Sue an overseas Vietnamese client demanding 113 billion dong, promising a reward

On May 30, the contract dispute promised reward between Mr. Dang Dinh Thinh, 48 years old, with defendant Vuong Thi Khanh and son Nguyen Dac Quang (both dead) was brought to the first instance trial by the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City for the second time. . Mr. Khanh and Mr. Quang’s heirs participated as defendants. In the same case, the court also considered many other disputed claims.

Six years ago, Mr. Thinh was declared victorious by a two-level court, forcing the defendant to pay a promised bonus equivalent to more than 55 billion VND (market price at the time of the judgment). However, these judgments were canceled for re-trial.

According to the lawsuit file, the house 446-448 with an area of ​​​​more than 1,000 m2 on Nguyen Thi Minh Khai Street, District 3 (HCMC) is owned by Mr. Nguyen Dac Kha and Ms. Vuong Thi Khanh. During the time she was leaving the country, the house was managed by the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City under the category of “no owner”. The City Housing Management Company then leased a part to Asia Commercial Joint Stock Bank (ACB).

When she returned to Vietnam, Mrs. Khanh and her son Nguyen Dac Quang wanted to get this house back. In 2007, Ms. Khanh’s mother and daughter and lawyer Thinh signed a contract of legal advice, reclaiming this house with the content: Mr. Thinh will represent Ms. Khanh to contact the competent authorities to complain to claim the house; Mrs. Khanh will pay Mr. Thinh 35% of the total value of the house and land after reclaiming it.

On June 28, 2011, the Ministry of Construction decided to return the house to Ms. Khanh. About a week later, the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City also issued a decision to return the house to this overseas Vietnamese woman. After completing the task according to the contract, Mr. Thinh suggested that Khanh’s mother and daughter pay the reward as promised. However, the mother and daughter of Khanh said that they only promised to reward the lawyer 15% of the property value, not 35%. Mr. Thinh then sued the court.

After claiming the house, Mr. Quang signed an agreement to sell this house to many people, in which he received a deposit of 210 billion VND from Ms. Dang Thu Ha and more than 21 billion VND from Mr. Vu Huy Hoang. When the court settled the case of Mr. Thinh, Mrs. Ha and Mr. Hoang participating in the proceedings as Mr persons with related rights and obligations asked the court to force Khanh’s mother and daughter to return this money. In addition, some people involved in the case also have claims for benefits.

In the process of solving the case, Mr. Thinh said that he had to spend a lot of effort knocking on the doors of the authorities for 5 years to reclaim the house for Ms. Khanh. Due to the difficulty of reclaiming the house, her mother and daughter agreed to promise a bonus of 35% of the above-mentioned land value, but did not perform the contract.

On the defendant’s side, Ms. Khanh’s authorized representative admitted that she had promised a reward but only agreed to pay 15% of the value of the house and land under her ownership. This is the common property of husband and wife, but the promise of reward is only agreed by Ms. Khanh with Mr. Thinh. Before her death, her husband did not leave a will, so his estate must be divided among 9 other children, regardless of the promise of reward.

In February 2015, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City for the first time accepted the petition of lawyer Thinh, ordering Ms. Khanh and her son Nguyen Dac Quang to pay 35% of the total value of the house and land according to the promised contract. reward. The property value of the house and land of the real estate was valued at 156 billion dong, so the court declared that Ms. Khanh must pay lawyer Thinh nearly 55 billion dong.

The court also accepted Ms. Ha’s request, Mr. Hoang canceled the purchase and sale contract, forcing Mr. Quang and Ms. Khanh to return the deposit received. Some of the requests of others were only partially accepted or denied by the court.

Ms. Khanh and a number of litigants appealed and asked the court to review their rights and interests. As for the People’s Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City, protested that the first instance level had many procedural violations and that the case had many disputed relations, and proposed that the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City hear the appeal in the direction of canceling the judgment and separating the remaining disputed relations. turned into another case.

In 2016, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City held an appellate hearing, upholding the first-instance court’s ruling on the promised reward; cancel other disputed relations and hand them over to the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City for re-trial.

A year later, the Supreme People’s Court conducted a cassation trial, canceled related judgments, and requested the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court to re-trigger the case in the direction of resolving all disputes related to this property in the same case. to ensure the rights and obligations of the parties.

In court todayLawyer Thinh said that he still kept the request to sue, forcing the heirs of Ms. Khanh and Mr. Quang to pay 35% of the land value claimed at the current price of VND 113 billion.

He presented, the first years of asking for a house for Ms. Khanh were rejected by the authorities, but persisted in complaining. It took more than 5 years for him to claim a home for his client. The last time the client signed a commitment to reward 35% of the value of the house, he had to go to the US. These papers have all been consular legalized. “But up to now, after more than 10 years of reclaiming the house for my client, my efforts have not been recognized,” said Mr. Thinh.

Meanwhile, the defendant’s representative said that the agreement to promise rewards between Mr. Thinh and Ms. Khanh and Mr. Quang signed on November 28, 2008 in California, the US was “not valid” because it has not been legalized. is not enforceable 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.

Also disagreeing with the plaintiff’s request, but another representative of the defendant (Quang’s son) said: “The court ordered to pay Mr. Thinh how much % he will accept”.

Presenting to the court, Ms. Ha, Mr. Hoang and other related people also maintained their request to force the heirs of Mr. Quang and Ms. Khanh to return the money received under the previously signed contract.

Tomorrow, the trial continues with arguments.

Hai Duyen – Thao Mi