{"id":6142,"date":"2024-10-18T11:15:36","date_gmt":"2024-10-18T04:15:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/?p=6142"},"modified":"2024-10-24T15:49:05","modified_gmt":"2024-10-24T08:49:05","slug":"tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html","title":{"rendered":"DISPUTE OVER MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><b>Dispute<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Breach of the monogamy regime and request for division of matrimonial property upon divorce.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Facts of the Case:<\/b><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mr. M and Ms. N were married on April 26, 2011, as evidenced by the marriage certificate issued by the People&#8217;s Committee of Ward 26, Binh Thanh District. After a period of cohabitation, Ms. N discovered that Mr. M was cohabiting with another woman and had a child out of wedlock. This led to conflicts and disagreements in their marital life. As a result, Mr. M and Ms. N have decided to divorce by mutual consent. The parties have disputes regarding the division of their joint property, including:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&#8211; A house located at Y Nguyen Xi Street, Ward 26, Binh Thanh District, with an estimated value of VND 1,000,000,000 (One billion Vietnamese Dong);<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&#8211; A Honda Civic car, with an estimated value of VND 600,000,000 (Six hundred million Vietnamese Dong);<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&#8211; A SH i150 motorcycle, with an estimated value of VND 65,000,000 (Sixty-five million Vietnamese Dong); and<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&#8211; A SH Mode motorcycle, with an estimated value of VND 35,000,000 (Thirty-five million Vietnamese Dong).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Client\u2019s Request:<\/b><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ms. N requests to receive 60% of the value of the disputed property (approximately VND 1,020,000,000 &#8211; One billion two hundred million Vietnamese Dong). Ms. N has requested TAPHALAW to represent and protect her lawful rights and interests in the division of joint property with Mr. M.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Attorney&#8217;s Work Performed:<\/b><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #333333;\">1. The attorney provided advice to Ms. N regarding the principles of dividing matrimonial property upon divorce. Specifically, the attorney explained that: <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The division of matrimonial property upon divorce is generally determined by agreement between the spouses. <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If the spouses cannot reach an agreement, the court will typically divide the matrimonial property equally, but may consider the fault of each spouse in violating their marital duties. <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In this case, Mr. M&#8217;s violation of the monogamy requirement led to the divorce. Thus, legal grounds and evidence could be used to demonstrate Mr. M&#8217;s fault in breaching his marital duties during a court hearing, should the parties be unable to reach a property division agreement.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #333333;\">2. On behalf of Ms. N, the attorney negotiated with Mr. M, proposing a resolution regarding the division of matrimonial property.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Outcome of the Dispute:<\/b><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">After two negotiation sessions between the attorney and Mr. M, the attorney successfully negotiated a property division agreement on behalf of Ms. N that maximized her interests. Specifically, Mr. M agreed to transfer 70% of the matrimonial property (equivalent to 1,190,000,000 \u0111\u1ed3ng) to Ms. N. After the parties executed a matrimonial property division agreement drafted by TAPHALAW, Mr. M voluntarily transferred the agreed-upon amount to Ms. N via bank transfer.<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Dispute: Breach of the monogamy regime and request for division of matrimonial property upon divorce. Facts of the Case: Mr. M and Ms. N were married\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6143,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[96,92,114],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v20.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>DISPUTE OVER MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"[:vi]TRANH CH\u1ea4P T\u00c0I S\u1ea2N CHUNG KHI LY H\u00d4N[:en]DISPUTE OVER MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE[:]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"Dispute: Breach of the monogamy regime and request for division of matrimonial property upon divorce. Facts of the Case: Mr. M and Ms. N were married\u2026\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/image-20240102151649-3.jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html\",\"name\":\"[:vi]TRANH CH\u1ea4P T\u00c0I S\u1ea2N CHUNG KHI LY H\u00d4N[:en]DISPUTE OVER MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE[:]\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-10-18T04:15:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-10-24T08:49:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/28f70c72303ed6e09d5bd57eab14e8f9\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"DISPUTE OVER MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/\",\"name\":\"C\u00d4NG TY LU\u1eacT TNHH TA PHA\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/28f70c72303ed6e09d5bd57eab14e8f9\",\"name\":\"admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"[:vi]TRANH CH\u1ea4P T\u00c0I S\u1ea2N CHUNG KHI LY H\u00d4N[:en]DISPUTE OVER MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE[:]","robots":{"index":"noindex","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"[:vi]TRANH CH\u1ea4P T\u00c0I S\u1ea2N CHUNG KHI LY H\u00d4N[:en]DISPUTE OVER MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE[:]","twitter_description":"Dispute: Breach of the monogamy regime and request for division of matrimonial property upon divorce. Facts of the Case: Mr. M and Ms. N were married\u2026","twitter_image":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/image-20240102151649-3.jpeg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html","url":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html","name":"[:vi]TRANH CH\u1ea4P T\u00c0I S\u1ea2N CHUNG KHI LY H\u00d4N[:en]DISPUTE OVER MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE[:]","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-10-18T04:15:36+00:00","dateModified":"2024-10-24T08:49:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/28f70c72303ed6e09d5bd57eab14e8f9"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/tranh-chap-tai-san-chung-khi-ly-hon.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"DISPUTE OVER MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/","name":"C\u00d4NG TY LU\u1eacT TNHH TA PHA","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/28f70c72303ed6e09d5bd57eab14e8f9","name":"admin"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6142"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6142"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6142\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6195,"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6142\/revisions\/6195"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6143"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/demo.taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}