A classic case of successfully fighting for child custody: successfully fighting for custody of a 4-year-old girl

Successfully fighting for custody of a 4-year-old girl

Jianye Divorce Case

Case Introduction:

A divorce case represented by the well-known Nanjing divorce lawyer Zhuang was filed in the Jianye District People's Court in June 2013.

Presiding judge: Wang Juan

The lawyer organized multiple divorce consultations between the man and the woman, and finally reached a comprehensive agreement.

Results of the case:

1. Both parties divorced;

2. The child is brought up by us, and the other party visits us 2 days a month;

3. The man pays us 350,000 yuan in property discount.

The case is now over. They got divorced one month ago and successfully fought for child custody. The parties involved are very satisfied with the outcome of the case.

Divorce Agreement

Man: A, male, Han nationality, Jianye District, Nanjing City.

Female: B, female, Han nationality, Jianye District, Nanjing City.

The two parties registered their marriage in Gulou District in 2005 and gave birth to a daughter named C in 2007. They are currently in a relationship. It has completely broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation. After both parties reached a consensus through negotiation, the divorce agreement was entered into as follows:

1. Both the man and the woman divorced voluntarily.

2. Child support, support and visitation rights:

The daughter is raised by the woman.

The man currently pays 500 yuan per month, and the two parties will negotiate again after he has a permanent job.

The man can visit the child two days a month (the specific time will be negotiated by both parties and informed by phone in advance).

3. Disposal of property owned by husband and wife:

The man paid the woman 350,000 yuan in two installments, and there was no longer any dispute over property owned by husband and wife. It must be paid within one year after the Civil Affairs Bureau signs the agreement, 200,000 before February 5, 2014, and 150,000 before August 5, 2014.

4. The husband and wife have no identical claims and debts.

Since the divorce was signed, there has been no financial support or contact between the man and woman. No matter whether the man or woman is rich or poor in the future, it will have nothing to do with the other party. After the agreement was signed, the husband and wife have no need for help in life. , neither party has the right to ask for financial support in the future.

This agreement is made in triplicate, with each party holding one copy and the marriage registration agency keeping one copy. It will take effect from the date the marriage registration agency issues the "Divorce Certificate".

Man: (Signature) Woman: (Signature)

July 5, 2013

Classic Case 2 Successfully Fighting for Child Custody Successfully Fighting for a 5-Year-Old Boy Custody rights

Divorce proceedings were divided between multiple couples *** Multiple defenses for the same property were established

Xiaguan District Divorce Case

Case Introduction:

The client in this case is the man, and the woman filed a lawsuit in court for domestic violence, extramarital affairs and other reasons, requesting the court to order divorce, divide the property of the husband and wife, confirm the debts of the husband and wife, confirm the custody rights and alimony, and The defendant was required to compensate for emotional distress.

Results of the trial:

1. The parties were judged to be divorced;

2. The custody rights were judged to belong to us, and the woman should pay 750 yuan in monthly alimony;

p>

3. The judgment is that the house belongs to us, and we will receive 60% of the house share payment, and only pay the woman 40% of the discounted price of the house;

4. Dismiss the woman’s marital debts, domestic violence, and extramarital affairs , claim for loss compensation.

Lawyer comments:

This case is a divorce case that accommodates almost all divorce litigation claims. The judgment in this case is almost like a textbook, integrating legal provisions and judicial practice. and the comprehensive function of social favors.

The client actively sought the help of Nanjing divorce lawyer Zhuang, and successfully settled the divorce case. The client successfully defended the case despite the fact that the other party presented many evidences such as house opening records and alarm records, but the court did not accept it. This case contains extramarital affairs and domestic violence, which does not support the other party’s claim for compensation for mental damages.

Based on the degree of investment of both families in the house investment and the man’s actual contribution to the family, the court adopted Attorney Zhuang’s opinion of a larger share of the property, and our side received an additional share of 200,000 yuan.

This case has come to an end, and the parties involved are very satisfied with the outcome of the case.

Nanjing Xiaguan District People’s Court

Civil Judgment

(2012) Xiaminchu Zi No.

Plaintiff Zhao, female , born in 1979, is an employee of a real estate company, and his residence is in Xuanwu District.

The defendant Liu, male, born in 1976, is an employee of a company and currently lives in Xiaguan District, Nanjing City.

