Case: Dispute over Betrothal Property between Cheng and Liang
Judicial Summary
When determining whether a case qualifies as a betrothal property dispute or merely a property gift arising from an ordinary romantic relationship, the court generally makes a comprehensive judgment by taking into account the actual relationship between the parties, daily life experience, and local customs.
The return of betrothal property is generally governed by the principle of return of the original item. If the claimant does not request the return of the original item, the court may dispose of the property based on its specific nature while adhering to the principles of fairness and reasonableness.
Case Brief
Cheng (male) and Liang (female) met through an introduction and began a romantic relationship, before breaking up at the end of December 2011.
On October 27, 2011, Cheng purchased a car. The full purchase price was paid by Cheng, and the vehicle was registered under Liang’s name on November 11, 2011. The car has been used exclusively by Liang ever since its purchase.
As for the reason why Cheng paid for the car but registered it under Liang’s name:
Cheng claimed the vehicle was purchased in preparation for their marriage for post-marital use.
Liang argued that the two were merely in a romantic relationship, and the car was an unconditional gift from Cheng to her.
Cheng filed a lawsuit demanding Liang immediately refund the full vehicle purchase price of RMB 335,500.
Court Judgment
The court held that a betrothal property dispute arises where one party obtains property from the other on the basis of a marriage promise. If the parties fail to conclude the marriage, the donor’s claim for the return of property given on the premise of marriage essentially constitutes a conditional gift.
Based on all evidence submitted, the court accepted Cheng’s assertion that the true intention behind purchasing the car and registering it under Liang’s name was premised on their future marriage.
Given that Cheng voluntarily purchased the car and allowed Liang to use it under her name, and that motor vehicles are subject to continuous depreciation, such depreciation losses shall be borne solely by Cheng. Cheng’s demand for full repayment of the purchase price is unfair and unreasonable.
Since Cheng did not request the return of the vehicle itself, the court, in accordance with his claim and the principles of fairness and procedural convenience, ordered Liang to refund RMB 200,000 of the vehicle purchase price to Cheng, with the vehicle ownership remaining vested in Liang.
Legal Comment
In cases of this type, the party claiming restitution usually files the action on the ground of a betrothal property dispute, while the defending party often argues that the property is unrelated to any marriage promise and constitutes a pure gift made during courtship.
Therefore, the primary prerequisite for correctly disposing of such cases is to accurately define the legal relationship between the parties. Courts typically determine the nature of the relationship by comprehensively reviewing the course of interaction, general life experience, and prevailing local customs.
This case is also typical in addressing how non-monetary betrothal property should be returned and assessed. Considering the inherent depreciation of motor vehicles, Cheng sued for repayment based on the original purchase price, which was not upheld by the court.
The court ruled that since Cheng voluntarily purchased, registered and allowed Liang to use the car, and chose to claim monetary repayment instead of reclaiming the vehicle, all depreciation losses should be borne by Cheng himself. By contrast, if the claimant requests return of the original property, such claim will generally be upheld by the court.