One party contributes most of the purchase, and the purchase is registered in the name of another person, and there is no agreement on who the house belongs to

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:

Li Mouwen's appeal requests: 1. Revoke the first-instance judgment and change the judgment to reject all of Ma Mouhong's first-instance litigation claims or remand for a new trial; 2. The litigation fees of the first and second instance of this case shall be borne by Ma Mouhong.

Facts and Reasons: The court of first instance erred in the allocation of the burden of proof, found the facts wrongly, failed to ascertain the basic facts, and there were procedural violations, resulting in an erroneous judgment. 1. Ma Mouhong and I are not friends, and the court of first instance erred in determining the facts that Ma Mouhong invested 7,203,206.13 yuan to purchase the house involved in the case. During the period when Ma Mouhong and Zhou Mouhong were in love and living together, their property was mixed, and not all the funds in Ma Mouhong's card were Ma Mouhong's personal property. 2. The court of first instance erred in finding that Li Mouwen did not adduce evidence to prove the existence of a housing lease relationship between Ma Mouhong, Zhou Mouzhen, and Li Mouwen. We have submitted the certificate issued by Zhou Mouzhen, bank receipts and other evidence, intending to prove that Zhou Mouzhen, Ma Mouhong and Company A rented the house under our name for living and office, and Ma Mouhong contributed to the purchase of the house for rent discount. The court of first instance found that I had failed to provide evidence to prove the existence of the agreed fact that the two parties used the house in exchange and discounted the purchase price with the house use fee, which was an error in the allocation of the burden of proof.

3. The court of first instance incorrectly allocated the burden of proof. As the plaintiff, the court of first instance did not require Ma Mouhong to provide evidence on the purchase of the house in his name, nor did it require Ma Mouhong to provide evidence or give a reasonable explanation for unjust enrichment; Ma Mouhong only submitted bank statements and payment vouchers, and could not prove that the claim of borrowing his name to buy a house or unjust enrichment was established, and the burden of proof was not completed. The court of first instance did not ascertain the basic facts of the case, there were many doubts in this case, and Ma Mouhong did not give a reasonable explanation, so his litigation claims should not be adopted. 4. The statute of limitations has expired in this case. Ma Mouhong paid the purchase price in 2010, and Ma Mouhong sued in 2020 to demand that Li Mouwen return the purchase price, which has exceeded the two-year statute of limitations. 5. The court of first instance found that the other civil rights and interests between Ma Mouhong and Zhou Mouzhen, who was not involved in the case, could be adjusted through other legal relationships, and had nothing to do with this case, and the application of law was wrong. 6. As an important participant in this case, Zhou Mouzhen understands the process of the case and the truth of the facts, and has a legal interest in the case, and the court of first instance should add Zhou Mouzhen as a third party in the case upon application or ex officio.

The defendant argued that:

Ma Mouhong argued: agree with the first-instance judgment, and disagree with Li Mouwen's appeal request and reasons. The specific reasons are consistent with the first-instance opinions, and Li Mouwen's appeal did not put forward new claims, and should be rejected.

The court ascertained

Ma Mouhong filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting: 1. Li Mouwen to return 7,203,206.13 yuan to Ma Mouhong;2. Requesting that Li Mouwen be ordered to pay Ma Mouhong the interest on the above money at an annual interest rate of 6% from March 30, 2017 to the date of actual return; 3. The case acceptance fee is borne by Li Mouwen.

The court of first instance ascertained the facts: Ma Mouhong and Li Mouwen were friends. On August 30, 2010, Li Mouwen and Company S signed the "Commercial Housing Existing House Sales Contract", the subject of the contract is located in the No. 1 house in Dongcheng District of the city (hereinafter referred to as the house involved in the case), the house price is 6911466 yuan, and the property right of the house is registered in the name of Li Mouwen.

