This is something that almost everyone encounters, and most people can't handle it well. Read other people's stories and increase your own knowledge.
Brief facts of the case:
The young couple buys a house after marriage, and the parents contribute to the house, and the house is registered in the name of the young couple.
Other details:
1. Parents transfer money to their children, and the children take the money to contribute to the purchase of the house;
2. The party advocating the loan said that it verbally said that the money was a loan at that time, but did not provide evidence;
3. One of the spouses does not know about it and only raises it at the time of divorce;
Lawyer Yang Qinren's comments:
Many people ask whether the parents' contribution to the purchase of a house after marriage is a gift or a joint loan?
Professional people will say that the specific situation is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
So, how does the court deal with the above-mentioned specific situations, and the court will also deal with similar situations.
Returning to this case, the core circumstances of this case are, first, that the parents transferred money to their children, and the children used the money to purchase a house;
Article 29 of the "Supreme People's Court's Judicial Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China on Marriage and Family" provides that if the parents contribute to the purchase of a house for both parties before they get married, the contribution shall be deemed to be a gift to their children, unless the parents expressly express the gift to both parties.
After the parties get married, if the parents contribute to the purchase of a house for both parties, it shall be handled in accordance with the agreement; if there is no agreement or the agreement is not clear, it shall be handled in accordance with the principles provided for in Article 1062, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Civil Code.
Article 1062 of the Civil Code [Joint Property of Husband and Wife] The following property acquired by husband and wife during the existence of the marital relationship is the joint property of the husband and wife and shall be jointly owned by the husband and wife:
(4) Inherited or donated property, except as provided for in item 3 of Article 163 of this Law;
Article 1063: [Personal Property of Husband and Wife]: The following property is the personal property of one of the husband and wife:
(3) Property that is determined in a will or gift contract to belong to only one party;
In fact, if the parents help the young couple to buy a house after marriage, and the house is registered in the names of both husband and wife, and the capital contribution is a gift or a loan to the young couple, and there is no other evidence or circumstances to prove the actual intention of the parents at that time, the court generally considers it to be a gift to the husband and wife.
Case source: (2021) Hu 02 Min Zhong No. 12593
The court of first instance held that
Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual claim, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the nature of the 1.8 million yuan involved in the case is a loan or a gift, and the following analysis is made in this regard: First, the money involved in the case was transferred by Zhang ZF to Zhang SC for the purchase of the above-mentioned house after Zhang SC and Li YJ got married, but Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting failed to provide an IOU issued by Zhang SC and Li YJ, nor did they require Zhang SC and Li YJ to issue an IOU. Second, although Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting stated that they had orally informed Zhang SC and Li YJ that the money involved in the case was in the nature of a loan, and that Zhang SC and Li YJ also verbally recognized it, Li YJ denied this, and Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting did not provide relevant evidence to prove it. Third, although the explanation issued by Zhang SC recognized that the money involved in the case was borrowed from Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting for the purchase of the above-mentioned house by him and Li YJ, it was issued after the divorce was registered with Li YJ and without Li YJ's knowledge, and it was contrary to the content of the joint creditor's rights and debts of the husband and wife specified in the voluntary divorce agreement, and Li YJ denied that the money involved in the case was a joint loan between him and Zhang SC. Fourth, starting from the traditional concept of family, Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting believed that the nature of the money involved in the case was in the nature of a loan, while Li YJ believed that it was in the nature of a gift. According to the relevant laws and regulations, if the parents contribute to the purchase of a house for both parties after they get married, the contribution shall be deemed to be a gift to both husband and wife, unless the parents expressly express the gift to one of the parties. Therefore, the above views of Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting are difficult to establish. In summary, Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting held that the money involved in the case was in the nature of a loan and had no factual or legal basis, and the court did not accept it, and that the money involved in the case should be a gift from Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting to Zhang SC and Li YJ.
The court of second instance held that
In accordance with law, the parties shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which their own claims are based or the facts on which they refute the other party's claims. If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove their factual assertions, the parties must bear the adverse consequences. Appellants Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting believed that the appellee Li YJ should also return the loan of 900,000 yuan and pay interest. In this regard, this court held that the first-instance trial found that Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting's claim for a loan of 1.8 million yuan was not established based on the ascertained facts, and therefore ruled in favor of Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting's claim that Zhang SC should return the principal and interest of the loan of 900,000 yuan on the basis of the evidence in the case and the opinions of all parties, and rejected Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting's claim that Li YJ should return the principal and interest of the loan of 900,000 yuan, which was not improper, and this court agreed with this. During the second-instance trial, appellants Zhang ZF and Zhang Jiting insisted on supporting their first-instance appeal. However, this court held that according to the rules of evidence, the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the fact that he and Li YJ had formed a loan agreement, nor did it provide conclusive evidence to prove that the facts ascertained in the first instance were inconsistent with the facts, so this court did not support the Appellant's relevant claims.
