The lawyer won the case, the client was forced to pay 68 billion dong promised reward

After two days of trial, on the afternoon of May 31, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City sentenced 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.

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

The contract states that Mr. Thinh is entitled to 35% of the value of the house at 446-448 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai Street, District 3, if he claims it (market price is about 324 billion VND).

According to the jury, when establishing the contract of promise, Mr. Nguyen Dac Kha (her husband Khanh) did not leave an inheritance before his death. Thus, the co-owner, Mrs. Khanh, does not have the right to dispose of the entire property. 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.

From that, the trial panel determined that the two defendants had the right to dispose of half of the property value and the part of the property inherited from Mr. Kha (Mrs. Khanh and Mr. Quang accepted the inheritance), equivalent to VND 194.4 billion.

The jury found that Mr. Thinh had 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 trial panel forced the defendant to pay the plaintiff 68 billion VND (35% of the 194.4 billion VND that Ms. Khanh and Mr. Quang were entitled to).

For some disputes arising, the 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.

In addition, the jury canceled the deposit contract between Mr. Quang and Mr. Vu Huy Hoang. Before his death, Mr. Quang once put the house up for sale and received deposits from many people. In which, Mr. Hoang made a deposit of 21 billion VND.

According to the development of the case, in 2007, Ms. Khanh and Mr. Quang authorized Mr. Dang Dinh Thinh to carry out the procedures to reclaim the house and promised 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. house and land after being reclaimed”.

4 years later, Mr. Thinh successfully reclaimed the house, but Khanh’s mother and daughter “ignored” and did not fulfill their commitment to pay the reward, so Mr. Thinh sued.

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.

However, in July 2017, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court issued a decision to appeal against cassation, requesting the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a cassation trial and cancel 2 first-instance and appellate judgments.

After that, the Judges’ Council of the Supreme People’s Court accepted the appeal and issued a decision on cassation to cancel 2 judgments of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City and the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City.

At the second first instance trial, Mr. Thinh still maintained his claim 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.

Thanh Phuong