Jin Jin, a professional lawyer specializing in real estate in Beijing, specializes in real estate sales, borrowing names to buy houses, real estate inheritance, right confirmation, demolition and relocation of real estate disputes, vacating houses, public housing disputes, central housing, military housing, divorce real estate division and other real estate cases. With more than 17 years of experience, he has led a professional real estate legal team, handled a large number of real estate cases, and accumulated rich litigation experience. (In order to protect the privacy of the parties and avoid unnecessary disputes, the names of the parties in the following cases are pseudonyms, if there are any similarities, please contact us to revoke them.) )
(A mini program has been added here, please go to the Toutiao client to view)
The plaintiff alleged
Zhao Moujun and Zhou Mouda filed litigation requests with this court: 1. Requesting that the house located in Room A, Changping District, Beijing be jointly owned by the two plaintiffs, and that the two defendants assist the two plaintiffs in handling the property rights transfer procedures. 2. Order the two defendants to bear the litigation costs of this case.
Facts and reasons: The second plaintiff is the first parent of the defendant and the second in-law of the defendant, and in 2015, the second plaintiff purchased a house, because it has a house under its name and the tax fee for the second suite, so it borrowed the name of the second defendant to purchase the house involved in the case, and on September 18, 2015, the second plaintiff purchased the house in the name of the second defendant, with a total price of 2.77 million yuan, and the second plaintiff actually paid the house and taxes, renovated the house involved in the case, and actually lived in it until now. In July 2018, the second defendant borrowed the property right certificate of the house involved in the case from the plaintiff, claiming that it was used for the filing of overseas property, and the second plaintiff lent the original property right certificate to the second defendant, and then asked the second defendant for the house book many times, and learned that the two defendants maliciously colluded, had gone through the divorce procedures, and transferred the house involved in the case to the second defendant, the second plaintiff communicated with the second defendant many times about this matter, and the second defendant always avoided answering, and now in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, a special lawsuit is filed with your court, please support the plaintiff's claim in accordance with the law.
The defendant argued
Zhou Mouqiang argued that he agreed with the plaintiff's claim and was willing to cooperate with the plaintiff in handling the transfer.
Defendant Lin Moujie argued that he did not agree with the plaintiff's claims. 1. On the nature of the housing involved in the lawsuit. Lin Moujie and Zhou Mouqiang registered their marriage on October 26, 2007, and on October 10, 2015, Lin Moujie and Zhou Mouqiang signed a contract for the sale and purchase of stock houses in Beijing as co-buyers, and purchased Room A in Changping District, Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the house involved in the case), and there was a co-ownership agreement, which stated that the above-mentioned house was the joint property of the husband and wife, and the nature was joint ownership. And the owners of the house at that time were Lin Moujie and Zhou Mouqiang. Later, Zhou Mouqiang asked for a divorce from Lin Moujie.
On January 17, 2018, Lin Moujie and Zhou Mouqiang divorced by agreement, and the part of the divorce agreement regarding the joint property of the husband and wife agreed that the commercial house (i.e., the house involved in the lawsuit) purchased by the husband and wife in full after marriage would be owned by the woman after the divorce, and then the two parties changed the registration in the housing registration department, and the owner of the above-mentioned house was changed to Lin Moujie's sole ownership according to the effective divorce agreement. Therefore, with regard to the nature of the house in question, the respondent did not accept the claim in the plaintiff's complaint that the house was purchased in the name of the respondent. The house involved in the lawsuit was originally purchased by Lin Moujie and Zhou Mouqiang, and the two plaintiffs knew about it, supported and recognized it. Now the two parties are divorced, and according to the effective divorce agreement signed by both parties, the house should be owned by Lin Moujie alone.
2. On the source of the purchase money. The real situation is that although the money comes from the plaintiff's account, it does not belong to the plaintiff, and the specific circumstances are: according to the relevant demolition contract and the previous judgment of the People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing, the demolition money obtained by Zhou Mouqiang due to the demolition and the moving expenses obtained by the respondents Lin Moujie and Zhou Mouqiang, the above expenses are controlled and uniformly controlled by the plaintiff Zhao Moujun, and the respondent believes that the source of the house payment for the purchase of the house involved in the lawsuit is actually the demolition money of Lin Moujie and Zhou Mouqiang. Even if the demolition money and the house price are not exactly equal, the respondent believes that the second plaintiff expressly donated the money to the respondent and Zhou Mouqiang, so it is very supportive of buying the house in the names of the respondent and Zhou Mouqiang. The house involved in the lawsuit purchased by Lin Moujie and Zhou Mouqiang is a second-hand house, and the interior decoration of the house has not been changed when the house is purchased, and it continues to be used after the purchase of the house, and the plaintiff's claim that the house involved in the case was renovated is not true.
