Some say that if it weren't for sex and reproduction. Well, it is far happier for a woman to live with a woman than for a man and a woman to live together.
A program invited a girl, Lulu, a 33-year-old yellow flower girl, who is a marketing manager of a real estate company and graduated from the Chinese Department of Fudan University. She was repeatedly frustrated in blind dates with men. Her female friends commented that she was very smart, and she was a goddess because she was outstanding, tall, and tall. Today's boys may be relatively weak in character, and when they meet a very perfect girl, they will feel that they don't have the confidence to control it, so they don't dare to chase it and dare not take the initiative.
So, if you don't get married, don't get a license, and live with your girlfriends, will it be better to buy a house together?
The following true story, the sisters jointly funded the purchase of a house, how affectionate the two parties were at the beginning, and how ruthless they were when they broke up. When you break up, even the printing fee of 50 yuan and the transportation fee of 200 yuan must be calculated clearly.
Case source: (2021) Hu 01 Min Zhong No. 2295
As a non-professional joker, the story of the two sisters who chose to buy a house together and live together broke down a few years later and split the jointly funded house. Finally, there is a feeling that men are stupid big pig's trotters who always make people angry, while girlfriends are smart interpreters with 800 hearts.
Xiaoqing and Xiaolu are not only mature women in their thirties, but they are also good sisters and best friends. In their thirties, they chose to jointly fund the purchase of a house and live together. Except that they are good sisters and can't get a certificate, the others live together like normal couples. Good sisters often support each other financially, and they choose to buy a house together after living together for many years.
But the good sisters have a day when the relationship breaks down, although it is good to get together, it is not easy to disperse. The two parties divided the house, staged the war of the century, and sued the court.
After consulting a lawyer, both parties know that the house division is mainly divided according to the actual capital contribution ratio of the two parties, and the two parties are crazy to increase their own capital contribution in the house, 50 yuan of printing fees, 200 yuan of transportation expenses, 110 yuan of gas engineering costs, etc.
In addition, for the liquidated damages for the delivery of the house, after Xiaolu accepted it, she believed that the house belonged to her, so the compensation for the loss of the house targeted by the liquidated damages was only for one person, and had nothing to do with Xiaoqing.
There is a considerable amount of expenses, which Xiaoqing paid to Xiaolu through outsiders, whether this part belongs to Xiaoqing's actual contribution, and the two sides argue about it as Mars hitting the earth, and the difference between the total number of hundreds of thousands seems to be tens of billions. The printing fee of 50 yuan, the transportation fee of 200 yuan, the gas engineering fee of 110 yuan, etc., must be calculated clearly, and the other party must not be allowed to take advantage.
In this regard, the former good sisters can only have a hearty battle in the court to say goodbye to the two sides in the past.
In this regard, the court can only say that this court needs to point out that the two parties have lived together for many years, and there will inevitably be economic exchanges between them based on the purpose of living together, and this court cannot make an accurate allocation of expenses that have no sufficient basis and have a clear direction, and the issue of sharing and deduction of other expenses claimed by Xiaoqing can be asserted in the future when there is sufficient evidence. The court was also scared of this.
Lawyer Yang Qinren's analysis,
The property of the two women who have not received a marriage certificate in law is legally divided into their own homes, and the purchase of the house is also divided according to the actual capital contribution ratio. Before the men and women get the certificate, although the division of the house is also divided according to the actual capital contribution ratio, similar to the above case, the court will most likely find that the property of the two parties is mixed, and will not calculate every money transaction so clearly, that is to say, there is no need for the two parties to even tear up repeatedly for small money such as 50, 110, and 200. In reality, I persuade men to be more generous, so don't count these small money, it can be solved.
