Beginning with Mr. Z’s initial divorce filing in July 2024—which was dismissed in the first-instance judgment—he filed for divorce again in December 2025. This was followed by the first- and second-instance trials (with the second-instance ruling serving as the final judgment) in the wife’s lawsuit regarding a personality rights dispute, and now the first- and second-instance trials in her lawsuit regarding a gift contract dispute are about to begin. The two parties have been embroiled in this legal battle for two years, With the three cases intertwined and conflicts escalating layer by layer, there seemed to be no end in sight.
It was not until mid-June 2026 that Mr. Z retained Attorney Yuan Yingyan to represent him throughout the first-instance divorce proceedings and the second-instance gift contract case. In just one month, all disputes between the parties were settled and resolved. On July 14, the first hearing for the divorce case was held; on July 16, the second-instance hearing for the gift contract dispute took place; and on the afternoon of July 17, both cases were heard consecutively via video conference. The divorce case was settled through mediation, while the gift contract dispute was concluded on the same day when the wife filed a motion to dismiss her complaint. Four hearings for two cases over four days brought the matter to a close. The parties turned conflict into harmony, and Mr. Z, the husband, visited the law firm to present Attorney Yuan Yingyan with a commemorative banner as a token of gratitude.
I. The Dilemma: Two Years of Protracted Litigation, with Established Facts Working Against the Husband
This dispute began in July 2024 when Mr. Z first filed a divorce lawsuit. Over the following two years, the conflict between the parties snowballed:
In July 2024, Mr. Z filed his initial divorce suit; in May 2025, the first-instance judgment dismissed his claims. During this period, the wife filed a personal rights dispute case alleging that the husband had committed adultery during the marriage. That case has already been finalized through both first- and second-instance proceedings, and the court’s final judgment explicitly determined that the husband had committed adultery and had an extramarital affair;
In December 2025, the husband filed for divorce again, with a hearing scheduled for July 14, 2026;
During the first divorce proceedings, the husband transferred a property acquired during the marriage to his mother’s name; consequently, the wife filed a dispute over the gift contract, which is now in the second-instance proceedings, with a hearing scheduled for July 16, 2026.
Over the course of more than two years, the couple has transformed from spouses into adversaries in three separate cases—a divorce dispute, a personal rights dispute, and a gift contract dispute. Each case has deepened their conflict, and every court hearing has taken a toll on both parties.
On June 15, 2026, Attorney Yuan Yingyan accepted the retainer from Mr. Z. With less than a month remaining before the July 14 hearing in the divorce case, Mr. Z’s condition for retaining Attorney Yuan was to secure a divorce within one month while preserving the property at issue in the gift contract dispute. However, the reality was that the personal rights case had already been finalized on appeal, confirming the husband’s infidelity; the first-instance judgment in the gift contract dispute had declared the contract invalid; and the judge presiding over the divorce case had made it clear during the hearing that the court would prioritize the innocent party, award divorce damages, and reduce the husband’s share due to malicious asset transfer. With these three adverse factors converging, the husband would face an extremely unfavorable property division outcome if the court ruled strictly against him. This appeared to be an insurmountable challenge—adverse res judicata, tight deadlines for both cases, and deep-seated animosity between the parties.
II. Breaking the Deadlock: Avoiding Focus on Adverse Findings,
Opening a New Front to Turn the Tide Against the Odds with Key Evidence
Faced with the res judicata findings in the divorce dispute that were clearly unfavorable to the husband, Attorney Yuan Yingyan decided to take an unconventional approach to find a breakthrough in the case. On the one hand, immediately after accepting the case, she reviewed the bank statements submitted by the wife during the first divorce proceeding and discovered evidence that the wife had also transferred and concealed joint marital property. Therefore, during the court hearing, she requested that the wife submit a full disclosure of all assets in her name as of the date of the hearing—particularly her company’s business accounts and wealth management and mutual fund accounts within her bank deposits—and explain the disposition of funds from large cash withdrawals. The judge also served both parties with an order to declare marital property, which clearly had a deterrent effect on the wife. On the other hand, in the second-instance appeal of the gift contract dispute, the husband possessed only a photocopy of the marital property agreement—the original was in the wife’s possession—and this evidence had not been submitted during the first-instance trial. The agreement concerned the division of four properties within the couple’s marital assets, one of which was precisely the property the husband had gifted to his mother in the gift contract dispute; the agreement stipulated that this property belonged to the husband. Attorney Yuan Yingyan skillfully utilized this evidence. She first submitted it in the divorce case. During cross-examination, the wife directly challenged it, stating, “The husband does not have the original. This agreement was signed by both parties in 2015, at a time when the husband had not yet committed adultery. Now that the situation has changed—the husband has committed adultery—this agreement should not apply.” The wife’s cross-examination inadvertently acknowledged that the couple had indeed signed the agreement. After the trial, Attorney Yuan immediately applied to obtain the trial transcript and submitted it during the second-instance hearing of the gift contract dispute on the 16th. Furthermore, given that this evidence originated from the complaint materials the wife submitted to the Discipline Inspection Commission at the husband’s workplace when she reported his infidelity, Attorney Yuan decisively filed a motion for investigation and evidence collection during the appeal—a motion that was supported by the appellate judge. If the photocopy of the marital property agreement submitted by the husband corroborates the records archived by the Discipline Inspection Commission, a complete chain of evidence would be established, thereby confirming the authenticity of the agreement.