3. On the living situation. Regarding residence, the real situation is that after Lin Moujie and Zhou Mouqiang divorced, the legitimate son Zhou Mouli was raised by the husband Zhou Mouqiang, and the second plaintiff was the child's grandparents and had been responsible for taking care of Zhou Mouli's daily life, so the respondent agreed that the plaintiff temporarily lived in the house in question.
4. With regard to the plaintiff's allegation that the respondent and the defendant colluded maliciously. 2. The allegation in the plaintiff's complaint that the respondent maliciously colluded with Zhou Mouqiang is not true.
5. As for the contract proposed in the cause of action contract dispute, there is no such thing as a contract at all. There was no written or oral agreement between Lin Moujie and the second plaintiff regarding the purchase of the house involved in the lawsuit, and the second plaintiff claimed that the cause of action was a contract dispute, and the respondent did not know where the contract came from. Moreover, there was no private or public contract between the respondent and the second plaintiff, and the house involved in the suit was purchased by Lin Moujie and her ex-husband Zhou Mouqiang in the name of husband and wife, and it was the joint property of the husband and wife at the time of purchase. Now the two parties are divorced, and according to the effective divorce agreement, the house involved in the lawsuit is now owned by Lin Moujie alone, which is his personal property.
In summary, the claims listed in the two plaintiffs' complaints have no factual and legal basis, and the respondents do not recognize them. I sincerely request the court to make a judgment in accordance with the law and reject all of the plaintiff's claims.
The court ascertained
Zhao Moujun and Zhou Mouda are husband and wife, and the two have a son Zhou Mouqiang after marriage. Zhou Mouqiang and Lin Moujie registered their marriage in 2007 and registered their divorce in 2018.
On September 18, 2015, Zhou Mouqiang (the buyer) and Chen Mougang (the seller), who was not involved in the case, signed the "Beijing Stock Housing Sales Contract", stipulating that the seller would sell the house located in Room A in Changping District to the buyer, and the transaction price of the house was 2.77 million yuan. The contract also stipulates other elements.
On October 10, 2015, Chen Mougang (the seller), who was not involved in the case, signed the "Stock Housing Sales Contract" with Zhou Mouqiang (the buyer) and Lin Moujie (the co-owner of the buyer). On the same day, Zhou Mouqiang and Lin Moujie signed the "Beijing State-owned Land Housing Ownership Transfer Registration Application", "Family Housing Application Form (Class A)", "House Purchase Commitment", "Co-ownership Agreement" and other documents, of which the content of the "Co-ownership Agreement" is recorded as "Zhou Mouqiang and Lin Moujie jointly purchased is located in: Room A, Changping District, is a common property: Zhou Mouqiang holds the main certificate and jointly owns it; Lin Moujie holds the auxiliary certificate and jointly owns it." ”。
On the same day, Zhou Mouqiang and Lin Moujie received the house ownership certificate, and the common share was co-ownership.
On September 18, 2015, Zhao Moujun paid 100,000 yuan for the purchase of the house through his bank account, and spent 2.67 million yuan on October 10, 2015, and on the same day, Zhao Moujun spent 26,929.87 yuan on his personal credit card account to pay the deed tax. Regarding the payment of the purchase price, Zhou Mouqiang admitted that all the purchase price of the house involved in the case was paid by Zhao Moujun, and Lin Moujie stated that although the money came from Zhao Moujun's account, it did not completely belong to the plaintiff. and submit the demolition contract and the previous judgment to this court.
