CASE LAW DRAFT NO. 08/2024 On the gifting of property (Please note that this image is not related to the specific case being discussed).

CASE LAW DRAFT NO. 08/2024

On the gifting of property

Approved by the Judges’ Council of the Supreme People’s Court on [date] [month] 2024 and published under Decision No. [number]/QĐ-CA on [date] [month] 2024 by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

The Cassation Decision No. 148/2023/DS-GDT dated August 9^th, 2023, regarding the “Dispute Over The Contract Of Gifting Property” by the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City between the plaintiff, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thu D, along with 18 other plaintiffs, and the defendant, Mr. Trần Thanh T.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraph 4 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Factual Background:

One spouse gifts an unopened lottery ticket to another person, and the ticket subsequently wins a prize.

– Legal Resolution:

In this case, the Court must determine that the gifted property is an unopened lottery ticket; therefore, the gifting of this property does not require the consent of the spouse of the person giving the gift.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Article 457, Clause 1 of Article 458 of the Civil Code 2015;

– Article 35 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014.

Keywords:

“Contract of gifting property”; “Gifting lottery ticket”; “No need for spouse consent”.

CASE DETAILS

Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thu D was employed as a laborer at P, an inox table and chair production facility owned by Mr. Trần Thanh T. On January 7^th, 2021, during the early afternoon while Mrs. D and several colleagues were working, Mr. Trần Thanh T purchased multiple lottery tickets.

He gave Mrs. D one ticket bearing number sequence 317626, issued by A Lottery Company, scheduled for drawing later that day. Mr. T informed Mrs. D that if the ticket won, the prize would be evenly distributed among the present workers. Witnesses to this exchange included Mrs. Phạm Thu H, Mrs. Trịnh Thị L1, Mrs. Huỳnh Thị Thu V, Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Kim L, and Mrs. Huỳnh Thị Bích T1.

Around 4:45 p.m. on the same day, Mrs. D asked Mr. Nguyễn Thanh X to check the lottery results. The ticket provided by Mr. T earlier in the day had won the grand prize valued at VND 2,000,000,000. Mrs. D promptly informed Mr. T about the winning ticket. Mr. T requested Mrs. D to surrender the ticket for verification. Once confirmed, Mr. T placed the ticket in his shirt pocket and instructed Mrs. D, Mr. X, and Mrs. Loan not to create a commotion.

He assured them that he would claim the prize and distribute it to the workers on the 28th of the 12th lunar month, prior to Tet. Mr. T justified the delay by expressing concern that an immediate distribution might lead to the workers leaving their jobs. Trusting Mr. T’s assurance, given his position as the facility’s owner, and the date being January 7^th, 2021 (the 25th day of the 12th lunar month), Mrs. D did not insist on reclaiming the ticket.

However, on the 28th day of the 12th lunar month, Mr. T only disbursed Tet bonuses to the workers, failing to fulfill his promise of sharing the lottery prize. The total prize amounted to VND 2,000,000,000, from which VND 200,000,000 was deducted as 10% income tax, leaving a net sum of VND 1,800,000,000. After subtracting the Tet bonuses totaling VND 183,000,000 disbursed to the 18 plaintiffs, Mr. T retained VND 1,617,000,000. In response, the plaintiffs initiated legal action, seeking VND 85,105,000 each from Mr. Trần Thanh T.

On November 9^th, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an additional lawsuit, demanding Mr. T pay late payment interest at an annual rate of 10% (0.83% per month) from February 9^th, 2021, to November 9^th, 2021, amounting to VND 91,459,000, with ongoing interest calculated until the date of the first-instance trial.

The defendant, Mr. Trần Thanh T, offered the following defense:

He acknowledged purchasing a lottery ticket from A Lottery Company on January 7th, 2021, with the number sequence 317626, scheduled for an afternoon draw. Due to his basic keypad mobile phone lacking internet access, he handed the ticket to Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thu D later that afternoon. She used Mr. Nguyễn Thanh X’s smartphone to check the results, confirming the ticket’s win of the grand prize.

Mrs. D returned the ticket to Mr. T thereafter. Mr. T refuted the claim that he gifted Mrs. D any lottery ticket, asserting that he simply asked her to check the results for him. He claimed the prize on January 8th, 2021. Mr. T emphasized that during the distribution of Tet bonuses, no objections were raised concerning the lottery prize distribution, thus disputing the plaintiffs’ allegations.

