Brief facts of the case:
In a house in Shanghai, after mediation by the court, it was confirmed that Xiaohong, Xiaohuang, and Xiaolu each accounted for one-third. Later, Xiao Huang sued for division, and the court recognized the loss of the common basis of the parties and granted the division.
Xiao Huang asked that if he did not divide it, he did not want to live in it, and he did not want the house division money, so he had to keep the name of the real estate certificate and maintain the status quo.
Xiao Huang only has one property right house in Shanghai, and Xiao Huang's family is required to enjoy the city's minimum living guarantee and low-rent housing subsidy based on the property right registration of the property at issue, and if they lose their property rights, they will directly lose their social security benefits. Xiao Huang and his wife are too old to pass the bank loan approval, and their daughter Shang is also unable to take out a loan, and the family cannot afford to buy another house even if they get the discount. Now that the Housing at Issue is being used by Xiao Equ, Xiao Huang has not affected Xiao E-Fang's use of the Property at Issue, and it is more beneficial for both parties to maintain the status quo of the Co-ownership of the Property at Issue.
Case source: (2023) Hu 02 Min Zhong No. 12967
Judgment of the court part,
The court held that the house at issue was jointly owned by Xiao Chi, Xiao Lu and Xiao Huang each with one-third shares, and the co-owners of the shares enjoyed ownership of the jointly owned immovable or movable property according to their shares. At present, Xiao Huang does not agree to the division on the grounds that he cannot enjoy the city's minimum living guarantee and low-rent housing subsidy after the division, and this court believes that the appeal opinion lacks factual and legal basis, and it is difficult for this court to adopt it. The court of first instance determined that the property at issue was owned by Xiao Chi and Xiao Lu in accordance with the valuation of the property at issue and the use of the property at issue, the current situation, Xiao Chi Fang's and Xiao Huang's property rights share, and the division opinion, and determined that the house at issue was owned by Xiao Chi and Xiao Lu, with Xiao Chi enjoying one-third of the property rights and Xiao Lu enjoying two-thirds of the property rights, and that Xiao Lu's payment of Xiao Huang's corresponding discount was not improper or contrary to the law, and this court recognized the reasons stated in the original judgment. Xiao Huang's appeal request lacks factual and legal basis, and this court does not support it.
