A 4-year-old girl who successfully won custody.
Jianye divorce case
Case introduction:
A divorce case represented by Zhuang, a well-known divorce lawyer in Nanjing, was filed in jianye district People's Court on June 20 13.
Presiding Judge: Wang Juan
At present, lawyers have organized divorce negotiations between men and women for many times, and finally reached a comprehensive agreement.
Case results:
1, both parties divorce;
2. The children are raised by us, and the other party visits for 2 days every month;
The man gave us a discount of 350,000 yuan.
At this point, the case ended, divorced for one month, and successfully obtained custody of the child. The parties are very satisfied with the outcome of the case.
divorce agreement
Man: A, male, Han nationality, from jianye district.
Female: B, female, Han nationality, from jianye district.
The two parties registered their marriage in Gulou District in 2005 and gave birth to a daughter named C in 2007. Now the relationship between husband and wife has completely broken down, and there is no possibility of reconciliation. Through negotiation, both parties reached the following divorce agreement:
First, both men and women voluntarily divorce.
Two, children's support, maintenance and visitation rights:
The daughter is raised by the woman.
The man pays 500 yuan every month at this stage, and the two sides will negotiate after he has a fixed job.
The man can visit his children for two days every month (the specific time will be negotiated by both parties and informed by phone in advance).
Three, husband and wife * * * with property:
The man paid the woman 350,000 yuan twice, and there was no property dispute between husband and wife. The payment shall be made within one year after the Civil Affairs Bureau signs the agreement, 200,000 yuan before 438+04 on February 5, 1965, and 654.38 million yuan before 438+04 on August 5, 1965.
4. Both husband and wife have no creditor's rights and debts.
Since the divorce was signed, there has been no economic support and contact between men and women. Whether men or women, rich or poor, there will be no relationship in the future. After the signing of the agreement, if both husband and wife have no difficulties in life and need help, they have no right to ask for financial assistance in the future.
This agreement is made in triplicate, one for each party and one for the marriage registration authority, which shall come into effect as of the date when the marriage registration authority issues the divorce certificate.
Male: (signature) Female: (signature)
July 5, 2065 438+03
Successful child custody classic case 2 Successful child custody for a 5-year-old boy.
Divorce proceedings are divided into several points. Couples use real estate for multiple defenses.
Divorce case in Xiaguan District
Case introduction:
The party in this case is the man, and the woman sued the court for domestic violence, extramarital affairs and other reasons, asking the court to order divorce, divide the property of husband and wife, confirm the debts of husband and wife, confirm the custody and maintenance, and demand the defendant to compensate for mental losses.
Test results:
1, both parties were sentenced to divorce;
2. The judgment custody belongs to us, and the woman pays 750 yuan alimony every month;
3. Decided that the house belongs to us, we get 60% of the house share, and only pay the woman a 40% house discount;
4. Reject the woman's claim for compensation for husband and wife's debts, domestic violence, extramarital affairs and losses.
Lawyer's comments:
This case is a divorce case that can accommodate almost all divorce claims, and the judgment of this case is almost a teaching book, which has the comprehensive functions of integrating legal provisions, judicial practice and social emotions.
The parties actively sought the help of Nanjing divorce lawyer Zhuang, and successfully mediated the divorce case. He successfully defended the case when the other party produced a number of evidences such as the opening record and the alarm record. The court did not identify the case as extramarital affairs and domestic violence, so it did not support the other party's request for compensation for mental losses.
Combined with the investment of both families in housing investment and the man's actual contribution to the family, the court adopted lawyer Zhuang's agency opinion and divided the property more, and we divided 200,000 yuan more.
At this point, the case is over and the parties are very satisfied with the result.
Nanjing Xiaguan District People's Court
paper of civil judgment
(20 12) Early Republic of China
Plaintiff Zhao, female, born in 1979, is an employee of a real estate company and lives in Xuanwu District.
Defendant Liu, male, born in 1976, is an employee of a company and now lives in Xiaguan District, Nanjing.
Lawyer Zhuang, lawyer of Jiangsu Law Firm.