Statements from involved parties are as follows:

Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thúy D affirmed that she is Mr. T’s wife and corroborated his version of events without making independent claims.

Mr. Trương Trần Hoài T6 countered Mrs. D’s assertion that Mr. T gave her a lottery ticket on January 7^th, 2021, dismissing her proposal to jointly sue Mr. T. He deemed the lawsuit unwarranted and opted for trial in absentia.

Mr. Lê Văn T2 stated that he did not witness Mr. T giving Mrs. D the lottery ticket on January 7^th, 2021. He became aware of the incident later and acknowledged receiving VND 20,000,000 from Mr. T post-win, opting for trial in absentia.

Mr. Huỳnh Tấn Chi Thanh H1 attested to working at Mr. T’s facility on January 7^th, 2021, without witnessing Mr. T giving Mrs. D the lottery ticket. He learned of the matter subsequently and received VND 20,000,000 from Mr. T post-win, preferring trial in absentia.

Mr. Tống Phước H2 affirmed employment at Mr. T’s facility on January 7^th, 2021, but did not witness Mr. T giving Mrs. D the lottery ticket. He heard about the incident later and received VND 20,000,000 from Mr. T post-win, requesting trial in absentia.

In the First-instance Civil Judgment No. 67/2022/DS-ST dated August 15^th, 2022, the People’s Court of Long Hồ District, Vĩnh Long Province, ruled as follows:

– The court partially accepted the plaintiffs’ claim and ordered the defendant, Trần Thanh T, to pay each plaintiff, including Nguyễn Thị Thu D, Nguyễn Thanh X, Nguyễn Thị Kim L, Huỳnh Thị Thu V, Huỳnh Thị Bích T1, Phạm Thu H, Trịnh Thị L1, Phạm Thị Hồng T2, Võ Văn C, Trương Văn Mười H3, Bành Thanh T3, Huỳnh Lâm T4, Hồ Công H4, Võ Văn L2, Cao Minh Đ, Nguyễn Thị Kiều T5, Hồ Quốc S, Trần Văn T7, the sum of VND 42,552,500 each, totaling VND 765,945,000.

– The court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for interest.

Additionally, the first-instance court made decisions regarding court fees, outlined the rights and obligations of the parties during the enforcement stage, and addressed the right to appeal.

On August 19^th, 2022, Mr. Trần Thanh T filed an appeal, seeking the dismissal of all plaintiffs’ claims.

Subsequently, on August 28^th, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their own appeal, requesting the appellate court to uphold all of their claims.

On August 29^th, 2022, the Chief Procurator of the People’s Procuracy of Long Hồ District, Vĩnh Long Province, issued an appeal in accordance with appellate procedures against the First-instance Judgment, urging the appellate court to accept the plaintiffs’ claims and adjust the first-instance court fees.

In the Appellate Civil Judgment No. 10/2023/DS-PT dated January 13^th, 2023, the Vĩnh Long Province People’s Court rendered the following decision:

– The appellate court partially accepted the plaintiffs’ appeal and the procurator’s protest, rejecting Mr. Trần Thanh T’s appeal.

– The court amended the First-instance Civil Judgment No. 67/2022/DS-ST dated August 15th, 2022, ordering Mr. Trần Thanh T to pay each plaintiff, including those listed previously, the amount of VND 85,105,000 each.

– Similar to the first-instance judgment, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs’ request for interest.

Additionally, the appellate court addressed court fees and stipulated the rights and obligations of the parties during the enforcement stage.

On February 9^th, 2023, Mr. Trần Thanh T submitted a petition to review the aforementioned Appellate Civil Judgment through cassation procedures.

In the Decision No. 125/QĐKNGĐT-VKS-DS dated May 25^th, 2023, the Chief Procurator of the High People’s Procuracy in Hồ Chí Minh City issued a appeal according to cassation procedures against the aforementioned Appellate Civil Judgment.

The appeal requested the Judges’ Committee of the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City to conduct a cassation trial to vacate the entire Appellate Civil Judgment No. 10/2023/DS-PT dated January 13^th, 2023, of the Vĩnh Long Province People’s Court and the First-instance Civil Judgment No. 67/2022/DS-ST dated August 15^th, 2022, of the People’s Court of Long Hồ District, Vĩnh Long Province, to conduct a new first-instance trial according to the law.

