Real estate case: Dispute over the division of a house after a one-person breakup after the purchase of a house registered during cohabitation

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 is any similarity, please contact us to revoke it.

(A mini program has been added here, please go to the Toutiao client to view)

The plaintiff alleged

Zhang's appeal request: 1. Request to revoke the first-instance judgment and change the judgment to Li to compensate Zhang for 3.6 million yuan; 2. Li should bear all the litigation costs of the case.

Facts and Reasons (and Reply to Li's Appeal): Since the court of first instance found that Zhang purchased the house involved in the lawsuit in the name of Li, it should order Li to compensate Zhang for all the price of the house. The down payment and most of the bank loans for the house involved in the lawsuit were paid by Zhang, and the property certificate of the house also stated that the house involved in the lawsuit was repaid by Zhang every month, and there was Li himself's signature on it. Zhang's filing of this lawsuit did not exceed the statute of limitations. Zhang's claim for compensation of 3.6 million yuan was reasonable, but the court of first instance ruled that the amount of compensation was too low and requested the court of second instance to change the judgment in accordance with law.

The defendant argued

Li's appeal request: request to revoke the first-instance judgment and change the judgment to reject all of Zhang's litigation claims. Facts and reasons (and defense opinions against Zhang's appeal): 1. The first-instance judgment found that there was no factual and legal basis for Zhang's purchase of a house in Li's name. 1. The down payment of the house involved in this case was paid by Li, and the payment amount and time of the bank withdrawal receipt for the down payment provided by Zhang were inconsistent with the invoice and the contract. 2. The actual purchaser of the house involved in the lawsuit is Li and not Zhang. In the first instance, Zhang admitted that he could not provide proof of income, so he purchased the house in Li's name, and the down payment for the purchase of the house was also borrowed from his mother, and during the purchase of the house involved in the lawsuit, Zhang did not have the financial ability to purchase the house and obtain a bank loan. The common sense of borrowing a name to buy a house is that the actual buyer bears the cost of buying the house, and the down payment, deed tax, housing public maintenance fund, and housing loan before 2008 in this case are all borne by Li instead of Zhang. Therefore, Zhang's claim of buying a house in his name does not conform to common sense and facts. 3. The "Housing Property Certificate" is not the true expression of Li's intentions.

2. The court of first instance lacked legal basis for confirming that Zhang's lawsuit did not exceed the statute of limitations. This case is a contract lawsuit, not a tort lawsuit. Zhang knew that the house in question had been resold in August 2014 at the latest, but it was only on November 14, 2019 that he claimed to the court that his rights had been infringed, which had exceeded the statute of limitations prescribed by law. 3. The court of first instance did not conduct a judicial assessment and appraisal of the house involved in the lawsuit, and there was no legal or factual basis for ruling that Li should compensate Zhang for the loss of 2.21 million yuan.

The court ascertained

Zhang filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting: 1. to order Li to compensate Zhang for losses of 3.6 million yuan, and 2. to order Li to bear the litigation costs of the case.

The court of first instance found the facts: Zhang and Li were originally lovers, Zhang claimed that the two parties began to fall in love in 1994 and then broke up in July and August 2006, and Li claimed that the two parties began to fall in love in 2003 and then broke up in July and August 2007.

The house in room 0102 involved in the lawsuit was registered in the name of Li on January 7, 2011, transferred to the name of Zhou Mouliang on January 31, 2011, and transferred and registered to the name of Sun Mouhua on March 18, 2014.

On November 22, 2005, Mr. Li and the seller, Company A, signed the Beijing Commercial Housing Pre-sale Contract, stipulating that Mr. Li would purchase the house in question developed by Company A at a total price of 525223 yuan. On December 2, 2005, Mr. Li and Company A signed the <北京市商品房预售合同>Supplementary Agreement, stipulating that Mr. Li would pay 40,000 yuan to Company A, and the amount of the down payment after the change would be 205223 yuan and the loan amount would be 320,000 yuan. On December 2, 2005, Company A issued an invoice to Mr. Li for the room payment with a face value of 205223 yuan. Li claimed that the original copy of the "Beijing Commercial Housing Pre-sale Contract<北京市商品房预售合同>" and "Supplementary Agreement" was in Zhang's place, and Zhang recognized it but said that he could not find it.