The significance of this breakthrough lies in the fact that it circumvented the one-sided pressure in the divorce case—where the husband was deemed the adulterous party and thus at fault—and established a entirely new strategic foothold in the gift contract dispute. Namely, the actual existence of the marital property agreement implied that the property gift was not a malicious disposition of the couple’s joint property, thereby completely undermining the wife’s previously unshakable expectation of victory. This is precisely—turning a disadvantage into an advantage and seizing the initiative from a passive position.
III. Dedicated Mediation, Appealing to Emotion
With the advantage of evidence in hand, Attorney Yuan Yingyan could have chosen to press her advantage and wait for a reversal in the second-instance trial. However, she knew full well that two years of protracted litigation had already left both parties exhausted. If the battle continued—with the second-instance trial of the gift contract dispute, the divorce proceedings, the objection to enforcement, and the freezing of the property—it would mean yet another endless, draining ordeal, and the child, caught in the middle, would be the biggest victim.
On July 16, after the second-instance hearing on the gift contract dispute concluded, Attorney Yuan Yingyan took the initiative to speak with the wife outside the courtroom. This conversation lasted a full two hours.
During those two hours, Attorney Yuan Yingyan did not try to persuade the woman from a position of superiority. Instead, she put herself in the woman’s shoes, listened to her grievances, understood her anger, and addressed her anxieties about the future. At the appropriate moment, she proposed a settlement: to proceed in accordance with the terms of the marital property agreement, whereby the husband would retain the right to dispose of the property at issue in the gift contract dispute, while the other three properties would belong to the wife (the value of which was equivalent to only 70% of the husband’s share of the assets). Additionally, the husband would pay the wife 1 million yuan in compensation and 250,000 yuan for the child’s education fund—effectively resulting in an equal division of the couple’s marital property. This proposal was significantly lower than the mediation terms the wife had proposed during the first divorce proceedings, yet it did not exceed the husband’s expectations for a settlement, and both parties were willing to accept it. By strongly urging both parties to settle in a case where he was certain to prevail, Attorney Yuan wanted the wife to understand that this proposal did not require her to make concessions, but rather allowed her to win in the present. During the two-hour mediation session, Attorney Yuan did not focus on legal analysis; instead, he helped her envision the future and recognize the value of certainty. Evidence is a sword; mediation is a bridge. What connects both ends is always the trust of the parties involved. What truly brings both sides to a peaceful resolution is ensuring that each person can move forward with dignity. The wife was ultimately moved. She said, “Attorney Yuan truly considered the matter from my perspective. If either of us had retained you during the first divorce dispute, our relationship would never have deteriorated to this extent—it might have been resolved peacefully long ago.”
IV. Two Cases, Four Court Sessions in Four Days; Mediation Concluded in a Single Day
The divorce dispute hearing was held on July 14, and the second-instance hearing for the gift contract dispute took place on July 16. Early on the morning of July 17, Attorney Yuan Yingyan contacted the two judges presiding over the divorce and gift contract cases, respectively, by phone, hoping to schedule online hearings for that day. Both parties agreed to resolve the matters through mediation. The two judges were extremely cooperative and scheduled an online hearing for the afternoon of July 17, first hearing the divorce dispute and then the gift contract dispute. In the divorce dispute, the parties reached a mediated divorce settlement, with a reasonable division of the couple’s joint property. They also agreed that the property in question in the gift contract dispute would belong to the husband. and the wife would no longer assert any further claims. Consequently, in the second-instance appeal of the gift contract dispute, the wife filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In this way, both cases were resolved in a single, comprehensive settlement on the same day.
From the time Attorney Yuan Yingyan accepted the case on June 15 until its conclusion on July 17, she brought an end to more than two years of legal entanglement in just one month. The wife expressed her gratitude to Attorney Yuan Yingyan in person, remarking, “I never expected that in just four short days, from the 14th to the 17th, the case would undergo such a dramatic turnaround.” The couple put aside their differences and parted ways amicably. The husband was particularly satisfied with the outcome and visited the law firm to present Attorney Yuan Yingyan with a commemorative banner.
Lawyer’s Notes
The greatest lesson from this case: When you are at a disadvantage on a given battlefield, do not try to turn the tide by playing by the opponent’s rules—instead, create a new battlefield. Attorney Yuan Yingyan’s deepest insight from handling family law cases is this: Professional competence allows a lawyer to win a case, but it is genuine care that earns respect. The skillful use of key evidence relies on a thorough grasp of evidentiary rules and a keen sense of the case’s interconnections, but the two-hour discussion that ultimately convinced the wife to agree was not based on legal provisions—it was based on sincerity. What she needed was not a “tougher strategy,” but a “choice that would allow her to move forward with peace of mind.” Resolving two cases in four days hinges on guiding both parties—faced with a legally foreseeable outcome—to choose rational damage control over emotional exhaustion. Family law cases differ from commercial disputes; victory should not be measured by “pushing the other party to the brink.” In this case, Attorney Yuan Yingyan broke the deadlock through precise evidence gathering and then guided both parties back to the negotiating table with a rational mediation proposal. This not only protected her client’s legitimate rights and interests but also provided the opposing party with a dignified way out. What truly brought the two sides together was ensuring that everyone could see a way forward. The best outcome is not winning a lawsuit only to lose one’s life, but rather, within the framework of the law, allowing everyone to move forward.
