Lawyer sues client for 113 billion VND promised reward

On May 30, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City opened the second first instance trial of the dispute over the contract of reward promise between lawyer Dang Dinh Thinh and the defendant, Mrs. Vuong Thi Khanh and her son Nguyen Dac Quang. Both defendants are now dead.

Before that, Mr. Thinh was won by a two-level court, forcing the defendant to pay a promised reward equivalent to more than 55 billion VND.

However, in July 2017, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court issued a Decision to appeal against cassation requesting that the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court conduct a cassation trial and cancel the judgment No. 87/2016 of the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City. The Ho Chi Minh City People’s Committee on the “Dispute on the contract of promise and reward” ordered Ms. Vuong Thi Khanh (living in the US) to pay lawyer Dang Dinh Thinh an amount of nearly 55 billion VND.

After that, the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court has just accepted the appeal and issued a decision on cassation to annul 2 judgments of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City and the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City. Because according to the Council of Judges, the case has many dispute relationships, it needs to be resolved at the same time in the same case to ensure the interests of the involved parties.

According to the lawsuit filed by lawyer Dang Dinh Thinh, in 2007, Khanh’s mother and daughter authorized Mr. Thinh to carry out the procedures to reclaim the house and promise to reward 15% of the value if claimed. After that, Khanh’s mother and daughter continued to make an agreement and commitment in the US that “Mr. Thinh will contact the competent authorities on behalf of Khanh to claim the house, Mrs. Khanh will pay Mr. Thinh 35% of the total price. manage the house and land after reclaiming it”.

After 4 years of making applications to local and central agencies, on June 28, 2011, the Ministry of Construction decided to return the house to Ms. Khanh and the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City also issued a decision to return the house to Ms. Khanh. However, at this time, Ms. Khanh “ignored” to not fulfill her commitment to pay the reward, so Mr. Thinh filed a lawsuit in court. Although in the process of dispute, Mr. Nguyen Dac Quang (Mrs. Khanh’s son) has made many transactions to buy and sell the house, receive a deposit of 210 billion VND as well as set up an inheritance for this house.

In 2015, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City at first instance forced Khanh’s mother and daughter to perform the contract promising to reward Mr. Thinh and return the deposit to the buyer of the house.

After the first-instance session, the People’s Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City protested to cancel part of the sentence due to procedural violations. Mr. Thinh appealed and proposed to separate the dispute between his promise and reward for settlement. Those with related rights and obligations also appealed.

In June 2016, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City held an appeal hearing, accepting part of the procuracy’s protest and part of Mr. Thinh’s appeal, forcing co-defendants Ms. Khanh and Mr. Quang to pay Mr. Thinh nearly 55 billion VND. co-promising reward. The part related to other disputes was canceled and separated to handle another case.

At today’s court hearing, lawyer Thinh said that the request to sue is still maintained, forcing the heirs of Ms. Khanh and Mr. Quang to pay 35% of the land value claimed at the current price of 113 billion dong.

According to Mr. Thinh, when Ms. Khanh and Mr. Quang signed a pledge to reward 35% of the house’s value, he had to go to the US to complete the procedures and all these documents have been consular legalized. After that, it took him 5 years to pursue the case to claim a home for his client.

Meanwhile, the defendant’s representative said that the agreement between Mr. Thinh and Ms. Khanh and Mr. Quang signed on November 28, 2008 in California, the US was invalid because it had not been consularly legalized. Not valid in Vietnam. Moreover, Ms. Khanh and Mr. Quang at the time of the promise of the reward did not have the right to decide on this entire property because there was no opinion of other heirs.

Thanh Phuong