Research On The Scope Of Application Of Contractual Marital Property System

The Contractual Marital Property System provided by Article 19 of the “Marriage Law” has long been a problem discussed many scholars, because many aspects of the provision is not comprehensive, which frequently leads to misunderstanding of the Contractual Marital Property System. This article takes the Contractual Marital Property System as the research target, in order to clarify the application scope of the Contractual Marital Property System by analyzing the legislation mode and content of the Contractual Marital Property System. Based on said analysis, this article further intends to clarify the relationship between marital property agreement and normal property legal acts as well as their application, taking Article 6 of the Third Judicial Interpretation of Marriage Law as an example.The first chapter deals with the basic conception of marital property agreement. The author first introduced the current situation of the Contractual Marital Property System, in order to point out relevant problems. Then the status-related feature, the character of status-related legal act and the function of amending statutory marital property system were discussed. After that, the author further illustrated marital property agreement’s effect of prior application and direct change of property right as well as the limitation of its effect, which manifests the significance of distinguishing marital property agreements and normal property legal acts.The second chapter, based on the analysis in last chapter and Article 19 of “Marriage Law”, analyzed the current institution of marital property agreement. At the beginning, the author discussed the good and bad of the selective and creative mode of legislation. Taking several factors into consideration, the author think the mode of Chinese Marriage Law is creative mode of legislation. Then, in view of the function of amending the statutory marital property system, the substantial character of marital property agreement which is excluding the application statutory marital property system was discussed. Without such substantial character, a legal act could not be regarded as a marital property agreement, and the criteria of decide whether a legal act excludes the application statutory marital property system is whether, after the completion of such legal act, there is any change relating to spouse mutual owned property. Lastly, the author summarized the rule of application of marital property agreement.In the third chapter, the author gave a comprehensive comment on Article 6 of the third judicial interpretation, trying to present a reasonable explanation about this provision. The comment started with the legal rationale behind that provision. The author think that although from the perspective of the application of Article 6, this provision does not goes against the legal theory, the official interpretation given by the Supreme Court and its Judge might over restricted the the application scope of marital property agreement. Moreover, the confusion about the concepts of marital property agreement and normal property acts between spouse makes the application of this provision has been willingly extended. In conclusion, the author believe that since the situation described in Article 6 does not exclude the application statutory marital property system, there is no relationship with marital property, and emphasizing the donor’s right of revocation do comply with the main value in Chinese current society.