Brief facts of the case:
Xiaolan and Xiaozi are two brothers. Now Xiaozi is suing Xiaolan, claiming that the house was jointly purchased by Xiaolan and Xiaozi, and demanding that 60% of the house be divided. However, the house registration is shared by shares, with 99% of the houses in the blue and 1% in the purple. What's going on here?
Xiao Zi claimed that, first, he was a household with housing difficulties and was qualified to purchase a house at the beginning; second, Xiao Zi and Xiao Lan both made capital contributions, and Xiao Zi contributed a large part of the capital, and the mortgage was his; third, because of the property right registration of the house, Xiao Zi's family could not apply for affordable housing; fourth, Xiao Lan had other residences, and Xiao Zi's family had no other residences;
Xiaolan said that, first, the house registered Xiaozi's name because it needed a loan in his name, and second, the actual mortgage was borne by Xiaolan, and Xiaozi's actual contribution to the house was 150,000.
In other cases,
First, the housing applicant includes Xiaolan, but not Xiaozi,
Second, other family members testified that the registration of Xiaozi's name took into account the tax and the schooling of her children;
Third, the house has always been actually inhabited by Xiaolan's family, Xiaozi has not actually lived in it, and the house is in Xiaolan;
Case source: (2021) Hu 01 Min Zhong No. 3727
Lawyer Yang Qinren's comments:
How should the subdivision of a registered co-owned house be divided?
Is it completely handled in accordance with the housing registration or is it confirmed by comprehensively considering the source of the house, the contribution of the contribution, the actual use, and the retention of the license?
The answer is actually obvious, considering it comprehensively, because it is originally a dispute over the ownership of the house and the division of the house.
The focus of the dispute summarized by the court of second instance was: was the property at issue jointly purchased by Xiaozi and Xiaolan or held by Xiaozi?
There is no share of the house in the house holding, and the joint purchase needs to divide the house, since it is said that the house holding, how to deal with the house holding?
The People's Court's Gazette case "Xiong v. Xie et al., A Case of Real Estate Transfer (Contract for Buying a House in a Borrowed Name)", held that "the determination of the identity of the actual investor when purchasing a house in a borrowed name should be comprehensively judged from the written agreement between the two parties, the repayment procedures, the purchase invoice, the holder of the property right certificate and other evidence." ”
Therefore, don't take chances, what you think is a shaker is likely to be someone else's old yellow calendar that has been encountered hundreds of times.
Selected court judgments in this case,
The court of first instance held that the determination of the ownership of the property at issue should be determined by comprehensively examining factors such as the application, purchase, and loan repayment of the house at issue, and could not be judged solely from the current registration of the house. The court of first instance commented as follows: first, the original registered right holder of the house at issue was Xiao Zi, and later due to the enrollment of Xiao Lan's children, the right holder of the house at issue increased, and Xiao Lan held 1% of the house share, but Xiao Lan did not actually pay Xiao Zi the corresponding consideration. In addition, when Xiao Zi enjoyed 99% of the house share, Xiao Zi filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting confirmation that Xiao Zi only enjoyed 60%, and Xiao Zi's motive for suing was doubtful. Secondly, with regard to the repayment of the mortgage at issue, Xiao Zi initially stated that the money in the bank account was deposited by Xiao Zi, and later, after the court of first instance obtained the relevant deposit certificates, Xiao Zi stated that part of the money was deposited by Xiao Lan. As for the signature of "Xiao Zi" in the deposit slip, it was clearly stated from the initial that it was signed by Xiao Zi, and after the court of first instance explained the corresponding legal consequences, Xiao Zi said that the signature could not be confirmed. Xiaozi's words in the course of the litigation were repeated and showed dishonesty. Thirdly, after the application for the Housing at Issue was obtained, Xiaozi did not actually live in the house, but on the contrary, it was always occupied and used by Xiaolan's family. Moreover, Xiaozi also confirmed that she was not one of the applicants for the Housing at Issue, but Xiaolan kept the relevant and important original documents such as the Shanghai Real Estate Title Certificate and the Shanghai Real Estate Exchange Center of the Housing at Issue, which was inconsistent with common sense. Finally, with regard to the purchase, loan, and registration of the property at issue, the witnesses to Xiaolan's application all confirmed that the property at issue was registered in Xiaozi's name only because Xiaozi's loan was used, and the actual right holder should be Xiaolan. And the down payment is all contributed by Xiaolan. As the younger sister of Xiaozi and Xiaolan, the witness was also the applicant of the property at issue, and as a person who witnessed the situation of the property at issue, the main content of the witness and Xiaolan's opinion corroborated each other, so the witness's opinion was adopted. Xiaozi stated that she had contributed 2,500 yuan through her sister Zhu Mou3 as a down payment, which Zhu Mou3 and Xiaolan both denied, and Xiaozi had no evidence to prove the capital contribution of the down payment, so this was not accepted. In summary, based on the above analysis, the court of first instance considered the application, purchase, and repayment of the property at issue, and its opinion that the property at issue was owned by Xiaolan with greater credibility, so the court of first instance confirmed that the property at issue was owned by Xiaolan personally. Xiao Zi's opinion that the property at issue was jointly purchased by Xiao Zi and Xiao Lan was not adopted.
The court of second instance held that the focus of the dispute in this case was: was the house at issue jointly purchased by Xiaozi and Xiaolan or held by Xiaozi?
According to the "Application Form for Housing Purchase", Xiaolan belongs to the applicant for the purchase of the house, while Xiaozi does not belong to the applicant for the purchase of the house. In the first instance, Xiaozi also stated that the housing at issue was registered in her name because the policy was relatively relaxed at that time and her household registration was included. Based on the fact that the property at issue has been occupied and used by Xiaolan's family and the real estate certificate of the property at issue has been kept by Xiaolan, the court of first instance made a detailed item-by-item analysis of the application, purchase and loan repayment of the property at issue, and came to the conclusion that Xiaozi was only the nominee holder and Xiaolan was the actual owner of the property at issue. This court agrees with all of this and will not repeat it here. Since Xiaozi had repaid part of the loan principal and interest of the house at issue, the court of first instance determined that Xiaolan had paid Xiaozi RMB 517,500 for the discount of the house at issue based on Xiaolan's voluntary 15% discount on the house and the current price of the house confirmed by both parties, which was not improper, and this court affirmed it.
