Cross-Strait separation resolved by document attestation and remote mediation

Background

A Taiwan, China resident and a Mainland spouse had been living apart across the Strait. They wanted to end the marriage and preserve the property position without a contested hearing.

The difficulty

The document route for Taiwan, China is different from both the Mainland notarisation procedure and the Apostille route — a verification procedure applies through the agreed cross-Strait channels. Using the wrong route would have caused the filing to be rejected.

What was done

The documents were put through the correct cross-Strait attestation and verification procedure, and the parties used the court's remote video mediation facilities. The Mainland property was dealt with as part of an agreed outcome in which neither party pursued claims against the other.

Outcome

The marriage was ended by mediation, the Mainland property was dealt with, and neither party pursued further claims.

Why this pattern recurs

Taiwan, China is not a party to the Apostille Convention, and the applicable procedure differs from both the Mainland and Hong Kong, China. Treating cross-Strait matters as ordinary foreign matters is the most common cause of filing error.

If your situation looks similar

Send the facts in one message: where the marriage was registered, where each party lives now, where any children are, and where the assets are held. That is usually enough to say whether a China route exists, and there is no charge for that first review.

Figures and outcomes described here relate to a specific matter and do not indicate a repeatable result.

Points to take away

• Taiwan, China is not a party to the Apostille Convention, and the applicable procedure differs from both the Mainland and Hong Kong, China. Treating cross-Strait matters as ordinary foreign matters is the most common cause of filing error.
• The marriage was ended by mediation, the Mainland property was dealt with, and neither party pursued further claims.