and Zhao (subsequent case) constitutes a repeated lawsuit with the divorce dispute between Li and Zhao (previous case). Because although the parties in the subsequent case are not formally the same as those in the previous case, the "subjective scope of res judicata" should be adopted to determine that the parties in the previous and subsequent cases are the same, thus recognizing that Li's mother's subsequent lawsuit constitutes a repeated lawsuit. Therefore, the X City Intermediate Court's judgment to "dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment" is an improper application of the law and should rule to "dismiss Li's mother's lawsuit."
III. Commentary Analysis
The author agrees with the second viewpoint for the following reasons:
Article 247 of the Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law clearly stipulates that the determination of whether the previous and subsequent lawsuits constitute repeated lawsuits should be comprehensively judged from the three aspects of "parties to the case, litigation subject matter, and litigation request". Below, the author will argue that Li's mother's subsequent lawsuit constitutes a repeated lawsuit with the previous lawsuit from the three aspects of "parties to the case, litigation subject matter, and litigation request."
(1) Adopting the "subjective scope of res judicata" to determine that the parties in the subsequent and previous cases are the same.
In the previous case, the cause of action was a divorce dispute, so the parties to the case could only be the couple, namely Li and Zhao. In the subsequent case, the cause of action was a marriage property dispute, so the parties to the case include the couple and their respective parents, namely Li's mother, Zhao, and Zhao's father.
Regarding the determination of whether the parties in the previous and subsequent cases are the same, there are theoretically two viewpoints: "formal parties" and "subjective scope of res judicata". The "formal parties" viewpoint holds that the determination of the same parties should mainly consider the formal parties. The "subjective scope of res judicata" viewpoint believes that the principle of non bis in idem serves to prevent repeated lawsuits and avoid contradictory judgments. Therefore, the parties that are "the same in the subsequent and previous cases" not only include formal parties but also include representatives and successors under exceptional circumstances. The opinion of the Supreme People's Court judges' meeting is: "Adopt the subjective scope of res judicata. The principle of non bis in idem not only prohibits the same parties from filing a lawsuit on the same disputed matter (litigation subject matter) again in the litigation process but also prevents the same parties from disputing the same litigation subject matter again. Therefore, from the perspective of the effectiveness of the litigation process and the negative effect of res judicata, formal parties should be included in the subjective requirement of the principle of non bis in idem, namely the identity of the parties. However, in addition to including formal parties, under the expansion of the subjective scope of res judicata, individuals other than the parties in this case should also be bound by res judicata. From the perspective of the negative effect of res judicata, the subjective scope of the principle of non bis in idem should also be extended to third parties covered by the expansion of the subjective scope of res judicata." Therefore, it is more appropriate to adopt the mainstream viewpoint of "subjective scope of res judicata" to determine whether the parties in the previous and subsequent cases are the same.
Specifically in this case, Zhao and Li have reached a mediation agreement regarding the divorce and other monetary disputes in the previous divorce dispute case, and have resolved all potential future disputes through the statement of "no other disputes." Therefore, under the condition that the aforementioned civil mediation document complies with legal provisions and has taken effect, the "res judicata" generated by this civil mediation document naturally extends to individuals outside the parties in the previous case, namely the parents of the parties in the previous case. Thus, adopting the viewpoint of "subjective scope of res judicata" can determine that the parties in the subsequent lawsuit filed by Li's mother are the same as those in the previous case.
(2) The subject matter of the divorce dispute includes the subject matter of the marriage property dispute.
The subject matter of the lawsuit refers to the rights and obligations or legal relationships of the parties under substantive law. In divorce dispute cases, the main subject matter is the dissolution of the marriage relationship (it is not appropriate to include other parties outside the marriage as parties in the divorce dispute). However, in practice, divorce disputes include disputes over debts, child custody disputes, alimony disputes, and all property disputes during the existence of the marriage relationship. Therefore, the legal relationships in divorce disputes are complex, and the corresponding subject matter of the lawsuit in divorce disputes is also intricate. In contrast, the subject matter of the lawsuit in marriage property dispute cases is relatively singular, which arises from the property disputes due to the inability to sustain the marriage after both parties have made certain payments based on the establishment of a marriage contract with the purpose of concluding a marriage. At the same time, according to Article 5 of the "Interpretation (I) 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," a party requesting the return of the bride price paid according to customs should condition it on the divorce of the parties. In other words, marriage property disputes can be handled together in divorce disputes. It can be seen that the subject matter of the divorce dispute includes the subject matter of the marriage property dispute. Therefore, in this case, since the subject matter of the previous divorce dispute includes the subject matter of the subsequent marriage property dispute, the subject matter of the subsequent lawsuit is the same as part of the subject matter in the previous lawsuit.
(3) The claims in the subsequent lawsuit essentially deny the validity of the mediation document from the previous lawsuit.
In the previous divorce dispute case, both Li and Zhao clearly stated that "there are no other disputes," meaning that the previous lawsuit has resolved the marriage property dispute. However, in the subsequent marriage property dispute case, Li's mother still requested Zhao and Zhao's father to return the bride price and other properties without evidence. If the Intermediate People's Court of X City supports Li's mother's claims, it would inevitably contradict the civil mediation document that has already taken effect in the previous divorce dispute. Therefore, the claims in the subsequent lawsuit have the effect of negating the previous lawsuit.
In summary, the subsequent lawsuit filed by Li's mother involves the same parties as the previous lawsuit, the same subject matter, and the claims essentially deny the judgment results of the previous case, which should be recognized as constituting a repeated lawsuit. Therefore, the Intermediate People's Court of X City should rule to "dismiss Li's mother's lawsuit" according to the provisions of Article 247, Paragraph 2 of the "Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law." However, after ascertaining the facts of the case, the Intermediate People's Court of X City ruled to "dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment," which constitutes an error in the application of the law.
4. Handling Opinions
The Supreme People's Court's public case "China Railway Material Shanghai Co., Ltd. vs. Jinan Runhe Motor Vehicle Logistics Co., Ltd. and CRRC Shandong Locomotive and Rolling Stock Co., Ltd. on the Execution Objection Case" states: "The execution objection lawsuit filed by China Railway Material Company essentially constitutes a repeated lawsuit, and this case should dismiss the lawsuit filed by China Railway Material Company. However, considering that the original trial court dismissed the lawsuit filed by China Railway Material Company, although the result is different from a dismissal of the lawsuit, it did not have a substantial impact on the rights of the parties and the effectiveness of the arbitration award. Therefore, to reduce the burden on the parties and save judicial resources, this case can dismiss the retrial application of China Railway Material Company."
Specifically in this case, since the effective judgment of the second instance of the X City Court did not harm the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, in order to avoid burdening the parties, there is no need to initiate a retrial through issuing a retrial procuratorial suggestion or filing a protest to have the court rule to dismiss Li's mother's lawsuit.
In summary, the first-instance judgment of A County Court and the second-instance judgment of X City Court have clear factual findings and improper application of law, but they still do not meet the conditions for filing a retrial procuratorial suggestion or filing a protest. According to Article 89 of the "Regulations on Civil Litigation Supervision by the People's Procuratorate," a decision is made not to support Li's mother's supervision application.
Key words:
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
