The value of construction and repairs in a public housing equally owned by them

A woman is obligated to pay 725,000 dirhams to her ex-husband

The court charged the defendant with a 50% ownership interest in the home.

À archival

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims ordered a woman to pay to her ex-husband an amount of 725,000 dirhams, the value of construction and repairs in a public house owned equally by them.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against his ex-wife, in which he demanded to oblige her to pay him an amount of three million, 500 thousand and 625 dirhams, and the legal interest at the rate of 5% from the date of filing the lawsuit until the full payment, and obligating her to pay the fees and expenses of the lawsuit and in exchange for attorneys’ fees, indicating that the defendant She was his wife, and during the marital relationship between them, he gave her a residential plot of 50% each.

He added that they decided to exchange it for a popular house for 402,500 dirhams, and he paid for the exchange separately to the owner of the popular house. Contracting with a company for the construction and completion of the additional building and the maintenance and restoration of the house. The cost of the additional works amounted to four million and 598 thousand and 750 dirhams, and he paid the entire cost individually.

The plaintiff indicated that there was a dispute between him and the defendant, after which she filed a lawsuit for the same conditions, and a judgment was issued in her to divorce her, and a judgment was issued for dividing the public housing, and he alone paid the monthly installments of the loan to the bank, and the total of what he paid amounted to one million and 50 thousand dirhams. The defendant did not pay her share in the value of the cost of the buildings, additions and maintenance that took place in the popular housing, and she did not pay her share in exchange for the exchange of the housing in question with its previous owner, and she did not pay her share of the loan.

For her part, the defendant submitted a reply memorandum in which she argued that the lawsuit was filed prematurely for not dividing the housing in question in kind, and denied all that the plaintiff stated regarding the amounts he spent on the housing and the amount of the exchange, and acknowledged the loan amount for the purpose of adding new buildings to the public housing.

She stated that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that he had paid any amount to the contracting company, noting that the letter issued by the contracting company to the plaintiff is artificial, as the company is owned by his son, and he resides with him in the part allocated to him in the popular housing, and that the plaintiff has used the added building since its inception by leasing it To others, and requested that the case be rejected for lack of validity and proof, while the report of the expert delegated by the court showed that the total amounts paid by the plaintiff from the loan account to date amounted to one million and 50 thousand dirhams, and the total amounts paid by the plaintiff for the house swap is 400 thousand dirhams, and the total of what is required of the The defendant paid 725,000 dirhams.

The court indicated in the rationale for its ruling that the evidence from the papers is that the popular housing is owned equally by the two parties to the litigation in common, and that the buildings that were added with the loan amount benefit the two parties to the litigation. It is 50%, which is what the plaintiff is entitled to for half of the amount he paid to the bank.

She pointed out that there was no evidence to support the amount of 2,598,750 dirhams that the plaintiff claimed to have paid from his own account to the contracting company, in exchange for the construction of additional buildings in the housing subject of the lawsuit, and the implementation of repair and maintenance work, indicating that it is established in the expert's report that the plaintiff did not provide any details. for maintenance work carried out.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 725,000 dirhams.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news