The Chinese solution

China adopted a useful rule in 2025: marriage and a name on the title do not erase where a major asset came from.¹

If the home belonged to the man before marriage, if his parents paid for it, or if the other spouse dissipated marital money, the court looks at those facts. It does not press a simple “half each” button.

That is the part worth copying.

A premarital home does not have to become half hers

If one spouse owned a home before marriage and later added the other spouse to the title, the added name does not end the analysis. A Chinese court may leave the home with the original owner and award reasonable compensation separately.²

The court considers the purpose of the transfer, length of cohabitation, children, fault, family contribution, and market value. It follows the actual history of the asset instead of looking only at the latest registry entry.

Parents’ money does not disappear into the marriage

If one spouse’s parents paid for the home, the source remains visible. When they paid the full price, the court may award the home to their child and decide compensation separately. If both families contributed, or one family paid only part, the contributions form the starting point before the remaining circumstances are considered.³

For a man, the principle matters: his parents’ savings should not automatically become somebody else’s half merely because the purchase happened after the wedding.

Dissipate marital property, receive less

The interpretation also allows a court to reduce the share of a spouse who dissipated marital property without the other’s consent, potentially to zero.⁴

The logic is simple: a right to marital property does not include a right to burn through it first and then demand half of what remains.

What Russia should take from it

Trace the source of major assets. Count the duration of the marriage, direct contribution, parental money, dissipation, and coercion. Real family work can justify compensation. Compensation should not erase the person who created the asset or turn a short marriage into a profitable extraction strategy.

Chinese law does not apply in Russia. This is a ready example of a different division principle, not instructions to a Russian court.⁵

Under current Russian law, preserve bank transfers, purchase contracts, evidence of parental funding, and written property agreements before a dispute begins. The source of the money must be provable before somebody tries to rewrite it.

Notes

1. This is Judicial Interpretation II of the Marriage and Family Book of China’s Civil Code, issued by the Supreme People’s Court and effective from 1 February 2025.
2. Article 5 covers a home owned by one spouse and later registered to the other spouse or both. In a short marriage, where the giver bears no major fault, the court may return the home to the giver. Compensation takes account of the purpose of the gift, duration of cohabitation, children, fault, family contribution, and market value. In the court’s published example, the premarital home remained with the original owner and the other spouse received a reasonable payment.
3. Article 8 deals with a home bought during marriage using parents’ money. If one side’s parents paid the full price, the court may award the home to their child and determine compensation separately. With partial funding or contributions from both families, the source and proportions of the contributions form the base of division before shared life, children, fault, family contribution, and current value are considered.
4. Article 6 allows excessive gifts to livestreamers made from marital property without the other spouse’s consent to be treated as dissipation. The injured spouse may seek division during marriage or ask at divorce for the spender’s share to be reduced, potentially to zero.
5. Russia’s marital-property regime differs from this Chinese mechanism. The Chinese interpretation is used here as a reform model and comparative argument, not as a source of Russian law.