Wenqi Sun
When spouses agree during divorce that one of them will receive a dwelling, the transfer may remain unregistered. Courts have not used one consistent standard to decide whether the spouse receiving the property (the 'recipient spouse') can stop compulsory enforcement against it. The decisions usually look at similar facts, but they use those facts in different ways: some treat them as conditions of the right, some as conditions for asserting the right against others, and some only as signs of bad faith. Before registration, the recipient spouse has a claim asking for transfer registration, rather than ownership of the dwelling. This claim can have limited effect against an ordinary creditor because it concerns a particular dwelling and because the spouse may have relied on the divorce settlement; the dwelling's use as a basic home may give further support. Article 14 of the Interpretation on Enforcement Objection Lawsuits offers the nearest rule for comparison. When used by analogy, its requirement of paying the purchase price can be adjusted to the exchange of value and the actual performance found in the whole marital-property settlement. The agreement must take effect before attachment, the spouse must lawfully possess the dwelling, the failure to register must not be attributable to that spouse, and malicious collusion must be absent. In this way, the several factors used by courts are checked separately under a legal rule instead of being weighed together without a fixed order.