At the cassation hearing, the representative of the High People’s Procuracy in Hồ Chí Minh City proposed that the Cassation Panel accept the appeal of the Chief Procurator of the High People’s Procuracy in Hồ Chí Minh City.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] The plaintiffs asserted unanimously that on January 7^th, 2021, Mr. Trần Thanh T handed Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thu D a lottery ticket bearing the number sequence 317626, issued by A Lottery Company, scheduled for drawing on the same day. Mr. T promised that if the ticket won, the prize would be shared among all workers present at the workshop that day. The defendant, Mr. Trần Thanh T, admitted to giving the lottery ticket to Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thu D but contended that it was not a gift to her or the workers present, but merely a request for her to check the results.

Regardless of whether this transaction between Mr. T and Mrs. D constituted a gift under Article 466 of the Civil Code or a contract of safekeeping under Article 559, the law does not require it to be in writing. Therefore, in terms of form, their verbal agreement did not violate the formal requirements of a contract. Since there was no written documentation, the determination of the objective truth of the case must rely on other evidence.

[2] Despite Mr. T’s denial of the plaintiffs’ claims, the proceedings revealed that after winning the lottery, Mr. T unilaterally replaced and relocated the surveillance camera that monitored daily activities at the workshop. Additionally, Mr. T did not personally claim the prize but had another individual do so, providing conflicting statements about the location of the prize claim.

During the distribution of Tet holiday bonuses, Mr. T disbursed amounts ranging from VND 5,000,000 to VND 20,000,000, whereas the plaintiffs asserted that Mr. T typically awarded each worker a bonus equivalent to one week’s wages.

At the first-instance trial on January 21^st, 2022, the plaintiffs requested Mr. T to pay each of them an additional VND 50,000,000, but Mr. T only agreed to a total payment of VND 200,000,000 to all plaintiffs combined. Mr. T failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the replacement and relocation of surveillance cameras, the delegation of the prize claim, or the contradictory statements regarding the prize’s location.

These actions suggest an intent by Mr. T to conceal the fact that he had given the winning lottery ticket to Mrs. D and the workers present at his workshop on January 7^th, 2021. Furthermore, Mr. T’s unusually high distribution of Tet bonuses in 2022 and his agreement during the first-instance trial to provide an additional VND 200,000,000 to the plaintiffs are noteworthy.

Therefore, the conclusions reached by the first-instance and appellate courts—that Mr. T indeed gave the lottery ticket to Mrs. D and the workers present at his workshop on January 7^th, 2021, with the condition that the prize would be equally shared among all present—are substantiated.

[3] As mentioned in [1], because the agreement between Mr. T and Mrs. D was verbal, the cassation appeal’s argument that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence is inconsistent with the facts. Moreover, there is no evidence supporting the claim in the cassation appeal that 11 out of the 18 plaintiffs, who did not witness Mr. T giving the lottery ticket to Mrs. D, were encouraged by Mrs. D’s statements to assert their rights. The plaintiffs asserted that Mr. T promised to distribute the prize when he distributed their Tet bonuses.

Therefore, they waited until 28th of the 12^th lunar month, over a month after Mr. T claimed the prize, when he distributed part of the winnings. During the Tet holiday, the plaintiffs asked Mr. T for more money, but he refused, leading them to file a lawsuit more than two months after the lottery ticket was won. This is not unusual, as stated by the cassation appeal.

[4] At the time Mr. T gave the lottery ticket to Mrs. D and the workers, its face value was only VND 10,000, which was negligible compared to daily expenses, so Mr. T could make his own decision without the consent of Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thùy D1 (Mr. T’s wife), as it does not fall under any of the cases specified in Article 35 of the 2014 Law on Marriage and Family. The cassation appeal’s assertion that Mr. T could only dispose of 50% of the winning lottery ticket’s value is inaccurate concerning the subject matter of the contract.

In this case, the subject of the property gifting contract between Mr. T and the plaintiffs must be identified as the lottery ticket before the draw, not the winning ticket. If Mrs. D had still held the winning ticket when it won, she would have been obligated to claim the prize and distribute it equally among the plaintiffs as agreed with Mr. T. However, since Mr. T reclaimed the ticket and claimed the prize, he must return the prize money to the plaintiffs, as correctly decided by the appellate court.