The entrusted agent is lawyer Zhuang, a lawyer from Jiangsu Gefei Law Firm.

The divorce dispute case between the plaintiff Zhao and the defendant Liu was accepted by this court on December 26, 2011. According to the law, the collegial panel was composed of judge Zhao Chongju, acting judge Li Yijun, and people's assessor Liu Jihong, and the hearing was held in public. A trial was held. Plaintiff Zhao, defendant Liu and their authorized agent, lawyer Zhuang, attended the court to participate in the lawsuit. The case has now been concluded.

Plaintiff Zhao claimed that the original defendant registered their marriage through an introduction in March 2006, and had a son named Liu in April 2008. During the marriage, Liu had many inappropriate relationships with colleagues and netizens, was indifferent to his children, and failed to fulfill his due obligations to his family. After Zhao discovered that Liu had an improper relationship with others, Liu not only refused to repent, but committed domestic violence against Zhao, causing serious physical and mental harm to Zhao. In addition, Liu also forged evidence and fabricated debts in an attempt to reduce the joint property of the couple. Zhao no longer has confidence in living with Liu *** and is now suing the court.

In order to support his litigation claims, the plaintiff Zhao submitted the ICBC regular all-in-one account, enrollment bank customer historical transaction inquiry form, IOU, personal loan account inquiry reply form, Guangfa Bank statement, elong Order records from Travel.com, open records of a hotel in Suzhou, medical records, police registration forms, China Merchants Bank account transaction details list, account historical transaction details list and other evidence, and applied for witnesses Zheng, Zhou, and Sun to appear in court to testify.

Defendant Liu argued that the defendant agreed to divorce. The child was directly raised by the defendant, and the plaintiff was required to pay a monthly support of 900 yuan and visit once a month. The house in the property requires the plaintiff to get 25% and the defendant to get 75%, and the loan must be repaid simultaneously. The marital status of the facts and reasons stated by the plaintiff is accepted, but the others are not accepted.

In order to support his defense, defendant Liu submitted his marriage certificate, house ownership certificate, IOU, deposit receipt, receipt on December 16, 2009, receipt on December 10, 2009, and personal intra-city transfer Voucher, receipt on September 28, 2009, bank customer reply, Nanjing existing housing sales contract, unified invoice for sales of real estate, deed tax payment certificate, receipt on December 14, 2011, IOU, Nanjing Bank savings deposit receipt, Nanjing Bank savings and withdrawal receipts, explanations, statements, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China account slips, Nanjing Bank account transaction statements, account historical transaction details and other evidence, and applied for witnesses Jiang and Liu to appear in court to testify.

After trial, it was found that in March 2005, the original defendant met through someone's introduction, and registered their marriage on March 7, 2006. After the marriage, the relationship between the couple was still good, and they had a son, Liu, on April 11, 2008. certain. At 22:50 on August 1, 2011, the plaintiff Zhao had a conflict with the defendant Liu due to marital issues, and called the police claiming that the defendant Liu beat her at home; the plaintiff Zhao later went to the hospital for treatment. At 23:38 on November 15, 2011, the plaintiff Zhao called the police and claimed that Liu was afraid that he would lose the case because of a real estate dispute, so he violently committed violence against him. The hospital diagnosed him with multiple soft tissue traumas all over his body. Later, the conflict between the two parties further worsened, and the two parties began to separate on November 18, 2011.

In September 2009, Liu's father sold a house under his name in Gulou District, Nanjing City, for a transfer price of 605,000 yuan. On September 26, 2009, plaintiff Zhao collected a deposit of 10,000 yuan for the house. Plaintiff Zhao stated that the deposit of 10,000 yuan had been given to Liu's father; on September 28, 2009, Liu received 50,000 yuan for the house and later handed it over to Liu's father. Plaintiff Zhao: On December 16, 2009, plaintiff Zhao collected 5,000 yuan for the house on his behalf. Plaintiff Zhao took Liu's father to pay the tax of 6,050 yuan that Liu's father should bear.

In September 2009, the original defendant purchased a house located in Xiaguan District, Nanjing City for a total price of 800,000 yuan, including a down payment of 600,000 yuan and a bank loan of 200,000 yuan. The plaintiff and defendant paid 8,000 yuan in deed tax and 8,000 yuan in agency fees for the house. Plaintiff Zhao admitted that the 595,000 yuan received from the house payment would be used to pay for the house. The registered owners of the house are Liu and Zhao. Both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that as of October 9, 2012, the principal amount of the loan from Nanjing Bank was 140,000 yuan.