Among them, it was recorded in the trial that the demolition company and Zhao Moujun signed five "Beijing Residential Housing Demolition Monetary Compensation Agreements", and the demolition company should pay Zhao Moujun 1665640 yuan in compensation and subsidies for demolition and relocation, 585,000 yuan, 189026 yuan, 1,019,200 yuan, and 870,000 396132 yuan respectively; 125,850 yuan. Based on the circumstances ascertained during the trial, the People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality, found that Zhou Mouqiang was the population resettled in this demolition, and that the "Beijing Residential Housing Demolition Monetary Compensation Agreement" signed with the demolition company as the person being demolished and the demolition company paid Zhou Mouqiang appropriate compensation did not violate the mandatory provisions of the law, so the judgment is as follows:
1. Defendant Zhao Moujun continues to perform the five "Beijing Residential Housing Demolition Monetary Compensation Agreements" signed with the plaintiff Beijing T Company after this judgment takes effect; 2. Defendant Zhou Mouqiang continues to perform the two "Beijing Residential Housing Demolition Monetary Compensation Agreements" signed with the plaintiff Beijing T Company after this judgment takes effect; 3. The plaintiff Beijing T Company shall pay the defendant Zhao Moujun and the defendant Wu Moujuan 10.88 million yuan in compensation for demolition and relocation within 10 days after this judgment takes effect; Within 10 days after this judgment came into effect, the plaintiff Beijing T Company paid the defendant Zhao Moujun, the defendant Wu Moujuan, the defendant Zhou Mouqiang, the third party Zhou Mouda, and the third party Lin Moujie a total of 500,000 yuan.
Regarding the distribution of the demolition money, Zhao Moujun stated that the demolition money had been distributed, and the original defendant and the defendant had separated and submitted two transfer vouchers to this court, transferring 100,000 yuan to Lin Moujie on October 30, 2015, and 70,000 yuan to Lin Moujie on November 15, 2015, and stating that he also paid Lin Moujie 30,000 yuan in cash. Lin Moujie recognized the fact of the transfer, but did not agree with the statement of separation.
On January 17, 2018, Zhou Mouqiang and Lin Moujie signed the "Divorce Agreement" Among them, on the disposal of the joint property of the husband and wife, the husband and wife buy a commercial house in full after marriage, located in Room A, Changping District, Beijing, and now the two parties negotiate that the property will be owned by the woman after the divorce, and the man has the obligation to cooperate with the woman to go through the property right change procedures, and the relevant change procedures shall be handled within half a year after the divorce procedures, if the man does not cooperate with the woman to handle the transfer of real estate, the man must pay the woman 500,000 yuan; The common daily necessities are also owned by the woman, and the man is not allowed to move them without the consent of the woman. On the same day, Zhou Mouqiang and Lin Moujie received a divorce certificate.
On December 28, 2018, the house involved in the case was changed and registered under the name of Lin Moujie, and the total ownership was separately owned.
Zhao Moujun submitted to this court the vouchers for the purchase of furniture, household appliances, property, water, electricity, gas, and other expenses, proving that he had been living and paying various expenses, and was the actual funder of the house involved in the case. Lin Moujie did not recognize the evidentiary purpose of the evidence.
Adjudication Results
All litigation claims of Zhao Moujun and Zhou Mouda were rejected.
Property Lawyer Reviews
The focus of the dispute in this case was whether there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to borrow their names to buy the house. First of all, on the issue of the payment of the purchase price. The available evidence can prove that the purchase price and the house deed tax were paid from Zhao Moujun's personal account, but according to the content of the previous judgment, the "Beijing Residential Housing Demolition Monetary Compensation Agreement" signed by Zhou Mouqiang and the outsider is valid, and Zhou Mouqiang and Lin Moujie both enjoy the rights and interests of demolition. Moreover, Zhao Moujun only proved that he had paid 200,000 yuan to Lin Moujie, but did not fully prove that he had disposed of the demolition subsidy, so it could not be determined that the money spent in Zhao Moujun's account was his personal property.
Secondly, on the expenditure of housing and related furniture and appliances, property, water, electricity, gas and other expenses. Zhou Mouqiang and Lin Moujie were originally husband and wife, and the two plaintiffs were Zhou Mouqiang's parents, and both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that they would live together after purchasing the house.
To sum up, the evidence provided by Zhao Moujun and Zhou Mouda is insufficient to prove that there is a de facto agreement to borrow names to purchase houses between them and Zhou Mouqiang and Lin Moujie. The court did not support his claim to confirm the ownership of the house and to change the registration of the disputed house in his name. The court accepted the reasonable part of Lin Moujie's defense opinion.