On February 26th, 2006, our hospital filed a case of divorce dispute between plaintiff Zhao and defendant Liu. A collegial panel composed of Judge Zhao Zhongju, Acting Judge Li Yijun and People's Juror Liu Jihong held a public hearing in accordance with the law. Plaintiff Zhao, defendant Liu and their entrusted agent Zhuang attended the proceedings in court. The case has now been closed.
Plaintiff Zhao claimed that she was introduced to marry the original defendant in March 2006 and gave birth to her son Liu in April 2008. In the marriage relationship, Liu repeatedly had proper relationship with colleagues and netizens, ignored the children and failed to fulfill his due obligations to his family. After Zhao discovered that Liu was having an affair with others, Liu not only did not repent, but instead committed domestic violence against Zhao, causing serious physical and mental harm to Zhao. In addition, Liu forged evidence and fictitious debts in an attempt to reduce the property of husband and wife. Zhao has no confidence in living with Liu * * *, and is now suing the court.
In order to support his claim, plaintiff zhaowei submitted evidence such as China Industrial and Commercial Bank's regular one-card card, student bank's historical transaction inquiry form, debit note and personal loan inquiry form, Guangfa Bank's statement, travel network's order record, Suzhou hotel's opening record, medical records, alarm registration form, China Merchants Bank's detailed account transaction list, detailed account transaction list and so on, and applied for witnesses Zheng, Zhou and Sun to testify in court.
Defendant Liu argued that the defendant agreed to divorce. The child was directly raised by the defendant, and the plaintiff was required to pay monthly maintenance fee to 900 yuan and visit him once a month. The house in the real estate requires the plaintiff to take 25%, the defendant to take 75% and repay the loan. The marital status in the facts and reasons stated by the plaintiff shall be recognized, and others shall not be recognized.
Defendant Liu Wei supported his defense, and submitted marriage certificate, house ownership certificate, IOUs, deposit receipts, 65438+February 65438, June 2009 receipts, 65438+February 65438, February 2009 personal transfer vouchers in the same city, September 28, 2009 receipts, bank customer receipts and Nanjing stock. 20111214, receipt, loan slip, deposit slip of Nanjing Bank, deposit and withdrawal slip of Nanjing Bank, statement of China Industrial and Commercial Bank, account transaction statement of Nanjing Bank, account historical transaction list and other evidence, and applied for witnesses Jiang and Liu to testify in court.
It was found through trial that in March 2005, the original defendant was introduced and married on March 7, 2006. After marriage, the relationship between husband and wife was good, and they had a son Liu on April 1 1 2008. 20 11August1day at 22: 50, the plaintiff Zhao had a conflict with the defendant Liu due to marriage problems and reported to the police that the defendant Liu had hit her at home; After the plaintiff Zhao went to the hospital for treatment. At 201111/5 at 23: 38, the plaintiff Zhao reported to the police that Liu had filed a property dispute with him, fearing that he would lose the case, and violently attacked him, which was diagnosed as multiple soft tissue injuries all over the body by the hospital. After that, the contradiction between the two sides further deteriorated, and the two sides began to separate on 2011118.
In September 2009, Liu's father sold a house under his name in Gulou District, Nanjing, with a transfer price of 605,000 yuan. On September 26th, 2009, the plaintiff Zhao collected the down payment of 65,438+00,000 yuan on his behalf, and the plaintiff Zhao said that the down payment of 65,438+00,000 yuan had been paid to Liu's father. On September 28th, 2009, Liu received the house payment of RMB 50,000.00 Yuan and handed it over to Zhao, the plaintiff. On June 65438+February 65438+February 6, 2009, the plaintiff Zhao collected the house payment of 5000 yuan on his behalf. Zhao, the plaintiff, took Liu's father to pay the tax payable by Liu's father of 6,050 yuan.
