Suspicion of buying a house in a borrowed name: the court rejected the child's claim for the ownership of the father's real estate"

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 19 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

Plaintiff Chen Moujun filed a lawsuit with this court: order the defendant Chen Moulan to assist the plaintiff in handling the registration procedures for the transfer of house No. 1 in Dongcheng District, Beijing, and register it in the name of Chen Moujun.

Facts and reasons: The plaintiff, the defendant and the third party are sisters, and the father is Chen Mouxian. The source of the No. 1 house in Dongcheng District, Beijing is that in 1988, his father Chen Mouxian exchanged the rented public house, namely No. A in Dongcheng District, for the Fengtai B house, and then the father exchanged the Fengtai house for the house involved in the case, and the nature of the house was the public housing of the housing management office. After the house was changed, his father, Chen Mouxian, was taken care of by the plaintiff's family and lived together in the house in question. In 1993, public housing could be purchased, but because there was another private house in his father's name, it was inconvenient to apply for the purchase in his own name, so after consultation among all family members, the father actually contributed 9,455.57 yuan to purchase the public housing in the name of the defendant Chen Moulan, so all the house purchase procedures were handled in the name of Chen Moulan, and Chen Moulan became the nominal property owner of the house involved in the case. However, in the hearts of the three sisters, the house involved in the case has always belonged to the family property, and the defendant Chen Moulan only registered it on behalf of her.

His father, Chen Mouxian, died on August 12, 2001. Based on the fact that the source of the above-mentioned house involved in the case is family property, the three sisters agreed to dispose of the house involved in the case according to their father's estate, that is, the original defendant each accounted for 1/ 3, because the plaintiff's family of three has been living in the house involved in the case and has no other housing under their names, so the three of them agreed to obtain the ownership of the house by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff gave the defendant and the third party the house discount, and the negotiation time was 2002, so according to the market value of the house at that time was 180,000 yuan, the plaintiff agreed to pay 60,000 yuan to the defendant and the third party as the purchase price, and the defendant Chen Moulan agreed to cooperate with the plaintiff to go through the house transfer procedures, and then handed over the house ownership certificate to the plaintiff to show the agreement. The contract for the sale and purchase of the house agreed orally between the defendant and the third party was established and valid. The plaintiff performed the house sale contract in accordance with the contract, and in 2002 delivered 60,000 yuan of treasury bills to a third party as the purchase price, and subsequently paid the defendant Chen Moulan 60,000 yuan as the purchase price. After repeated urgings by the plaintiff, the defendant was always negligent in going through the transfer procedures.

As the house price rose, the defendant and the third party put forward unreasonable demands for price increases, regardless of the previous contract, and the plaintiff had no choice but to pay more than 16,000 yuan to the defendant and the third party respectively to urge them to perform the contract and cooperate with the transfer. In January 2018, the plaintiff successively transferred a total of 16,200 yuan to the third party Chen Mouzhi by bank transfer (transfer note: 60,000 + 16,200 yuan for the purchase of a house in Dongli). After receiving a total of 60,000 yuan + 16,000 yuan from the plaintiff for the purchase of the house, the defendant Chen Moulan issued a receipt to the plaintiff on March 18, 2019.

The plaintiff has been living in the house in question for more than 30 years since his father changed houses in 1989, and the house ownership certificate and other relevant documents for the purchase of the house are all held by the plaintiff, and the house is the only house of the plaintiff and is also a basic living guarantee.

To sum up, the plaintiff, the defendant and the third party formed an oral house sale contract relationship due to the sisterly relationship, and the plaintiff paid the defendant and the third party 76,000 yuan and 76,200 yuan respectively according to the contract, but the defendant was driven by economic interests to delay in performing the contractual obligations and did not cooperate with the plaintiff to go through the transfer procedures, and the plaintiff had no choice but to sue your court, hoping that the judgment would be as requested, so as to protect the plaintiff's legal rights.

The defendant argued

The defendant Chen Moulan argued that she did not agree with the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff's complaint was not true. The tenant of the house involved in the case is the defendant Chen Moulan, and the defendant Chen Moulan obtained the property right certificate of the house involved in the case through the resale of the house. The father was cared for by the three sisters in turn, not by the plaintiff alone. Since Chen Moujun had a small house in his name, in order to take care of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was allowed to live in the house in question. Later, the defendant mentioned that he wanted to return the house in question, and the plaintiff made a fuss. House B in Fengtai District, Beijing is a dormitory assigned to Chen Moulan by Chen Moulan's unit, and after Chen Moulan returned the dormitory allocated by the unit, she was exchanged for the house involved in the case, and the lessee was Chen Moulan. Before his father Chen Mouxian died, he had a house in No. H, which had been rented, and the rent was kept by the plaintiff Chen Moujun, and the 60,000 yuan paid by Chen Moujun to Chen Moulan was the rent of the house before, and the house had been demolished before 2000.

The third person, Chen Mouzhi, stated that he did not agree with the plaintiff's claim, and the house involved in the case was registered in the name of Chen Moulan and was Chen Moulan's property. Chen Mouzhi did not receive the 60,000 yuan paid by the plaintiff. What the plaintiff said is not true, and what the defendant Chen Moulan said is true.