It was also found that the plaintiff Zhao issued seven "IOUs". The first "IOU" stated: "I will borrow RMB 50,000 from Zheng Xiarong for the purchase of real estate. This is the basis for this. 2009.9. 26"; the second "IOU" stated: "I am borrowing RMB 100,000 from someone to purchase a real estate, and this is hereby issued on September 30, 2009"; the third "IOU" stated: "I am hereby borrowing RMB 100,000 from someone to purchase a real estate." Zhou and Sun borrowed 4,000 yuan in cash to pay for legal fees, which is scheduled to be returned before July 13, 2012, 2011.14." The fourth "IOU" stated: "I borrow 1 cash from Zhou and Sun today. Ten thousand yuan is used to pay the appraisal fee of Jinling Laboratory, and it is tentatively scheduled to be returned on September 2, 2012. This receipt is 2011.9.3"; the fifth "IOU" states: "This is borrowed from Zhou and Sun. The cash is RMB 5,000, used to pay for the rent, and the loan period is one year, November 18, 2011." The sixth "IOU" states: "I borrow RMB 10,000 in cash from Sun and Zhou to pay for the house. The rental fee is scheduled to be returned before August 8, 2013. This is based on August 8, 2012." On July 15, 2011, plaintiff Zhao paid 4,000 yuan in attorney fees. The appraisal fee paid in advance by the plaintiff Zhao to the Nanjing Jinling Forensic Appraisal Institute has been returned to the plaintiff Zhao.

Defendant Liu issued four "IOUs" or "IOUs". The first "IOU" stated: "Today, I borrowed RMB 100,000 from Liu's father and Liu's mother to purchase a house in Huaimen. Five thousand yuan will be repaid in ten years on November 20, 2009"; the second "IOU" stated: "The total amount of RMB 10,020 will be borrowed from Liu to repay Liu Xian's loan to purchase a house in Huaimen. . The repayment of this period is 10,020 yuan on September 9th.

2011.9.8"; the third "IOU" stated: "Today I borrow RMB 10,000 from Liu to repay the mortgage. 2011.12.14"; the fourth "IOU" stated: "Today I borrow RMB 10,020 from He to repay the mortgage. This drama! July 3, 2012.

Further investigation revealed that the plaintiff Zhao’s average monthly salary from November 2011 to October 2012 was approximately 3,489 yuan. The defendant Liu’s salary from August 1, 2011 to 2012 The total salary income on June 30 was 70,922.26 yuan. From August 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012, the defendant Liu repaid the bank housing loan of 30,000 yuan.

The plaintiff and the defendant agreed that they are currently in the house. The house payment and housing provident fund of each person belong to each person and are not required to be handled by the court.

During the trial, based on Liu's application, this court entrusted the Nanjing Normal University Judicial Appraisal Center to issue a payment date to the defendant Liu in 2009. The date of formation of the "IOU" was identified on November 20, 2009. The appraisal opinion was that the date of inspection was "November 20, 2009" and the formation time of the black handwriting on the "IOU" was the same period as February 2011. Chen believed that there was a big deviation in the time when the appraisal opinion was formed. On August 10, 2012, the appraiser came to court for questioning. After cross-examination in court, the plaintiff Zhao had no objection to the appraisal opinion. The opinion is based on the different storage conditions of the test materials and comparison samples, and the materials and samples are not specifically stated. The identification opinions drawn in this way are hypothetical conclusions and are wrong. The appraiser stated: The identification report will be regarded as without special instructions. With the same storage conditions, such as manual handling, we have studied for many years, and the difference will not be too big. This technology uses laser Raman light to excite 325NM, which can effectively avoid the interference of paper, so we have fully considered this situation from the material point of view. Look, except for the openings left by the previous identification, no other man-made damage was seen, so we can only consider the spectrum of the test material and the spectrum of the sample to be the same, and they are consistent. sex; our conclusion is that it is the same period, which is not the same day, nor at the same time, nor at the same time. There may be a certain error. As far as this case is concerned, the time when the test material is formed and the time when the sample is formed should not be the same. More than five months; all our identifications have not been quantified to a specific value. They are obtained through comparison. If there is a certain gap in the spectra, the peak intensity can be seen.