In September 2009, the original defendant purchased a house in Xiaguan District of Nanjing with a total price of 800,000 yuan, including a down payment of 600,000 yuan and a bank loan of 200,000 yuan. The original defendant paid the deed tax of 8,000 yuan and the agency fee of 8,000 yuan for the house. Zhao, the plaintiff, recognized that 595,000 yuan of the house payment received was used to pay the house payment. The registered owners of the property are Liu and Zhao, and the original defendant and the defendant unanimously recognized that as of 2065.438+02. 10.9, the loan principal of Nanjing Bank was 654.38+04 million yuan.
It was also found that the plaintiff Zhao issued seven IOUs, the first of which stated: "I hereby borrow RMB 50,000 from Zheng Xiarong to purchase real estate. 2009.9.26"; The second "IOU" stated that "I borrowed from someone today100,000 yuan to buy real estate, which is special evidence. 2009.9.30"; The third IOU stated: "I borrowed 4,000 yuan in cash from Zhou and Sun to pay the lawyer's fee, and it is scheduled to be returned before July 12. 20 1 17. 14"; The fourth IOU states: "Zhou and Sun are borrowing RMB 10,000 in cash to pay the appraisal fee of Jinling Appraisal Institute, which is tentatively scheduled to be returned on September 2, 20 12. According to this! 20 1 1.9.3"; The fifth "IOU" stated: "I borrowed RMB 5,000 from Zhou and Sun to pay the rent. The loan period is one year. 20 1 1. 1 1. 18"; The sixth "IOU" states: "Today, I borrowed 10,000 yuan from Zhou in cash to pay the house rental fee, and it is scheduled to be returned before August 8, 2003. According to this! 20 12.8.8"。 On July 6, 20 1 1 year, plaintiff Zhao paid the lawyer's fee of 4,000 yuan. The appraisal fee paid by plaintiff Zhao to Nanjing Jinling Judicial Appraisal Institute has been returned to plaintiff Zhao.
Defendant Liu issued four IOUs or IOUs. The first IOU stated: "I borrowed 605,000 yuan from Liu's parents and bought a house in Huaimen, which will be paid off in ten years. 165438+20091October 20th "; The second "IOU" stated: "I borrowed RMB 12000 from Liu today to repay Liu's loan to buy a house in Huaimen. The repayment in this installment is 12000 yuan only, and the repayment time is September 9. 20 1 1.9.8"; The third "IOU" stated: "I borrowed RMB 10000 from Liu today to repay the mortgage. 20 1 1. 12. 14"; The fourth "IOU" stated: "Where do you borrow 12,000 yuan for mortgage repayment? This play! 20 12.7.3"。
It was found that the average monthly salary of plaintiff Zhao from October 2011year 10 to June 20 12 was about 3489 yuan. Defendant Liu Zi's total wage income from August 20 1 1 year to June 30, 201February was RMB 70,922.26. Defendant Liu repaid the bank housing loan of 30,000 yuan from August 1 1 to June 30, 2006.
The original defendant unanimously agreed that the house payment and housing accumulation fund currently in the owner's office belonged to the owner and did not require the court to handle it.
During the trial, according to Liu's application, our court entrusted the Judicial Appraisal Center of Nanjing Normal University to appraise the formation time of the IOU issued by the defendant Liu, and the appraisal date was 165438+20091October 20th. The appraisal opinion is: the period of material inspection is "165438+2009120 October", and the formation time of black handwriting in the loan slip is 2066. Defendant Liu Chen believed that there was a big deviation in the formation time of expert opinions, and applied for the expert witness to appear in court for interrogation. On August 20 12 10, the appraisers appeared in court for questioning. After cross-examination in court, the plaintiff Zhao had no objection to the appraisal opinion. Defendant Liu believes that the appraisal opinion is based on the different storage conditions, materials and samples of the samples, and the appraisal opinion thus obtained is hypothetical and wrong. Appraiser's statement: the appraisal report shows that it is considered to be the same storage condition without special instructions, such as manual treatment. After years of research, the gap 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, we didn't see any man-made damage except the hole left by the previous appraisal, and we can only think that it is the same storage condition. The spectrogram of the sample is the same as that of the sample, and they are consistent; Our conclusion is that there may be some errors between the same period and the same period, not on the same day, not at the same time, nor at the same time. As far as this case is concerned, the sample formation and the sample formation time should not exceed five months. All our identities are not quantified to a specific value, but come from comparison. If there is a certain gap in the spectrum, you can see the peak intensity.