According to the bank, the account under the name of Ma Mouhong transferred 1,600,000 yuan to Company S on the same day that the above-mentioned "Commercial Housing Existing House Sales Contract" was signed, 1,930,000 yuan was transferred to Company S on September 21, 2019, and 116,190.25 yuan was transferred to the property management company on October 31, 2010.

The bank showed that the account under the name of Ma Mouhong transferred 120,000 yuan and 1,275,800 yuan to Company S, transferred 5,000,000 yuan to Company S on September 21, 2010, and paid 351,217.17 yuan to Company S on October 31, 2010.

Among the above-mentioned money, it was used to pay Li Mouwen 6911466 yuan for the purchase of the house involved in the case, 207,343.98 yuan in deed tax, 3,456 yuan in stamp duty, and 80,940.15 yuan in property fees, totaling 7,203,206.13 yuan.

In addition, Li Mouwen did not provide evidence of the existence of a lease relationship between Ma Mouhong and his No. 1 house in Chaoyang District, Beijing.

Re-investigation, in 2019, Company A, an outsider to the case, as the plaintiff, and Ma Mouhong, as the plaintiff, sued Li Mouwen twice for "borrowing a name to buy a house" to claim the ownership of the house, and then closed the case with the withdrawal of the lawsuit. In the trial of the above case and in this lawsuit, Li Mouwen did not recognize the existence of a legal relationship with Company A and Ma Mouhong to buy a house in his name.

The court of first instance held that the evidence submitted by Ma Mouhong was sufficient to prove that the 7,203,206.13 yuan he paid was used to pay the purchase price, deed tax, stamp duty and property fees of the house involved in the case under Li Mouwen's name. There is no evidence to prove, and Li Mouwen does not recognize the existence of a legal relationship between Ma Mouhong and Li Mouwen to buy a house in their names. In the two lawsuits involving the houses involved in the case in 2019 and 2020, there was no clear evidence to prove that there was a lease relationship between Ma Mouhong and Li Mouwen regarding the housing in Chaoyang District, and Li Mouwen did not provide evidence to prove the existence of the agreed fact that the two parties had a mutual use of the house and discounted the purchase price with the housing use fee. Regarding whether Ma Mouhong and Li Mouwen have other creditor's rights and debts, Li Mouwen did not submit evidence to prove it. Other civil rights and interests between Ma Mouhong and Zhou Mouzhen, an outsider to the case, and Li Mouwen and Zhou Mouzhen, an outsider, can be adjusted through other legal relationships, and have nothing to do with this case.

For this reason, Li Mouwen's appropriation of Ma Mouhong's money to purchase a house constituted unjust enrichment for Ma Mouhong, and the relevant money should be returned. Li Mouwen's defense that it did not constitute unjust enrichment had no factual basis, and the court did not accept it. In June 2020, Ma Mouhong claimed rights against Li Mouwen for the reason that the disputed money was borrowed to buy a house, and at the same time, the two parties did not agree on the nature, purpose, and period of use of the above-mentioned money, so Ma Mouhong's claim that the calculation of interest losses and interest standards from March 30, 2017 lacked factual and legal basis, and the court did not support it, and the interest losses should be calculated from the date of filing of this case. Li Mouwen's defense that Ma Mouhong's request has exceeded the two-year statute of limitations has neither factual nor legal basis, and the court does not support it.

During the second-instance trial of this court, Li Mouwen submitted the following evidence: 1. The primary and secondary school graduation certificates of Li Mouwen's daughter, which intends to prove that Ma Mouhong's claim that the reason for buying the house is to facilitate Li Mouwen's children to go to school is inconsistent with the facts. Ma Mouhong said that the evidence had nothing to do with the case. 2. The case file materials of the People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing, intend to prove that in 2019, Ma Mouhong filed a lawsuit with the court on the basis of a dispute over a borrowed name purchase contract and then withdrew the lawsuit, proving that Ma Mouhong's claims were inconsistent before and after, and Ma Mouhong claimed that the house was the property of the company in this case. Ma Mouhong recognized the authenticity of the evidence, but did not recognize the purpose of proof, and he did sue the other party for buying a house in his name, but later considered that the circumstances of this case were in line with unjust enrichment, so he withdrew the lawsuit and re-sued.

