Woman accuses ex-husband of intentionally violating traffic rules with two of her cars

An Arab woman has asked the Dubai Civil Court to force her ex-husband to transfer ownership of two cars registered in her name to him after he deliberately damaged them and violated traffic rules to harass her. Their personal dispute ended in divorce.

The defendant dismissed his ex-wife’s lawsuit and the lawsuit ended in a settlement between the two parties.

Specifically, an Arab woman filed an action seeking an obligation on her ex-husband to transfer the title to two vehicles belonging to her to his name and to pay the accumulated installments on the two vehicles that had been debited from her account, as well as any new unpaid installments during the litigation until the transfer of title, and to release her from her liability before the mortgage bank, and requiring the plaintiff to bear costs, expenses, attorney fees and legal interest from the date of the claim.

She stated in her complaint that she and the defendant were married when they lived in their own countries, and later they moved to the UAE and built independent lives, each of them was productive, but he faltered in his work, accumulated a lot of debts, and was wanted by the competent authorities for cheques and civil and commercial debts.

After years of overcoming crises, conditions improved and he decided to buy two cars, but given his bad record with the bank, it was not easy for him to borrow money, so he borrowed money from her for his own benefit, and he put her, as his wife, under great pressure until she agreed to buy two cars with a bank loan, and the size of her salary helped her status and credibility in the bank.

The plaintiff added that as time went by, the marital relationship could no longer continue, so he applied for a divorce from the judicial authorities. The first instance court ruled for divorce on the grounds of injury.

She stated that the defendant, in order to irritate her, deliberately stopped paying the monthly instalments of the second car, estimated to be around Dh2,900, and that the matter did not end there, but to further hurt it, he resorted to damaging both cars. She believed that if the cars stopped, she would stop paying and decided to take them back because they were in such a bad condition that they could not be used, and their records were full of violations, pointing out that she could not renew the actual car license that she owned and used because she could not pay for the accumulated violations of the two cars that he owned and were also registered under his name.

The plaintiff provided evidence in support of her claim, which was a folder that included a copy of the marriage contract, copies of the title deeds for two vehicles, a bank loan contract containing the monthly payment amounts, and a request for a divorce from her for injury.

A legal representative for the defendant filed a responsive memorandum of law, including a cross-statement of claim, in which he requested that her claims be dismissed for lack of standing, validity and effectiveness, and that she establish an agency for the two vehicles, allowing him to dispose of them as he wished, and transfer ownership of the two numbers, as they had reached an agreement over the past year. They called him and charged her costs and attorney fees.

The court ruled to appoint an expert in the case to review the documents, but the parties believed that the parties were working hard to reach a settlement and asked for a deadline to complete it, so the court decided to postpone it until the parties reached an amicable settlement.

She explained in the case that the parties submitted a settlement agreement reached by both parties in the lawsuit and requested that it be attached to give it the effect of an execution document, in accordance with Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Law, which states that “regardless of the status of the lawsuit, the parties may ask the court to prove what they agreed to in the minutes in a manner that does not conflict with the current legislation or system and the public”. The court’s ruling was that both parties had an equal obligation to pay costs.