The court ascertained

On May 26, 1989, Chen Moulan's name was located at No. B in Fengtai District, and Zhao Mougang's house was swapped for No. A, and Chen Moulan obtained the lease right of No. A house.

On August 2, 1995, Chen Moulan purchased the house involved in the case at cost price and obtained the property rights of the house involved in the case. The house involved in the case has been inhabited by Chen Moujun.

The plaintiff submitted a receipt signed by Chen Moulan on March 18, 2019, stating that the plaintiff fulfilled the payment obligation of the house sale contract and paid Chen Moulan 60,000 yuan + 16,000 yuan for the purchase price, and Chen Moulan issued the receipt and agreed to handle the transfer procedures for the plaintiff of the house involved in the case. The content of the receipt is that he has received 60,000 yuan from Chen Moujun's house, plus 16,000 yuan for the purchase of house A. The font "house payment" and "for the purchase of house A" on the receipt is significantly smaller than other fonts. After cross-examination, Chen Moulan recognized Chen Moulan's signature, at that time, Chen Moulan's family of four lived in a two-bedroom apartment, and they wanted not to return to the house involved in the case, so they wanted to apply for public rental housing in the name of Zhou Mouhan, because Zhou Mouhan's household registration was registered in the house involved in the case, when he went to ask for the household registration book, Chen Moujun did not give the household registration book, and forced Chen Moulan to sign, and the entire content when signing the receipt was "I received 60,000 yuan from Chen Moujun, Chen Moulan", and the other contents were added later, not written by Chen Moulan.

In this regard, Chen Moujun said that when he wrote the receipt at that time, Chen Moulan wrote it unclearly, Chen Moulan wrote "plus 16,000 yuan", and the plaintiff added the lowercase "house payment" and "used to buy house A", and Chen Moulan signed on it.

The plaintiff held the transfer record and said that in January 2018, the plaintiff transferred a total of 16,200 yuan to Chen Mouzhi in four times (1,200 yuan on January 13, 2018 and the previous three 5,000 yuan), remarking the purchase price of 60,000 yuan + 16,200 yuan in Dongli, proving that the plaintiff paid 60,000 yuan + 16,200 yuan to Chen Mouzhi for the purchase price. After cross-examination, Chen Mouzhi held his bank statement and detailed details, saying that there was no remark on the details of the money received by Chen Mouzhi, of which 1,200 yuan was the money transferred by Chen Mouzhi to Chen Moulan on January 5, 2018, Chen Moujun repaid the loan on January 13, 2018 and transferred the money back, and the three 5,000 yuan were due to the fact that Chen Mouzhi bought a bracelet worth 15,000 yuan in 2017 and gave it to Chen Moujun, and Chen Moujun later returned the money to Chen Mouzhi.

During the trial, the plaintiff claimed that he gave 60,000 yuan of treasury bills in his name to Chen Mouzhi to offset the housing payment. In this regard, the third person Chen Mouzhi did not recognize.

The plaintiff holds a house exchange agreement, According to the chat record, the house exchange agreement was signed by the father Chen Mouxian, indicating that the house No. 1 was Chen Mouxian's house, and the house involved in the case was the income from the exchange of the house No. B of the father Chen Mouxian, and that there was a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale and purchase of the house, and the plaintiff had paid the corresponding consideration, and the defendant should cooperate with the plaintiff to transfer the house involved in the case to the plaintiff; The chat log can only show that the defendant consented to the plaintiff's residence in the house in question until his death.

Adjudication Results

Plaintiff Chen's claim was rejected.

Property Lawyer Reviews

The parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based or on which they refute the claims of the other party. Where there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the factual assertions of the parties, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.

In this case, the plaintiff asserted that the house involved in the case was obtained from the exchange of the house in the name of his father Chen Mouxian, and was only registered in the name of Chen Moulan, and after the death of his father Chen Mouxian, the plaintiff reached an agreement with Chen Moulan and Chen Mouzhi, and the house involved in the case each accounted for one-third of the share, and the plaintiff had paid the corresponding consideration to Chen Moulan and Chen Mouzhi, and Chen Moulan should cooperate with him to transfer the house involved in the case to the plaintiff's name, and the plaintiff should bear the burden of proof for the above claims.

Now the plaintiff used his father Chen Mouxian's signature at the house exchange agreement to explain that the replacement house was the house No. B of his father Chen Mouxian, and since the house exchange agreement clearly listed the house No. B in Chen Moulan's name, Chen Mouxian's signature at the house exchange agreement can only explain the house exchange matters handled by Chen Mouxian, and cannot explain that the house is Chen Mouxian's house. There is no other evidence to show that the interests in the house involved in the case are related to Chen. The plaintiff used the receipt signed by Chen Moulan to prove that he paid 60,000 yuan + 16,000 yuan to Chen Moulan for the purchase of the house, and since the content of "house payment" and "used to purchase house A" on the receipt was added by Chen Moujun, it cannot be ruled out that the above content is added later, so the evidence is not enough to prove the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff used four transfer vouchers totaling 16,200 yuan to prove that it paid 6+16,200 yuan to Chen Mouzhi, but Chen Mouzhi did not recognize this, and the evidence was insufficient to prove the plaintiff's claim. There is also no statement in the chat record that the defendant and the third party expressly agree that there is a contractual relationship between the sale and purchase of the house.