Highlights of Court Decisions:
First Instance Highlights:
The first point of contention between the parties is how to determine the amount of their respective contributions when purchasing the house in question? According to the facts ascertained in this case, Xiaoqing himself transferred a total of 1.3 million yuan to Xiaolu for the purchase of the house, of which 620,000 yuan Xiaoqing admitted that it had nothing to do with the purchase price in this case, and the WeChat chat records between Xiaoqing and Wang, the WeChat chat records between Xiaoqing and Xiaolu, and Xiaoqing's repayment records show that Xiaoqing also borrowed money from Wang to pay 80,000 yuan for the purchase of the house; In addition, Xiaolu sent Xiaoqing's repayment list through WeChat on July 17, 2017, and Xiaoqing transferred a total of 400,000 yuan to Sheng, Gong, Zhang2, and Zhang3, who were not involved in the case, on the same day, and transferred 50,000 yuan to Zhang1 on July 21, 2017. The actual amount paid by Xiaoqing for the house was 1.21 million yuan (1.3 million yuan + 80,000 yuan + 450,000 yuan - 620,000 yuan = 1.21 million yuan), which was also highly similar to the 1.25 million yuan stated in the note sent to Xiaoqing by Xiaolu on 27 August 2016 and the amount of Xiaoqing's capital contribution of 1,198,000 yuan stated by Xiaolu in the first trial. To sum up, it is confirmed that Xiaoqing contributed a total of 1.21 million yuan to purchase the houses involved in the case, accounting for 56.02%. After the 56.02% property right share is owned by Xiaolu, Xiaolu should pay Xiaoqing a discount of RMB 1,355,684. On May 13, 2018, Xiaoqing transferred RMB 20,000 to Zhang1, although the remark was "repayment of the house payment", but at this time, there was a long time before Xiaolu sent the repayment list to Xiaoqing, and the two parties had mutual funds after that, so it is difficult to determine that the money was related to Xiaoqing's payment of the purchase price in this case.
Dispute 2: Should the liquidated damages of RMB 246,240 paid by the seller for breach of contract at the time of purchase of the house involved in the purchase case be divided according to the proportion of capital contributed to the purchase of the house? In this regard, the house involved in the case was jointly purchased by both parties, and although the money was collected by Xiaolu, it should be divided according to the proportion of the capital contribution of both parties, that is, Xiaolu should pay Xiaoqing RMB 137,943.65.
Dispute 3: What items and how much should Xiaoqing deduct from the discount money to which she is entitled?
Xiaolu spent RMB 86,526 in taxes and fees, RMB 4,483.8 in property fees, RMB 110 in gas construction fees, RMB 900 in rental agency fees, RMB 37,323 in renovation costs, RMB 322.5 in water and electricity expenses for the period from October 29, 2016 to July 16, 2019, RMB 50 in fees for printing transfer materials, RMB 50,000 in lawyer fees and RMB 3,345.4 in litigation fees for the case (2016) Hu 0112 Min Chu No. 30501, totaling RMB 183,060.7. During the trial, both parties agreed to share the contribution in proportion to the capital contribution of both parties, which was confirmed. Therefore, the amount to be borne by Xiaoqing is RMB 102,550.6, which is directly deducted from the discount payable by Xiaolu. In summary, Xiaolu should pay Xiaoqing a discount of RMB 1,391,077.05 (calculation method: RMB 1,355,684 + RMB 137,943.65 - RMB 102,550.6 = RMB 1,391,077.05). Xiaolu argued that he also paid 1,000 yuan for legal advice and 200 yuan for transportation expenses, but Xiaoqing did not accept it, and Xiaolu did not provide sufficient evidence to support it, so it did not confirm the money, and did not accept Xiaolu's argument that the 1,200 yuan should be deducted from the discounted price according to the proportion of capital contribution. In addition, Xiaolu believed that it had overpaid Xiaoqing's rent and requested that the excess part be deducted from the discounted amount, but it did not provide sufficient evidence to support it, so it was difficult to accept Xiaolu's argument.
In this regard, according to the facts ascertained in this case, the house in question was rented out to June 24, 2019, and Xiaolu had paid the rental income to Xiaoqing, and Xiaoqing did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the house in question continued to be rented out after June 24, 2019 and generated rental income, and considering that the parties had lived together as partners for a long time, the parties had money exchanges with each other. Therefore, Xiaoqing's application is not supported. The appraisal fee of RMB 7,690 paid by Xiaoqing is a necessary expense incurred in determining the market value of the house involved in the case, and the cost should be shared by both parties according to the share of the property rights of the house involved in the case, that is, Xiaolu should pay the appraisal fee of RMB 3,382 paid by Xiaoqing.
Excerpts from the second instance:
Finally, this court needs to point out that the two parties have lived together for many years, and there will inevitably be economic exchanges between them based on the purpose of living together, and this court cannot make an accurate allocation of expenses that are not fully substantiated and have a clear direction, and the issue of sharing and deduction of other expenses claimed by Xiaolu can be claimed in the future when there is sufficient evidence.
