On 5/8, The Cover reported on a unique divorce settlement mediated by the Qianfeng District Court in Guang'an City, Sichuan Province, China. The dispute wasn't over houses or finances, but rather the couple's 53 poultry: 29 chickens, 22 geese, and two ducks.

The odd number of birds and their varying sizes made dividing them difficult.

In May, Mr. Duong and Ms. Do filed for divorce. Judge Tran Tay, who presided over the case, explained, "Both live in the countryside, their main income comes from farming and raising livestock. The husband also works part-time in neighboring areas during the off-season."

Their only significant asset was a self-built rural house. Since they weren't from the same village, local regulations only allowed villagers usage rights to houses built on collectively owned land. Therefore, the house couldn't be divided legally, leaving its usage rights up for negotiation.

The division of the poultry became the central issue in the mediation process.

In court, Ms. Do argued, "The geese are of different sizes, and I personally raised some of the larger ones." Mr. Duong countered that he also cared for the smaller geese, chickens, and ducks, insisting on an even split of all sizes. Each believed they had contributed more.

Judge Tran suggested dividing the geese equally, giving each 11 geese, or calculating the difference based on market price. The two ducks could be split evenly. However, the 29 chickens posed a problem: who would get the odd bird?

With both sides at an impasse, the judge proposed, "Let's follow the same principle as before. Either divide evenly and share the remaining chicken, or whoever wants it can compensate the other."

"Let's share the chicken!", the couple surprisingly agreed. They decided to have a final meal together before finalizing the divorce.

Judge Tran explained that dividing livestock in rural areas requires considering growth cycles and rearing costs, not just the number of animals. This "property division combined with emotional counseling" approach respects both legal regulations and rural customs, making it particularly suitable for family disputes in rural areas.

This case reflects a new trend in rural divorces, characterized by simple assets but complex emotional entanglements," Judge Tran noted.

Mr. Duong and Ms. Do had negotiated for over six months, involving family elders, but to no avail. Their children also agreed not to intervene. In court, they sought not just a ruling, but a mutually acceptable solution.

Judge Tran added that despite going to court, the couple maintained a basic level of respect. Mr. Duong drove Ms. Do to and from the courthouse. They were also open to negotiating the house's usage rights, suggesting a willingness to maintain some level of mutual support despite their financial independence.

Tue Anh