Nanchong: A woman broke up with her boyfriend and filed a lawsuit to get back the pigs and cows she had raised together.
A middle-aged woman from Quxian county, Dazhou City, established a love relationship with a man five years younger than her in Jialing District, Nanchong City, and lived in his home for half a year.After both sides break up for some reason.The woman sued her ex-boyfriend, claiming that he had signed an agreement with her to keep her three sows, and demanded a division of their joint property, including pigs and cows, worth 90,000 yuan.Now 58 years old woman pu mou, is dazhou city quxian people.At the beginning of 2020, Pu met tang, a single man in a town of Jialing District, Nanchong City, through a dating network platform.Tang is five years younger than her.After the two sides confirmed their relationship, Pu came to Tang’s home on February 28, 2020, and lived with him.Before this, Tang has 3 sows in his home, more than 10 pigs and a farm cow.After Pu mou to his home, the two people raise these livestock together.Then the sow gave birth to ten more piglets.On August 13, 2020, tang fell ill and was hospitalized in Nanchong Central Hospital for a period of time.On September 7 of the same year, the two had a conflict and Pu left Tang’s house the next day.In June 2021, Pu sued Tang to the Jialing District Court, requesting a judgment to divide her and the defendant Tang during the period of cohabitation, the two sides jointly raise pigs and cattle and other income a total of 90,000 yuan.She filed an agreement with the court that tang agreed to give Pu three sows when they started living together, and that she would keep all the income if Pu was willing to live in Tang’s home for a long time.But the defendant Tang, on the one hand, did not recognize that agreement, on the one hand, he said that during the half year he lived with Pu, he transferred 6,089 yuan to Pu through wechat 11 times, and also transferred 8,000 yuan to her bank account, and gave her 5,000 yuan when they met for the first time. In July 2020, he killed a fat pig and sold it, and 5,000 yuan was also collected by Pu.Pu also took his 82 pounds of bee candy to sell.For pu mou put forward that the agreement signed by the two sides, namely, the income from raising three sows belongs to Pu Mou, whether it has legal effect has become the focus of the dispute between the two sides.The court heard that in the agreement signed by the two parties, “Tang mou promised Pu mou the three sows in the house to develop pigs for Pu mou, all belong to her own personal income.”It should be regarded as tang mou’s gift promise to Pu mou, and Tang mou refuses to perform the gift now, which is regarded as Tang Mou exercised the right of arbitrary revocation of the gift.Tang mou does not perform its donative behavior, accord with legal provisions.The court also held that although Pu and Tang jointly raised 3 sows, a fat pig and a plow cow during their cohabiting period, the specific costs, profits and her role in them were not provided, so Pu asked for the division of this part of the property. The reasons and evidence were not sufficient, and the court did not support it.A few days ago, jialing District court made a judgment, rejected the plaintiff Pu mou’s lawsuit request.Lawyers say under what circumstances the gift agreement can not exercise arbitrary revocation right sichuan top ten law firm – Sichuan Gang Xing law firm director Ren Jing: “Civil code” 658 provisions: “the donor in the gift of property before the right transfer can be revocation of the gift.The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply to gift contracts that have been notarized or gift contracts that are in the nature of public welfare or moral obligations such as disaster relief, poverty alleviation or assisting the disabled that cannot be revoked according to law.”That is to say, the gift contract has been notarized, and disaster relief, poverty alleviation, assistive nature of public welfare or moral obligation of donative contract, prior to the transfer of rights to the gift property, the, may not exercise any cancellation rights, and other types of gift contract, prior to the transfer of rights to the gift property, the, is arbitrary may exercise the cancellation right.In this case, the court held that the gift contract signed by Pu and Tang did not belong to the gift contract notarized or with public welfare or moral nature, and Tang could exercise the right of arbitrary revocation before completing the handover of gift property, so the court rejected Pu’s appeal.Nanchong Daily full media reporter He Xianfei source: Nanchong see App 2 am emergency notice: here suspended school, not necessary to leave directly to Russia!The first China-Europe freight train of the Year of the Tiger starts this year!Forced installation too sudden!Group test “positive”?!Related to the spring semester, Sichuan issued an emergency notice