On March 13, 2006, Mr. Li signed a Private Housing Purchase Loan Contract with the bank and Company A, stipulating that Mr. Li would borrow 320,000 yuan from the bank for the purchase of the house involved in the lawsuit, and the total number of repayment periods would be 240 installments, with the first repayment date being April 13, 2006, and the repayment date of each subsequent installment being the 13th day of each month. The original contract was held by Zhang. Li claimed that the two parties lived together at that time, and it was normal for Zhang to take away Li's house purchase contract and loan contract, and Li asked Zhang to return it many times, but Zhang did not return it. On December 22, 2010, Mr. Li made a one-time repayment of 244,253.83 yuan to pay off the principal and interest of the housing loan involved in the lawsuit. Li paid the deed tax of 7,870.78 yuan on January 5, 2011, the heating fee of 9,892.05 yuan on March 23, 2011, and the property fee and sanitation fee totaling 7,107.95 yuan on March 23, 2011. Zhang recognized that Li also paid 10,494 yuan for the special maintenance fund of the house involved in the lawsuit. Mr. Zhang agreed to deduct the above-mentioned expenses paid by Mr. Li from his claim.

With regard to the down payment for the house involved in the lawsuit, Zhang claimed that it should be paid by him, and submitted the remittance voucher of ICBC, the passbook of Bank of China and the withdrawal slip to prove it. Zhang claimed that his mother had remitted 170,000 yuan to his bank account in China, and that he had given the passbook of Bank of China to the salesman of Company A and told him the password, which he had withdrawn directly from the passbook. The remittance voucher of ICBC shows that on November 30, 2005, Zhang's bank account received a remittance of 170,000 yuan, and the bankbook and withdrawal slip of Bank of China show that 176486 yuan was withdrawn on January 23, 2006, and Lin Mouwen withdrew money on behalf of Zhang. Zhang said that in addition to this part of the money, the rest of the down payment was paid in cash to Li, and Li paid it to Company A, and he couldn't remember how Li paid it. Li recognized the authenticity of the above evidence, but did not recognize the relevance and purpose of proof. Li claimed that the down payment was paid by him, of which 30,000 yuan was paid by credit card, and the remaining part was paid in cash. Mr. Li submitted a bank deposit slip and transaction slips to prove that Mr. Li deposited RMB 30,500 into his Bank of Communications card on November 10, 2005, and paid a down payment of RMB 30,000 by POS card on November 22, 2005. Zhang recognized the authenticity of the evidence, but did not recognize the relevance and purpose of proof, but agreed to deduct 30,000 yuan from his claim. After the court of first instance verified with Company A, it replied that due to the loss of the accounting vouchers, it was unable to obtain the payment of the down payment and vouchers of the house involved in the lawsuit, and due to personnel changes, it was impossible to verify whether Lin Mouwen had been an employee, and now Lin Mouwen was not its employee.

Mr. Zhang submitted a set of deposit receipts and deposit slips to prove that Mr. Zhang had repaid the loan for the house involved in the lawsuit. Zhang stated that he repaid the loan until March 2011, and that he deposited the repaid money into the loan repayment account in Li's name, and that in March 2011, he could not find a bank card to repay the loan and he was unable to deposit money into the account, so he did not repay the loan again. Li recognized the authenticity and relevance of the evidence, but did not recognize the purpose of the proof, saying that during the relationship, the two parties lived together, and Zhang's deposit of money into the loan repayment account was Zhang's rent to Li, and the money Zhang paid to the loan repayment account after the breakup was also the rent of the house in which he lived in the lawsuit; During the period between the breakup and Li's sale of the house involved in the lawsuit, the rent paid by Zhang was sufficient to pay the loan of the house involved in the lawsuit, and Zhang's failure to continue to repay the account after 2011 is sufficient to prove that he knew that the house involved in the lawsuit was sold in 2011.

Zhang submitted a single set of receipts, invoices, and payment notices for the payment of water and electricity bills, property fees, and gas bills, proving that as of March 2011, the above-mentioned fees for the houses involved in the lawsuit were all paid by Zhang. Li recognized the authenticity and relevance of the evidence, saying that Li went abroad in 2008 and the house involved in the lawsuit was inhabited by Zhang, so Zhang could only pay the fee himself, but he could not prove that Zhang enjoyed the ownership of the house.