3. The case file of the Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court intends to prove that Ma Mouhong only knew the location of the house after filing the lawsuit, and the house was used by Li Mouwen. And Ma Mouhong himself recognized the fact that he was the general manager of Company A and had never paid rent for 11 years in the house under Li Mouwen's name. Ma Mouhong argued that he did not recognize the purpose of the certificate, and that his use of the house was to change houses for residence, which did not constitute a lease relationship. The other facts ascertained through trial in this case are consistent with those ascertained by the court of first instance.

Adjudication Results

The court of first instance ruled that: (1) Li Mouwen should return Ma Mouhong RMB 7,203,206.13 and interest losses within 15 days after the judgment took effect;

Second-instance judgment: The appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

Property Lawyer Reviews

The focus of the dispute in this case is whether Ma Mouhong's payment of the purchase price of the house involved in the case constitutes unjust enrichment. According to the ascertained facts, the purchase price of the house involved in the case registered in the name of Li Mouwen was paid by Ma Mouhong, and Li Mouwen claimed that part of the money was paid by Zhou Mouzhen, who was not involved in the case, but according to the payment transfer records and related bills submitted by Ma Mouhong in the first instance, it can be proved that the house purchase price of 6911466 yuan, deed tax of 207,343.98 yuan, stamp duty of 3,456 yuan, and property fee of 80,940.15 yuan were all paid by Ma Mouhong. Li Mouwen claimed that part of the money was paid by Zhou, but he did not show relevant evidence to the court, and the court did not accept it. Regarding the purpose of capital contribution, Ma Mouhong and his company A once sued on the grounds of buying a house in a borrowed name, and because Li Mouwen did not recognize the fact of buying a house in a borrowed name, Ma Mouhong and Company A both withdrew the lawsuit. Now Li Mouwen's claim that Ma Mouhong's payment of the purchase price of the house involved in the case was used to offset the rent is a new claim made by him on the purchase price of the house involved in the case, and he should bear the burden of proof on the fact that Ma Mouhong has a lease contract with him and that the purchase price of the house involved in the case is used to offset the rent.

A lease contract is a contract in which the lessor delivers the leased property to the lessee for use and income, and the lessee pays the rent. The content of the lease contract generally includes the condition of the leased property, the lease term, the rent and the term and method of payment, and the maintenance of the leased property. In this case, Li Mouwen asserted that Ma Mouhong should provide evidence on the content of the lease contract for the use of the No. 1 house in Chaoyang District under his name. However, judging from the available evidence, the two parties did not express their intention or even reach an agreement on the core elements of the lease contract, such as the house rent, payment method, and term of use, and combined with the relevant facts that the house purchased by Ma Mouhong had been used by Li Mouwen and Li Mouwen had not paid interest, the court did not accept the aforesaid claim put forward by Li Mouwen.

In addition, Li Mouwen asserted that the funds in Ma Mouhong's card were Zhou's real personal funds, which belonged to other legal relationships between Ma Mouhong and outsiders, and was not handled in this case.

Regarding the issue of the statute of limitations, in this case, Ma Mouhong sued the court twice in 2019 and 2020 on the issue of buying a house in a borrowed name, and because Li Mouwen denied the fact of buying a house in a borrowed name, Ma Mouhong filed a lawsuit for unjust enrichment. According to Article 6 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Statute of Limitations System in the Trial of Civil Cases, "the statute of limitations period for the return of the claim for unjust enrichment shall be calculated from the date on which one of the parties knows or should have known the facts of unjust enrichment and the other party. "Ma Mouhong's lawsuit for unjust enrichment did not exceed the statutory statute of limitations.

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!