The lawyer’s case demanded 113 billion dong promised reward

After many working days, on the afternoon of May 31, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City issued a ruling on the case “Disputes on contract promises and other disputes” between plaintiff, lawyer Dang Dinh Thinh (living in Tan Binh district, Ho Chi Minh City). Ho Chi Minh City) with the defendant is Ms. Vuong Thi Khanh (Vietnamese overseas Vietnamese), Mr. Nguyen Dac Quang (son of Khanh).

Trouble from the promise contract

Both defendants have passed away, so their co-heirs represent the defendant.

In this case, lawyer Dang Dinh Thinh sued, demanding money under a contract that promised rewards related to reclaiming the house at 446 – 448 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai Street, District 3, Ho Chi Minh City.

According to the records, the house at 446 – 448 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai Street is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Nguyen Dac Kha and Mrs. Vuong Thi Khanh.

In 1980, Mr. Kha and his wife signed a power of attorney for Mr. Phan Binh to manage and use them before going abroad to settle down, in 1982.

In 1999, the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City decided to establish state ownership on the grounds that this house belonged to an empty house and revoked the certificate of management right of Mr. Phan Binh. The parties concerned have appealed this decision.

In 2007, Ms. Khanh returned to Vietnam and signed a contract to authorize lawyer Dang Dinh Thinh to carry out the procedure on her behalf to take back the house, with a bonus of 15% – 35% of the total value of the house. Mr. Thinh has finished taking back the house.

At the first instance trial in 2015, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City recognized the final contract of promise. According to the judgment, the plaintiff received 35% as agreed (worth more than 54 billion VND). In addition, the court adjudicates many other disputes that arise during the settlement of the case.

After that, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City heard the appeal and upheld the verdict on the part of the contract promised to reward but canceled and requested a re-trial of all other disputes in the above-mentioned first-instance judgment.

The appellate judgment was immediately subject to a protest from the Supreme People’s Court. Tried by cassation, the Judges’ Council of the Supreme People’s Court announced that the entire appellate and first-instance judgments were annulled, bringing the case to the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court for trial from the beginning.

Lawyer Dang Dinh Thinh presented his views at the first instance court

Claiming 113 billion VND, the court accepted 68 billion VND

Accepting the dossier, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City determined that the house at 446 – 448 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai Street at the present time is worth 324 billion VND.

In court, the plaintiff asked the first-instance panel to force the co-heirs of the two defendants to pay 35% of the property value at current valuation, equivalent to VND 113 billion.

On the contrary, the defendant only accepts to pay 15% of the property value.

Based on the documents and developments in court, the trial panel confirmed that the transaction relationship in the contract of promised reward is legal.

At the time of establishing the contract to promise the reward, Mr. Nguyen Dac Kha did not leave an inheritance before his death. Thus, the co-owner (Mrs. Khanh – PV) does not have the right to dispose of all the above assets. According to the law, Ms. Khanh and 9 children belong to the first line of inheritance. Thus, half the value of the house will be divided equally among 10 people.

Since then, the first-instance court has determined that the two defendants have the right to decide half of the property value and the part of the property inherited from Mr. Kha (Mrs. Khanh and Mr. Quang accept the inheritance), equivalent to VND 194.4 billion.

In addition, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City found that Mr. Thinh completed the work of reclaiming the house as agreed. Therefore, Mrs. Khanh’s mother and daughter are obliged to perform the contract of promised reward.

From the above reasons, the first-instance trial panel forced the defendant to pay the plaintiff 68 billion dong, ie 35% of 194.4 billion dong.

Sell ​​property to many people

For some disputes arising, the first instance court recognized the buying – selling relationship between Mr. Quang and the first property buyer. Minus the amount paid by both parties, the buyer is obliged to pay the seller the outstanding amount. On the other hand, the trial panel canceled the deposit contract between Mr. Quang and the second home buyer.

Before his death, Mr. Quang once put the house up for sale and received deposits from many people.

According to Di Lam