Under review, due to reasons. The defendant and the defendant were unable to reach an agreement on the price of the house located on Dinghuaimen Street, Xiaguan District, Nanjing City. Based on the application of the plaintiff Zhao, this court entrusted a Jiangsu land and real estate appraisal consulting company to evaluate the price of the house. The assessed value was 1.1616 million yuan. There was no opinion on the assessed value. The defendant Liu Chen believed that there was no record of the actual transaction price in the report, and the assessment result was invalid.

During the trial, the defendant Liu beat the plaintiff Zhao, who was treated in the hospital. ** *The total medical expenses and transportation expenses were 576.2 yuan, and it was recommended to take three days of rest. The plaintiff Zhao believed that the defendant Liu should pay compensation of 1,000 yuan. In this regard, the defendant Liu agreed to compensate the original Zhao and medical expenses and other losses of more than 700 yuan. The facts include statements from the plaintiff and defendant, marriage certificates, police work registration forms, medical records, disease diagnosis certificates, existing housing sales contracts in Nanjing, deposit receipts, receipts, tax payment certificates, house ownership certificates, IOUs, bank of Nanjing Evidence such as account transaction statements, account historical transaction details, China Merchants Bank account transaction details, transportation invoices, registration, diagnosis and treatment fee receipts, outpatient medical fee receipts and other evidences are sufficient to confirm.

This court made the following analysis and determination of the plaintiff and defendant’s litigation claims and facts:

1. Regarding the issue of whether the deposit of 10,000 yuan was given to Liu’s father

Plaintiff Zhao believed that the deposit of 10,000 yuan he received had been given to Liu's father. Defendant Liu believed that the deposit of 10,000 yuan was not given to Liu's father. This court held that the plaintiff Zhao failed to provide evidence to prove that he handed over 10,000 yuan to Liu, so the opinion of the plaintiff Zhao was not accepted.

2. Regarding the issue of whether the plaintiff Zhao handed over 250,000 yuan to Liu

The plaintiff Zhao believed that he had deposited 100,000 yuan together as a couple and borrowed 150,000 yuan from his parents. Ten thousand yuan was given to Liu's father. Defendant Liu did not acknowledge this. This court held that the plaintiff Zhao failed to provide evidence to prove that he handed over the above-mentioned money to Liu's father, so the opinion of the plaintiff Zhao was not accepted.

3. Regarding the composition of the down payment of 600,000 yuan

Plaintiff Zhao believes that the down payment of 600,000 yuan was given by Liu’s parents of 350,000 yuan, and the couple had a deposit of 10 Ten thousand yuan, composed of 150,000 yuan paid by his parents. Defendant Liu believed that the down payment of 600,000 yuan was paid by his parents when they sold the house. This court held that the court review found that the plaintiff Zhao received 605,000 yuan in house payment and recognized that 595,000 yuan was used to pay for the house. Plaintiff Zhao said that the 100,000 yuan deposit was used to purchase a house, which is inconsistent with the facts. At the same time, the plaintiff Zhao believed that his parents gave him 150,000 yuan. However, there was no other evidence to support this claim except the testimony of his parents. Therefore, this court did not accept it. It should be determined that the down payment of 600,000 yuan was the proceeds from the sale of the house by the defendant’s parents and was paid by the plaintiff. Zhao actually paid.

4. Regarding whether defendant Liu has an improper relationship with others

Plaintiff Zhao believes that Liu has an improper relationship with others. Defendant Liu believes that it does not exist.

This court believes that the order records and open records submitted by the plaintiff Zhao to eLong Travel are both copies, which are not enough to prove that the defendant Liu has an improper relationship with others. Therefore, the plaintiff Zhao believes that there is insufficient evidence that Liu has an improper relationship with others.

5. Regarding whether defendant Liu committed domestic violence

Plaintiff Zhao believed that defendant Liu committed domestic violence. Defendant Liu believed that no domestic violence was committed. This court held that although the defendant Liu hit the plaintiff Zhao, the consequences did not constitute domestic violence.