Regarding the living situation of the house involved in the lawsuit, Li said: after the purchase of the house involved in the lawsuit, the two parties lived together, and Li moved out of the house involved in the lawsuit after the two parties broke up in July and August 2007; Li went abroad in 2008 and returned to China in 2010 to find that the house involved in the lawsuit was still inhabited by Zhang; Later, Li sold the house involved in the lawsuit to Zhou Mouliang, and Zhou Mouliang asked Zhang to move out, but Zhang did not move out, so Zhou Mouliang changed the lock and disposed of Zhang's belongings, and Zhang did not live in the house involved in the lawsuit after that. Li claimed that Zhang had approached Li on March 19, 2011 on the housing matters involved in the lawsuit, but the negotiation between the two parties was unsuccessful, and then Zhang went to Li again in August 2014, but Li did not meet with him, Li was in the house, Zhang was outside the house, and the two parties did not meet until the litigation of this case.

Zhang said: After the two parties broke up, he had been living in the house involved in the lawsuit; Because there was a project in his hometown, Zhang returned to his hometown in October 2010, and then returned to live in the house involved in the lawsuit for one month in March 2011 and then returned to his hometown; In October 2011, when he returned to the house involved in the lawsuit, he found that the house involved in the lawsuit had been rented out, and Zhang's belongings were missing. Zhang claimed that her husband died in 2013, and after his death, his mental condition was not good, and he did not deal with the housing matters involved in the lawsuit in a timely manner; In 2014, Li's residence was found through the police station, but Li did not open the door, and the two parties failed to meet; In 2017, he entrusted a lawyer to inquire about the situation of the house involved in the lawsuit, and only then did he know through the community property and the intermediary that the house involved in the lawsuit had been sold to Sun Mouhua in 2014; Zhang was unable to decide whether to sue due to her husband's mental trance after her death, and did not sue until November 14, 2019. Li said that he informed Zhang one month before the sale of the house involved in the lawsuit that he was going to sell the house and asked Zhang to move out, but did not submit evidence to prove this.

Mr. Li submitted the Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Housing in Beijing, the Supplementary Agreement and the confirmation letter of the deposit for the second-hand house signed between Mr. Li and Mr. Zhou on December 20, 2010, to prove that Mr. Li sold the house involved in the lawsuit to Mr. Zhou on December 20, 2010. Li said that he actually received 1,710,000 yuan from the sale of the house. The "Beijing Stock Housing Sales Contract" shows that the house price is 500,000 yuan, and the second-hand house deposit confirmation letter shows that the house price is 1,730,000 yuan. Zhang did not recognize the authenticity of the evidence.

Mr. Zhang submitted the Certificate of Housing Property to prove that Mr. Li confirmed that the property rights of the house involved in the lawsuit belonged to Mr. Zhang, and that Mr. Zhang was responsible for the claims and debts. The contents of the "Housing Property Certificate" are: "In the November 2005 purchase contract, the house purchased is, and the actual owner of the house is Zhang...... The down payment at the time of the purchase of the house and the subsequent monthly mortgage repayment were all Zhang, because Zhang and Li were ...... when purchasing the above-mentioned house. In a romantic relationship, Li's company can provide proof of income, so the person who signed the contract and handled the procedures was Li. The following proof is hereby provided: the property rights of the above-mentioned houses are owned by Zhang, and have no relationship with Li himself, the creditor's rights and debts of the above-mentioned houses are all borne by Zhang, and the right to dispose of the above-mentioned houses belongs to Zhang, and has no relationship with Li himself. Certifier: Li, 2008.1.28". Zhang said that in addition to Li's signature, the rest of the certificate was written by Zhang, and the reason why the certificate was signed was because the two parties said that they would transfer the house after they broke up, but they could not contact Li, and later found Li, and Li said that he had no time to transfer, so the certificate was issued. In the lawsuit, Li first stated that the certificate was not signed by him, and applied for an appraisal as to whether the signature in the certificate was his signature, and then Li recognized that it was his signature and withdrew the appraisal application. Li said that during the existence of the relationship between the two parties and after the breakdown of the relationship, Zhang had forced him to sign on multiple blank pieces of paper, and Zhang had shown him the agreement that recorded Li's donation of the house involved in the lawsuit to Zhang, which Zhang denied, and Li did not submit evidence to prove this.