During the trial, because the original defendant and the defendant could not reach an agreement on the house price at Dinghuaimen Street, Xiaguan District, Nanjing, according to the application of plaintiff Zhao, our court entrusted a land real estate appraisal consulting company in Jiangsu to appraise the house price, and the appraisal value was116160000 yuan. Zhao, the plaintiff, has no opinion on the appraisal value. Defendant Liu Chen thought that the report did not record the actual transaction price, and the evaluation result was invalid.
During the trial, the defendant Liu beat the plaintiff Zhao, who was treated in the hospital. Medical expenses and transportation expenses total 576.2 yuan, and it is recommended to take a three-day vacation. Zhao, the plaintiff, thinks that Liu, the defendant, should pay compensation of 1000 yuan. In this regard, the defendant Liu agreed to compensate the original Zhao and medical expenses and other losses 700 yuan.
The above facts are supported by the original defendant's statement, marriage certificate, public security registration form, medical record, disease diagnosis certificate, Nanjing stock house sales contract, deposit receipt, receipt, deed tax payment certificate, house ownership certificate, iou, debit note, Nanjing bank account transaction statement, account historical transaction list, China Merchants Bank account transaction list, traffic invoice, registration, medical treatment fee receipt, outpatient medical treatment fee receipt and other evidence, which is sufficient for identification.
In view of the claims and facts of the original defendant, our court analyzed and concluded as follows:
1. Did the down payment 10000 yuan go to Liu's father?
Zhao, the plaintiff, thinks that the deposit of 654.38 million yuan he collected has been paid to Liu's father. Defendant Liu believed that the deposit of 65,438 yuan+0,000 yuan was not paid to Liu's father. Our court believes that the plaintiff Zhao failed to prove that he gave Liu 6,543,800 yuan, so the plaintiff Zhao's opinion was not adopted.
2. Regarding whether the plaintiff Zhao gave Liu 250,000 yuan.
The plaintiff Zhao believed that he had given Liu's father a deposit of 654.38 million yuan and his parents a loan of 654.38 million yuan. Defendant Liu denied this. In our court's opinion, the plaintiff Zhao failed to prove that he gave the above money to Liu's father, so the plaintiff Zhao's opinion was not adopted.
3. About the composition of 600,000 down payment.
Zhao, the plaintiff, believed that the 600,000-yuan head of state payment consisted of 350,000 yuan given by Liu's parents, 654.38+million yuan jointly deposited by husband and wife, and/kloc-0.50 million yuan paid by parents. Defendant Liu believes that the down payment of 600,000 yuan was paid by his parents who sold the house. We believe that it was found through trial that the plaintiff Zhao received the house payment of 605,000 yuan, of which 595,000 yuan was determined to be used to pay the house payment. The plaintiff Zhao said that 654.38+10,000 yuan was inconsistent with the fact that the deposit was used to buy a house. At the same time, Zhao, the plaintiff, thinks that his parents gave 6.5438+0.5 million yuan, but this claim is not supported by other evidence except his parents' testimony, and this court will not adopt it. It should be considered that the down payment of 600,000 yuan is the income from the sale of the house by the defendant's parents and paid by the plaintiff Zhao.
4. Regarding whether the defendant Liu and others exist in proper relationship.
Zhao, the plaintiff, thinks that Liu has no proper relationship with others. Defendant Liu believes that it does not exist. In our court's opinion, the order records and room opening records submitted by plaintiff Zhao to Travel.com are copies, which are not enough to prove that the defendant Liu and others are proper relationship, so plaintiff Zhao thinks that the evidence to prove that Liu and others are proper relationship is insufficient.
5. Regarding whether the defendant Liu committed domestic violence.
Zhao, the plaintiff, believed that Liu, the defendant, committed domestic violence. Defendant Liu believes that there is no domestic violence. We believe that although the defendant Liu beat the plaintiff, according to the consequences, it does not constitute domestic violence.
