Divorce Agreement Stipulates Property Ownership Disputes With Children Referee Research

When the marriage registration authority agrees to divorce,the husband and wife agree on the identity relationship and property relationship between the husband and wife and reach a divorce agreement,either for the protection of children or for the compromise of the property distribution between the two parties.It is stipulated that the property owned by one party or jointly owned by both parties will be owned by the children after the divorce,which is generally expressed in the divorce agreement as "the property located in a certain place will be owned by the children after the divorce".After the divorce agreement takes effect,the parents neglect or refuse to cooperate with their children in the registration of property rights transfer,which in turn leads to various disputes among the parties to the divorce agreement,their children and external creditors.In this paper,by sorting out the cases of disputes over the ownership of children in divorce agreements in practice,classifying and sorting out the focus of disputes in the cases,and analyzing the reasons for the differences between different judgments and judgments.Since my country’s current law does not have a direct and specific norm for the agreement on the ownership of the property in the divorce agreement,the nature of this agreement is unclear,there are different opinions in the theoretical circle,and there are also various judgment views in judicial practice.The ambiguity of the nature of the agreement on the ownership of the property to the children has caused the judicial practitioners to disagree on whether the parties to the divorce agreement can revoke the agreement,whether the children have the right to petition,and whether the agreement can be excluded from enforcement.The phenomenon of different judgments and different judgments in the same case.When the "Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China"(hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Code")does not clearly stipulate the marriage and family section,this article attempts to adopt a systematic legal interpretation method.The relevant identity relationship agreement may refer to the provisions of the applicable contract according to its nature.To characterize the property ownership agreement as a third-party benefit contract,one can refer to the provisions of Article 522,Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code,Contracts,to respond to the dispute over the nature of the property ownership agreement for the children,and grant the children independence.right of request.Defining the property ownership agreement as a third-party benefit contract can exclude the application of the rules of arbitrary revocation of gifts.However,this agreement is not completely irrevocable.It should be based on the principle of irrevocability,with the exception of revocability.It can be revoked during fraud or coercion,during the cooling-off period of divorce,with the consent of the children,damage to the interests of creditors or changes in circumstances.In the divorce agreement The change of situation rule was introduced to encourage parties to a divorce agreement to "renegotiate".The path of interpretation theory can provide solutions to practical disputes,but it is still necessary to improve the legislation and set up a special system in the marriage and family to protect the identity and property agreement in the marriage relationship.The agreement on the ownership of the property to the children does not directly produce the legal effect of changes in property rights,and the general rules for changes in property rights should still be followed.The child’s right to request for modification of registration based on the third party’s benefit contract is a right to claim for creditor’s rights.When the divorce agreement takes effect and before the registration of property rights transfer is handled,the parties to the divorce agreement have disputes with external creditors,and the property agreed to belong to the children is enforced.Doctrine" determines that the child is not the owner and thus judges that his claim cannot be prevented but enforced.When hearing such cases,the court should insist on substantive examination,and comprehensively judge the priority of children’s substantive rights from factors such as the nature of the rights,the time when the rights were formed,whether the children were at fault for not going through the property transfer registration procedures,and the protection of children’s rights and interests.It is suggested to give the children a certain buffer period to go through the property rights transfer registration procedures.The children should not be considered at fault if they fail to go through the property rights transfer registration procedures during the buffer period.It is recommended to improve the relevant laws or judicial interpretations on the basis of typological research,incorporate the property ownership agreement in the divorce agreement into the types of creditor’s rights that are sufficient to exclude enforcement,and clarify the review standards and conflict judgment rules.