The court of first instance held that a party should provide evidence to prove the facts on which its own claims are based or the facts on which it refutes the claims of the other party, unless otherwise provided by law. Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual assertion before a judgment is rendered, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. In this case, Mr. Li asserted that the signature in the Certificate of Housing Property was signed by him on a blank piece of paper, but Mr. Li did not submit evidence to prove it, and it was difficult for the court of first instance to accept this, so the court of first instance found that the Certificate of Housing Property was legally binding on Mr. Li. According to the time of the breakup between the two parties as stated by Li, within more than three years after the breakup of the parties, Zhang actually lived in and used the house involved in the lawsuit, paid the relevant expenses of the house involved in the lawsuit, and repaid the loan, although Li said that Zhang's repayment of the loan was to pay the rent for the use of the house involved in the lawsuit, Li did not submit evidence to prove that the two parties had reached an agreement on the rental house. Combined with the content of the "Housing Property Certificate" and the fact that Zhang repaid the loan after the two parties broke up, the court of first instance accepted Zhang's claim that he purchased the house involved in the lawsuit in the name of Li to purchase the house involved in the lawsuit.

The limitation period is calculated from the date on which the right holder knows or should know that the right has been damaged and the obligor. In this case, Li asserted that Zhang had approached Li on March 19, 2011 regarding the housing involved in the lawsuit, but Zhang did not recognize this, and Li did not submit evidence to prove it, and the court of first instance could not accept Li's claim. Both parties confirmed that Zhang had approached Li in 2014, but the two parties did not meet, and in the case that Li did not provide evidence to prove that he had clearly informed Zhang that he had sold the house involved in the lawsuit to others before the litigation of this case and did not agree to compensate Zhang for related losses, Li argued that Zhang's claim in this case exceeded the statute of limitations, and the basis was insufficient, and the court of first instance did not accept it. Li sold the house involved in the lawsuit that he recognized as belonging to Zhang, and did not pay the corresponding sale money to Zhang, which infringed on Zhang's property rights and interests, and Zhang had the right to demand compensation for losses. With regard to the amount of compensation claimed by Zhang, the court of first instance will, based on the circumstances ascertained in this case and the expenses voluntarily deducted by Zhang, support Zhang's claim as appropriate in accordance with the principle of good faith, and will not support the excessively high part of his claim.

During the second instance of this court, the parties submitted evidence in accordance with the law around the appeal request. This court organized the parties to exchange evidence and cross-examine evidence. Mr. Li submitted the following evidence to this court: 1. The transaction details of Mr. Li's account to prove that Mr. Li paid the deposit of 30,000 yuan for the purchase of the house through the POS machine on November 22, 2005; 2. The invoice of Company A and the supplementary agreement to the "Beijing Commercial Housing Pre-sale Contract" were used to prove that the down payment of the house involved in the lawsuit totaled 205223 yuan was paid by Mr. Li; 3. Li's bank statements from March 2006 to September 2007 to prove that Li had been repaying the housing loan from April 2006 to September 2007, and was not paid by Zhang; 4. Invoices issued by the property management company to Li for property fees, heating fees, and sanitation fees to prove that Li paid the property fees, heating fees, and sanitation fees of the house involved in the lawsuit from 2006 to 2010, and that he was the owner of the house involved in the case; 5. Li's 2005 China Construction Bank statement and 2005 Bank of Beijing's salary income passbook to prove that Li's salary income in 2005 was sufficient to pay the down payment for the purchase of a house.

In response to the evidence submitted by Li, Zhang issued a cross-examination opinion, saying: None of the above evidence is new evidence, and Zhang will not cross-examine the evidence. On the premise of not cross-examining the evidence, Zhang expressed the following opinions: Evidence 1 has nothing to do with this case, and the 30,000 yuan is not shown to be related to the purchase of the house involved in the lawsuit; Evidence 2: Li had submitted it during the first instance; Evidence 3 could not prove that Li paid the housing loan, but in fact, Zhang transferred the money to Li's bank repayment account on a monthly basis, and the monthly transfer amount was roughly the same as the amount deducted by the bank; With regard to Exhibit 4, the invoice was only for one year's expenses, and the property fee invoice submitted by Zhang in the first instance can prove that he paid the property fee from 2005 to March 2011, and that Zhang did not pay the heating fee because there was no heating; Exhibit 5 has nothing to do with this case and does not recognize the authenticity of this evidence. Zhang did not submit new evidence.

The other facts ascertained by this court during the trial are no different from those ascertained by the court of first instance.

Adjudication Results

First-instance judgment: 1. Li shall compensate Zhang for the loss of 2.21 million yuan within 7 days of the effective date of the judgment; 2. Rejecting Zhang's other litigation claims.

Second-instance verdict:

The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was affirmed.

Property Lawyer Reviews

There are two points of dispute in this case: first, the determination of the validity of the Housing Property Certificate; The second is the determination of the amount of compensation that Li should pay to Zhang.