6. Adoption of the appraisal opinions on the formation time of IOUs.
Zhao, the plaintiff, has no objection to the appraisal opinion on the formation time of IOUs. Defendant Liu believes that the appraisal conclusion of the appraisal opinion is wrong, and the materials and samples are not specified according to the different storage conditions of the samples and the comparison samples. The conclusion of this appraisal is hypothetical. We believe that the identification procedure when the IOUs were formed was legal, and the comparison samples retained by the identification agency were used after both parties reached an agreement through consultation. The comparison sample submitted by the defendant Liu did not meet the appraisal requirements, and the appraisers also appeared in court to accept questions. Therefore, the defendant Liu believes that the reason for not adopting the appraisal opinion is untenable and should adopt the appraisal opinion.
7. Acceptance of the house value assessment report.
Zhao, the plaintiff, has no objection to the appraisal report of the house. Defendant Liu believes that the actual transaction price is not recorded in the report, and the evaluation result is invalid. In our court's opinion, although the actual price was not recorded in the report, the defendant Liu proposed that the appraisal report should record the actual transaction price, the appraisal procedure was legal, and there was nothing wrong with the appraisal report, so the appraisal report should be accepted, but the defendant Liu's defense opinion was not adopted.
8 on the nature of debt
1, regarding the plaintiff Zhao's claim that the debts of husband and wife are the same.
2. About the debt of 6,543,800+500,000 yuan borrowed from Zheng. Loans of RMB 654.38+0.50 million include RMB 50,000 borrowed on September 26th, 2009 and RMB 654.38+0.00 million borrowed on September 30th, 2009. Zhao, the plaintiff, believes that the debts of husband and wife are the same when borrowing money, and the loan is used to buy real estate. Defendant Liu denied this. In our court's opinion, the existing evidence of the plaintiff can't prove that the loan was used to purchase real estate. Even if there is a debt of 654.38+500,000 yuan, it should be the personal debt of the plaintiff Zhao, not the same debt of the original defendant and his wife.
About borrowing 4000 yuan from Zhou and Sun. Zhao, the plaintiff, believes that the husband and wife are in the same debt when borrowing money, and the loan is used to pay legal fees. Defendant Liu denied this. Our court believes that the expenses paid by the plaintiff Zhao for hiring a lawyer during the loan period are not the debts incurred by both husband and wife, but the expenses paid by his own law firm, so the debt of 4,000 yuan is the personal debt of the plaintiff Zhao, not the debt of both husband and wife.
4.20 1 1 September 3, 2000, weekly loan 10000. Zhao, the plaintiff, thinks that the debts of husband and wife are the same when borrowing, and the loan is used to pay the appraisal fee of Jinling Appraisal Institute. Defendant Liu denied this. We believe that the loan is the appraisal fee paid in advance by the plaintiff Zhao in the lawsuit, and it is the fee paid by the plaintiff Zhao to prove his defense opinion, not for the husband and wife to live together. Now the appraisal fee has also been returned to the plaintiff Zhao, who claims that the appraisal fee will be used for family life after the return, but the plaintiff Zhao failed to prove that the money will be used for family life after the return, and the plaintiff's salary income can still meet the normal living expenses of the plaintiff Zhao, so there is no need to borrow money to pay the living expenses. Therefore, the debt of 10000 yuan should be recognized as the debt of the plaintiff Zhao, not the husband and wife debt between the original defendant.
5. About the debt of 15600 yuan borrowed from Zhou. 15600 yuan is composed of 20 1 1 year1/month1August 5600 yuan and 20 10000 yuan on April 26, 2002. Zhao, the plaintiff, believes that the husband and wife are in the same debt when borrowing money, and the loan is used to pay the rent. Defendant Liu denied this. Our court believes that the average monthly salary of the plaintiff Zhao is 3489 yuan, which can pay his living and renting expenses, and he does not need to borrow money to pay the house rent. Therefore, the loan of 15600 yuan should be recognized as the personal debt expanded by the plaintiff Zhao himself, not the joint debt of the original defendant and his wife.