6. Regarding the acceptance of the appraisal opinion on the time when the IOU was formed

Plaintiff Zhao has no objection to the appraisal opinion on the time when the IOU was formed. Defendant Liu believed that the appraisal conclusion was wrong. Regarding the different storage conditions of the inspection materials and comparison samples, the materials and samples were not specifically stated. Such appraisal conclusion was a hypothetical conclusion. This court believes that the appraisal procedure of the time when the IOU was formed was legal. The comparison sample was used after both parties agreed and the comparison sample retained by the appraisal institution was used. The comparison sample submitted by the defendant Liu did not meet the appraisal requirements. The appraisal personnel also appeared in court to accept the sample. Therefore, the defendant Liu believed that the reason for not accepting the appraisal opinion was untenable and the appraisal opinion should be accepted.

7. Regarding the acceptance of the house value appraisal report

Plaintiff Zhao has no objection to the house appraisal report. Defendant Liu believed that there was no record of the actual transaction price in the report, and the evaluation result was invalid. This court held that although the report did not record the actual price, the defendant Liu also proposed that the appraisal report should record the actual transaction price. The appraisal procedure was legal and there was nothing inappropriate in the appraisal report. Therefore, the appraisal report should be accepted. The defendant Liu’s The defense opinions will not be accepted.

8 Questions about the nature of debt

1. Regarding the plaintiff Zhao’s claim that the husband and wife have the same debt

2. About borrowing 150,000 from Zheng Yuan of debt. The loan of 150,000 yuan was composed of a loan of 50,000 yuan on September 26, 2009 and a loan of 100,000 yuan on September 30, 2009. The plaintiff Zhao believed that the loan was a joint debt between the husband and wife, and the loan was used to purchase real estate. Defendant Liu did not acknowledge this. This court believes that the existing evidence of the plaintiff Zhao cannot prove that the loan was used to purchase real estate. Even if the debt of 150,000 yuan exists, it should be the personal debt of the plaintiff Zhao, not the joint debt of the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. Regarding the debt of 4,000 yuan borrowed from Zhou Hesun. Plaintiff Zhao believes that the loan was a joint debt between husband and wife, and the loan was used to pay attorney fees. Defendant Liu did not acknowledge this. This court believes that the fee paid by the plaintiff Zhao to hire a lawyer when borrowing the loan was not for the debt incurred by the couple to live together, but for the expenses incurred by his own law firm. Therefore, the 4,000 yuan debt was the plaintiff's debt. Zhao's personal debts, rather than the joint debts of both the plaintiff and the defendant.

4. Regarding the debt of 10,000 yuan borrowed from Zhou Hesun on September 3, 2011. Plaintiff Zhao believes that the loan was a joint debt between husband and wife, and the loan was used to pay for the appraisal fees of the Jinling Appraisal Institute. Defendant Liu did not acknowledge this. This court believes that the loan was the plaintiff Zhao’s payment for the appraisal fees that should be paid in advance by Zhao in the lawsuit. The appraisal fees were expenses incurred by the plaintiff Zhao to prove his defense, rather than for the couple to live together. . Now the appraisal fee has been refunded to plaintiff Zhao. Zhao claimed that the refunded appraisal fee was used for family life. However, plaintiff Zhao failed to provide evidence to prove that the refunded money was used for family life, and plaintiff Zhao’s salary income can still meet plaintiff Zhao’s normal living expenses. , there is no need to borrow money to pay living expenses, so the debt of 10,000 yuan should be regarded as the debt of the plaintiff Zhao individually, rather than the joint debt of the husband and wife between the plaintiff and the defendant.

5. Regarding the debt of 15,600 yuan borrowed from Zhou Hesun. The 15,600 yuan is composed of a loan of 5,600 yuan on November 18, 2011 and a loan of 10,000 yuan on April 26, 2012. Plaintiff Zhao believes that the loan was a joint debt between husband and wife, and the loan was used to pay for rent. Defendant Liu did not acknowledge this. This court believes that the average monthly salary of the plaintiff Zhao is 3,489 yuan, which can cover his living, renting and other expenses. There is no need to borrow money to pay the rent. Therefore, the loan of 15,600 yuan should be regarded as a personal debt that the plaintiff Zhao expanded on his own, rather than The plaintiff and defendant share the same debt as husband and wife.

