A husband's frequent transfers of money to his ex-wife during their marriage have garnered widespread attention after his current wife filed a lawsuit to recover the funds.
Case Details
Ms. Zhang and her husband, Mr. Wu, married in 2011. After Mr. Wu passed away due to illness, Ms. Zhang discovered numerous transfers made by Mr. Wu to his ex-wife, Ms. Wang, through platforms such as WeChat and Alipay. These transfers included birthday and Valentine's Day gifts totaling over 110,000 RMB, unbeknownst to Ms. Zhang.
Claim and Defense
Outraged, Ms. Zhang filed a lawsuit against Ms. Wang, demanding the return of the disputed funds.
Ms. Wang defended by claiming that she had maintained a mutually supportive relationship with Mr. Wu for many years, including running a business together. As a tobacco retailer, she alleged that Mr. Wu regularly assisted her in purchasing cigarettes. Additionally, she argued that the financial transactions between them were reasonable and justifiable, citing expenses such as tobacco sales, child support payments, birthday and Valentine's Day gifts, and loans she had extended to Mr. Wu.
Court Ruling
The Jinshan Court held that property acquired by spouses during a marriage is considered joint property, and both spouses have equal rights to manage it. Consequently, neither party can unilaterally dispose of joint marital assets.
In this case, the court determined that Mr. Wu's gifts to Ms. Wang during his marriage to Ms. Zhang, such as specific amounts like "520" and "527.77" RMB, and the addition of remarks like "Happy Holidays," "Happy Birthday," and "Happy Valentine's Day" on transfers on special occasions, violated public policy and infringed on Ms. Zhang's property rights. Therefore, these transfers were deemed void.
The court ultimately ordered Ms. Wang to repay over 10,000 RMB to Ms. Zhang.
Additionally, the court noted that the remaining transfers involving child support, cigarette purchases, and loan interest payments were supported by Ms. Wang's evidence indicating other legal relationships. Since Ms. Zhang failed to provide further evidence to establish the gratuitous nature and invalidity of these transfers, the dispute over these funds remained unresolved.