On the first issue of controversy. Regarding the formation process of the "Housing Property Certificate", Li and Zhang had major differences. Li claimed that the evidence was signed on a blank piece of paper, and the other contents were written by Zhang later, so he did not recognize the content of the "Housing Property Certificate" and did not agree with the court of first instance's determination that the house involved in the case belonged to Zhang. Zhang recognized that the other words in the certificate except for Li's signature were written by him, but he said that the formation of the certificate was unanimously recognized by both parties after negotiation between him and Li, and not the content of the certificate that was signed first and then formed by himself as stated by Li.

Upon inquiry, the statements of both parties on the time and place of Li's signature on the "Housing Property Certificate" are basically the same, so the key to the determination of the certificate is whether Li signed on a blank piece of paper. The court held that Zhang provided the "Housing Property Certificate" and made a statement on the time, place, and formation process of the signing of the property certificate, and that Li did not deny that he had signed at the time and place claimed by Zhang, but only raised objections to whether the "Housing Property Certificate" had been written when he signed it, so he should provide evidence to prove that the paper was blank when he signed.

During the court trial, Li proposed to conduct an appraisal of the content of the signature of the "Housing Property Certificate" and the formation time of the content written by Zhang, but the appraisal application was not submitted to the court when Li submitted the defense opinion during the trial of the court of first instance, and it was difficult to achieve the purpose of the appraisal according to the current level of appraisal, so the court did not approve the appraisal application submitted by him in the court. In addition, judging from the position of Li's signature on the "Housing Property Certificate", Li's signature is in the lower middle of the paper, which is basically consistent with the content written by Zhang in the "Housing Property Certificate"; Taking a step back, even if what Li said is true, as a person with full capacity for conduct, he should have known the huge risks that may exist in signing on a blank piece of paper, and in this case, he still signed his name, and if he could not provide evidence to prove that the "Housing Property Certificate" was written after his signature, he should bear the adverse consequences arising therefrom. Based on the above analysis, the court held that the court of first instance was correct in determining that the "Housing Property Certificate" was legally binding on Li.

During the court trial, Li submitted account flow details to prove that the down payment and housing loan of the house involved in the case were paid by him, but according to the evidence submitted by Zhang during the trial of the court of first instance, Zhang also repaid part of the loan of the house involved in the case, and both parties confirmed that the two parties were in a romantic relationship when purchasing the house involved in the case, so the ownership of the payment account could not be used as the judgment of the actual payment subject, and the court has determined the validity of the "Housing Property Certificate". Therefore, the evidence submitted by Li in the court cannot be used as the basis for determining the ownership of the house involved in the case.

On the issue of the statute of limitations, Li stated in the court trial that the two parties had not met after 2008 and had not contacted each other in other ways, and it can be inferred that Li did not inform Zhang of the relevant facts after he sold the house involved in the case, nor did he clearly express to Zhang that he would not pay the money for the sale of the house, so although Li submitted an application for the transfer of police records during the second-instance trial, the application was not directly related to the facts to be proven, and the court did not allow it. Under the circumstance that Li could not provide evidence to prove that Zhang knew or should have known that his rights had been infringed, Li believed that Zhang's lawsuit exceeded the statute of limitations and lacked factual and legal basis.

On the second issue of controversy. Li appealed, claiming that the price at which he sold the house involved in the case was only 1.73 million yuan, and the court of first instance ruled that the amount of compensation was much higher than that amount, which lacked factual basis. It should be pointed out that, according to the court's discussion in the first focus of the dispute, the relevant rights and interests of the house involved in the case should belong to Zhang, but Li sold the house without Zhang's permission and failed to inform Zhang of the relevant circumstances in a timely manner after the sale, he should compensate Zhang for the price of the house obtained from the sale of the house, and the determination of the price should also consider his interest loss during the period from the sale of the house to the litigation. The court of first instance deducted the expenses that Zhang recognized as deductible on the basis of the sale price of the house involved in the case mentioned by Li, and at the same time considered the issue of interest, and determined that the price paid by Li to Zhang was not improper. Zhang's request to make a determination based on the price of the house at the time of the lawsuit lacked factual and legal basis, and the court did not support it.

Each case has particularity, the lawyer needs to conduct a detailed analysis of the case, in order to have a professional judgment, our team is good at dealing with all kinds of housing disputes, if you encounter similar cases, we sincerely hope that you can call to explain the situation in detail, we will try our best to answer for you!