6. Regarding the debt of 10,000 yuan borrowed from Sun and Zhou on August 8, 2012. Plaintiff Zhao believes that the loan was a joint debt between husband and wife, and the loan was used to pay for the house appraisal. Defendant Liu did not acknowledge this. This court held that plaintiff Zhao and witness Sun’s statements regarding the purpose of the loan were inconsistent. Plaintiff Zhao finally stated that the money was used to pay for house appraisal fees. The house appraisal fee is a fee paid in advance by the plaintiff Zhao to prove his claim, and the issue of bearing the cost will be dealt with in this case. Therefore, the 10,000 yuan loan should be regarded as the personal debt of the plaintiff Zhao, rather than between the plaintiff and the defendant. The couple has the same debt.

About the defendant Liu’s claim that the husband and wife have the same debt

1. Regarding the debt of 605,000 yuan borrowed from Liu and Jiang. Defendant Liu believed that the loan was a joint debt between husband and wife, and the loan was used to purchase a house. Plaintiff Zhao believed that there was no loan but a gift. This court believes that the "IOU" for the loan was identified as being formed in the same period as February 2011, indicating that the IOU was written after the fact.

According to the payment date of November 20, 2009, RMB 255,000 of the loan of RMB 605,000 was unpaid. The evidence available to defendant Liu is not enough to prove that Liu and Zhao borrowed 605,000 yuan from Liu's parents. Since they were defendant Liu's parents, it is more likely that the 605,000 yuan was donated to Liu and Zhao. Defendant Liu's subsequent voluntary repayment of 605,000 yuan to Liu's parents should be regarded as defendant Liu's personal debt, not the original and defendant's joint debt.

2. Regarding the debt of 22,000 yuan borrowed from Liu and 12,000 yuan borrowed from He. The 22,000 yuan borrowed from Liu included a loan of 12,000 yuan on September 8, 2011, and a loan of 10,000 yuan on December 14, 2011. Defendant Liu believed that these loans were joint debts between husband and wife, and the loans were used to repay the housing loan. Plaintiff Zhao disagrees with this. This court believes that the total salary income of the defendant Liu from August 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 was 70,922.26 yuan, and the defendant Liu paid back the bank house from August 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. The total loan amount is 30,000 yuan. It is not difficult to see that the defendant Liu has no need to borrow a bank housing loan. Therefore, the loan should be deemed to be a personal debt that the defendant Liu expanded on his own, rather than a joint debt between the original and defendant.

To sum up, this court believes that. If the couple's relationship has truly broken down and mediation is ineffective, divorce should be granted. Now the defendant agrees to divorce, so this court allows the plaintiff’s request for a divorce. Regarding the custody and visitation issues for Liu (the son of the original defendant), both parties agreed that Liu would be directly raised by defendant Liu, but the two parties could not reach an agreement on the standard of support and visitation issues. Based on the actual salary income of the plaintiff Zhao, this court decided that the plaintiff Zhao should pay alimony at the standard of 750 yuan per month until Liu can live independently. Regarding the issue of visitation, and based on the actual situation of the plaintiff, defendant and their children, this court believes that it is appropriate for the plaintiff Zhao to visit Liu once every two weeks, picking him up in the morning and sending him back before the 17th of the next day. The defendant Liu should provide assistance in this regard. About house division. The house was appraised to be worth 1.1616 million yuan. Defendant Liu advocated for the house, and plaintiff Zhao demanded that the defendant pay half of the compensation. Since there is an outstanding bank loan principal balance of RMB 140,000 on the house, and both parties agree that defendant Liu claims ownership of the house, the outstanding loan principal balance of RMB 140,000 can be deducted from the total value of the house, and the loan principal is RMB 140,000. Defendant Liu was responsible for repaying and dividing the house value of 1.0216 million yuan after deducting the loan. Since the defendant Liu claimed the ownership of the house, the defendant Liu should give the plaintiff Zhao corresponding compensation. Regarding the amount of compensation, in view of the fact that the defendant Liu needs to directly raise the children, from the perspective of balancing the interests of both parties, this court determined that the house compensation is 410,000 yuan. Regarding the issue that the plaintiff Zhao believes that the defendant Liu has domestic violence, improper relationships with others, and fictitious debts, the plaintiff should divide the property more. Plaintiff Zhao has insufficient evidence that defendant Liu has domestic violence and improper relationships with others. At the same time, both parties are engaged in behaviors that expand debts. Therefore, this court does not support plaintiff Zhao’s claim. This court supports the plaintiff Zhao’s claim that the personal clothes in the house belong to him and are in compliance with the law. Regarding the issue of compensation for losses caused by the defendant Liu hitting the plaintiff during the trial. Since the defendant Liu hit the plaintiff Zhao during the trial, the issue of compensation for damages should be dealt with together in this case. Defendant Liu was at fault for beating the plaintiff during the trial, and should be liable for compensation for the medical expenses, transportation expenses, lost work expenses and other losses incurred by plaintiff Zhao as a result of the beating. Plaintiff Zhao failed to provide evidence to prove the amount of his lost work wages. Now defendant Liu agreed to compensate plaintiff Zhao for lost work wages, medical expenses and other losses of 700 yuan, and this court confirmed this. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 17, Article 32, Paragraph 2, Article 37, Paragraph 1, Article 38, and Article 39 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 6, paragraph 1, and article 16 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 40, paragraph 1, and article 64, first, of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China According to the provisions of this paragraph, the judgment is as follows:

1. The plaintiff Zhao and the defendant Liu are allowed to divorce;

2. The son Liu born to both parties will be directly raised by the defendant, and the plaintiff Zhao will pay monthly The alimony is 750 yuan until Liu lives independently; the plaintiff Zhao visits Liu once every two weeks, picks him up in the morning and returns him before 17:00 the next day, and the defendant Liu should provide assistance;

3. Location The house in Xiaguan District, Nanjing City belongs to the defendant Liu; the principal amount of the Nanjing Bank loan of 140,000 yuan will be repaid by the defendant Liu; the personal clothes of the plaintiff Zhao in the house belong to the plaintiff;

4. The defendant Liu Within ten days from the date when this judgment becomes legally effective, the plaintiff Zhao will be paid 410,000 yuan in housing compensation;

5. The defendant Liu will compensate the plaintiff 700 yuan for medical expenses, transportation expenses, lost work expenses and other losses (already paid) ;

6. Reject plaintiff Zhao’s other claims.

If the monetary payment obligation is not performed within the period specified in the judgment, the debt for the period of delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with the provisions of Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Interest.

The case acceptance fee is 5,168 yuan, the appraisal fee is 17,100 yuan, and the appraiser's appearance fee is 300 yuan, totaling 22,568 yuan. This amount has been prepaid by the plaintiff Zhao of 12,868 yuan, the defendant Liu has prepaid 9,700 yuan, and the plaintiff Zhao has borne 6,000 yuan. , defendant Liu paid 16,568 yuan.

If you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you can submit an appeal to this court within fifteen days from the date of delivery of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of opposing parties, and appeal to the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province.

Presiding Judge Zhao Chongju

Acting Judge Li Yijun

People's Assessor Liu Jihong

November 20, 2012 Three Days

Trainee Clerk Bian Rong

Classic Case 3 Successfully Fighting for Child Custody Rights Successfully Fighting for Custody Rights for a 1 and a Half Year Old Boy

Successfully Fighting for Divorce for a 1 and a Half Year Old Boy Custody of boy - Divorce case in Liuhe District

Divorce case in Liuhe District, Nanjing

The woman successfully divorced - obtained custody of a 1.5-year-old boy

Case introduction:< /p>

The client could not reach an agreement with her husband due to divorce disputes and custody rights, so she filed a lawsuit in court and entrusted the well-known Nanjing divorce lawyer Zhuang to represent her throughout the process.

Results of the case:

The court ruled that the two parties were divorced, and the custody of the children belonged to us, and the other party paid 20% of the alimony.

Lawyer comments:

During the trial of this case, the defendant has always disagreed with the divorce and insisted that the children be brought up by him. In addition to providing the court with a large amount of litigation evidence and multiple lawyer opinions, we In addition, he worked on the defendant's ideological work in a more profound and simple way, but the defendant still could not figure it out. At the end of the trial, Lawyer Zhuang once again wrote to the judge, hoping that he would interview the defendant again to resolve the case harmoniously based on the overall situation of the case.

When the court finally communicated with the defendant again, the defendant agreed that if the plaintiff insisted on divorce, the custody of the children could be given to us, but he was only willing to pay monthly support of 500 yuan.

This case has ended, and the parties involved are very satisfied with the outcome of the case.