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS DECIDED:

Pursuant to Article 325; Article 334; Article 337, and Article 343 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code:

1/ The Cassation Appeal No. 125/QĐKNGĐT-VKS-DS dated May 25^th, 2023, of the Chief Procurator of the High People’s Procuracy in Hồ Chí Minh City, is rejected.

The Appellate Civil Judgment No. 10/2023/DS-PT dated January 13^th, 2023, of the People’s Court of Vĩnh Long Province, which adjudicated the “Dispute Over The Contract Of Gifting Property” between the plaintiffs Nguyễn Thị Thu D, Nguyễn Thanh X, Nguyễn Thị Kim L, Huỳnh Thị Thu V, Huỳnh Thị Bích T1, Phạm Thu H, Trịnh Thị L1, Phạm Thị Hồng T2, Võ Văn C, Trương Văn Mười H3, Bành Thanh T3, Huỳnh Lâm T4, Hồ Công A H4, Võ Văn L2, Cao Minh Đ, Nguyễn Thị Kiều T5, Hồ Quốc S, Trần Văn T7,

and the defendant Trần Thanh T, along with the interested parties, including Nguyễn Thị Thúy D, Trương Trần Hoài T6, Lê Văn T2, Huỳnh Tấn Chi Thanh H1, and Tống Phước H2, is upheld.

2/ The cassation decision is legally effective from the date of issuance.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[4] At the time Mr. T gave the lottery ticket to Mrs. D and the workers, its face value was only VND 10,000, which was negligible compared to daily expenses, so Mr. T could make his own decision without the consent of Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Thùy D1 (Mr. T’s wife), as it does not fall under any of the cases specified in Article 35 of the 2014 Law on Marriage and Family. The cassation appeal‘s assertion that Mr. T could only dispose of 50% of the winning lottery ticket’s value is inaccurate concerning the subject matter of the contract.

In this case, the subject of the property gifting contract between Mr. T and the plaintiffs must be identified as the lottery ticket before the draw, not the winning ticket. If Mrs. D had still held the winning ticket when it won, she would have been obligated to claim the prize and distribute it equally among the plaintiffs as agreed with Mr. T. However, since Mr. T reclaimed the ticket and claimed the prize, he must return the prize money to the plaintiffs, as correctly decided by the appellate court.”

THE RATIONALE FOR THE CASE LAW DRAFT’S PROPOSAL

The rationale underlying the proposed case law draft stems from statutory provisions articulated in the 2014 Law on Marriage and Family. Article 32(2) stipulates that in transactions involving movable property not mandated for ownership registration, the spouse in possession has the right to initiate and execute related transactions with bona fide third parties, under the protection of the Civil Code. Additionally, Article 35(1) dictates that possession, use, and disposal of common property necessitate mutual agreement between spouses.

These regulations do not delineate the permissible value of common property disposals nor specify whether consent is required for the disposal of low-value items used in daily consumption. In practice, decisions regarding essential daily transactions can be made independently by either spouse.

In the context of the case at hand, a spouse gifted a lottery ticket valued at VND 10,000 before its draw, an amount inconsequential compared to daily living expenses. Subsequently, upon winning a significant prize valued at VND 2,000,000,000, a dispute arose between the donor and the recipient. The People’s Procuracy argued that the donor could only dispose of 50% of the lottery ticket’s winning value and necessitated the consent of the other spouse for the validity of the entire gift contract.

In Cassation Decision No. 148/2023/DS-GĐT dated August 9^th, 2023, the High People’s Court in Hồ Chí Minh City reasoned that the gift occurred prior to the lottery draw, with the subject of the contract being the undrawn ticket. Therefore, the transaction did not require the consent of the spouse.

The Cassation Panel thus established a correct and standardized approach, crucial in resolving disputes over gift contracts involving common property of spouses. This scenario frequently arises in legal practice, prompting the Department of Legal Affairs and Scientific Management to propose developing this cassation decision into case law to ensure consistent legal application in similar circumstances.

If you need more consulting, please Contact Us at TNHH NT International Law Firm (ntpartnerlawfirm.com)

You can also download the .docx version here.