6.20 12 On August 8, Sun Hezhou borrowed10,000 yuan. Zhao, the plaintiff, believes that the debts of husband and wife are the same when borrowing, and the loan is used to pay the housing appraisal fee. Defendant Liu denied this. We think that the statements of plaintiff Zhao and witness Sun on the purpose of the loan are inconsistent, and plaintiff Zhao finally stated that the money was used to pay the house appraisal fee. The house appraisal fee was paid in advance by the plaintiff Zhao to prove his claim, and the burden of this fee was handled in this case. Therefore, the loan 1000 yuan should be recognized as the personal debt of the plaintiff Zhao, not the husband-wife debt between the original defendant.
Regarding the defendant Liu's claim that husband and wife have the same debts.
1. About the debt of borrowing 605,000 yuan from Liu and Jiang. Defendant Liu believes that when borrowing, the husband and wife are in the same debt, and the loan is used to buy a house. Zhao, the plaintiff, believes that there is no loan, but a gift. In our opinion, the IOU of this loan was identified as the same period of February 20 1 1 year, indicating that the IOU was written afterwards. According to the signing date of 165438+20091October 20th, the loan of 605,000 yuan was 255,000 yuan outstanding. The existing evidence of the defendant Liu is not enough to prove that the 605,000 yuan was borrowed by Liu and Zhao from Liu's parents, so it is more likely that the 605,000 yuan will be donated to Liu and Zhao. For the defendant Liu, the repayment of 605,000 yuan to Liu's parents should be recognized as the personal debt of the defendant Liu, not the original defendant's husband and wife debt.
2. About borrowing 22,000 yuan from Liu, where did you borrow 65,438+02,000 yuan? Liu borrowed 22,000 yuan, including 20 1 12000 yuan on September 8, 1965 and 438+0 10000 yuan on February 4, 1965. Defendant Liu believes that the husband and wife are in the same debt when borrowing these loans, and the loans are used to repay the house purchase loan. The plaintiff Zhao denied this. We believe that the total wage income of defendant Liu from August 1/kloc-0 to June 30, 2006 was 70,922.26 yuan, and the total wage income of defendant Liu from August/kloc-0 to June 30, 2006 was 70,922.26 yuan.
To sum up, we think. The relationship between husband and wife has indeed broken down, and mediation is ineffective, so divorce should be granted. Now the defendant agrees to divorce, so the plaintiff's divorce request is granted by our court. With regard to his support and visit to Liu (the son of the former defendant), both parties agreed to be directly raised by Liu, but failed to reach an agreement on the standards of support and visit. Combined with the actual wage income of plaintiff Zhao, our court ruled that plaintiff Zhao should pay the maintenance fee according to the standard of 750 yuan every month until Liu lived independently. In view of the visit problem, combined with the actual situation of both parties and the children of the original defendant, the court thinks that it is appropriate for plaintiff Zhao to visit Liu once every two weeks, pick it up in the morning and return it before 17 the next day, and the defendant Liu should assist. About the division of the house. The appraised value of the house is 65,438+065,438+066,5438+060,000 yuan. The defendant Liu asked for a house, and the plaintiff Zhao asked the defendant to pay half of the compensation. In view of the fact that the loan principal balance of the house bank is still 6.5438+0.4 million yuan, and both parties agree that the defendant Liu claims the ownership of the house, the outstanding loan principal balance of 6.5438+0.4 million yuan can be deducted from the total value of the house, and the defendant Liu is responsible for repaying the loan principal of 6.5438+0.02/kloc-0.6 million yuan, and dividing the value of the house after deducting the loan. Because the defendant Liu claimed the ownership of the house, the defendant Liu should compensate the plaintiff Zhao accordingly. Regarding the amount of compensation, in view of the defendant Liu's need to directly raise the children, from the perspective of balancing the interests of both parties, our court ruled that the housing compensation was 4 10000 yuan. Regarding plaintiff Zhao's opinion that defendant Liu had domestic violence, proper relationship's affair with others and fictitious debts, the plaintiff should get more property. The plaintiff Zhao claimed that the defendant Liu had domestic violence and had proper relationship with others, and both parties had expanded their debts. Therefore, this claim of the plaintiff Zhao was not supported by our hospital. Zhao, the plaintiff, thinks that the personal clothes in the house belong to him and conform to the law, and our court supports it. On the compensation for the loss caused by the defendant Liu beating the plaintiff in court trial. In view of the fact that the defendant Liu beat the plaintiff Zhao in court trial, the issue of compensation for losses should be dealt with together with this case. Defendant Liu was at fault for beating the plaintiff in court, and should be liable for the medical expenses, transportation expenses, lost time and other losses caused by beating the plaintiff Zhao. The plaintiff Zhao failed to provide evidence to prove his lost time. Now the defendant Liu agrees to compensate Zhao for lost time and medical expenses, which is confirmed by our hospital. Accordingly, in accordance with Articles 17, 32, paragraph 2, 37, paragraph 1, 38 and 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 People's Republic of China (PRC), Article 40, paragraph 1 and Article 64, paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC).
First, the plaintiff Zhao and the defendant Liu were granted a divorce;
Second, the son Liu born by both parties was directly raised by the defendant, and the plaintiff Zhao paid the maintenance fee 750 yuan every month until Liu lived independently; Zhao, the plaintiff, went to Liu's house once every two weeks, picked it up in the morning and returned it before 17 the next day. The defendant Liu should give assistance.
3. The house located in Xiaguan District of Nanjing belongs to the defendant Liu; The loan principal of Nanjing Bank was RMB 6,543,800+0.4 million, which was paid off by the defendant Liu; The personal clothes of the plaintiff Zhao in the house belong to the plaintiff;
Four. The defendant paid the house compensation fee of 465,438+00,000 yuan to the plaintiff Zhao within ten days from the date when this judgment came into legal effect;
Verb (abbreviation of verb) Defendant Liu compensated the plaintiff for medical expenses, transportation expenses, lost time and other losses in 700 yuan (paid);
6. Reject the plaintiff Zhao's other claims.
If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in the judgment, the interest on the debt during the delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with the provisions of Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC).
The case acceptance fee is 5 168 yuan, the appraisal fee is 17 100 yuan, and the appraiser's court attendance fee is 300 yuan, totaling 22,568 yuan. This sum has been paid in advance by plaintiff Zhao 12868 yuan, defendant Liu's 9700 yuan, plaintiff Zhao's 6000 yuan and defendant Liu's 1658 yuan.
If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can submit an appeal to our court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the other parties, and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing, Jiangsu Province.
Presiding judge Zhao Zhongju
Acting Judge Li Yijun
People's Juror Liu Jihong
20 12 years 1 1 month 23rd
Trainee clerk bian Rong
Successful child custody classic case 3 Successful child custody for 1 year-old boy.
/kloc-0-year-old boy's custody divorce succeeded-Liuhe District divorce case
Nanjing Liuhe District Divorce Case
The woman successfully divorced-obtained custody of 1 year-old boy.
Case introduction:
Unable to reach an agreement with her husband due to divorce disputes and custody issues, the parties appealed to the court and entrusted a well-known divorce lawyer Zhuang in Nanjing to represent them throughout the process.
Case results:
The court ruled that the two parties divorced, the custody of the children belonged to us, and the other party paid 20% of the maintenance.
Lawyer's comments:
During the trial of this case, the defendant never agreed to divorce and insisted that the child be raised by him. In addition to providing a lot of litigation evidence and lawyers' opinions to the court, we did the defendant's ideological work in a simpler way, but the defendant still couldn't figure it out. After the trial, lawyer Zhuang wrote to the presiding judge again, hoping that he could interview the defendant again in combination with the comprehensive situation of the case and solve the case harmoniously.
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 ours, but he was only willing to pay 500 yuan maintenance every month.
At this point, the case is over and the parties are very satisfied with the result.