The relative asked to follow the recording house with me for one and a half, but he sued for the wrong reason, and the court dismissed it

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 Mouwen's appeal request: revoke the first-instance judgment and change the judgment to confirm that one-half of the property rights of House No. 1 in Dongcheng District, Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the house involved in the case) belong to Zhang Mouwen; Zhang Mouwu bears all the litigation costs of this case.

Facts and reasons: The recording evidence provided by Zhang Mouwen has comprehensively and objectively proved that the two parties have reached an oral contract in which each accounts for half of the property rights of the house involved in the case, and the contract is legal and valid and should be fully performed, and cannot be unilaterally terminated unless the two parties reach a consensus through consultation; The court of first instance did not analyze and judge the case in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, and the first-instance judgment should not deny that the two parties had reached an agreement on the property rights of the house on the basis that Zhang Mouwen had filed a relevant lawsuit.

The defendant argued that:

Zhang Mouwu argued that he agreed with the first-instance judgment and did not agree with Zhang Mouwen's appeal request.

The court ascertained

Zhang Mouwen filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting that one-half of the property rights of the house involved in the case be confirmed in accordance with the law to be owned by Zhang Mouwen.

The court of first instance found the facts: Zhang Mouwen and Zhang Mouwu were sisters and brothers. On November 18, 1999, Company A (Party A) and Zhang Mouwu (Party B) entered into the House Sale and Purchase Contract, stipulating that Party A would sell the house involved in the case to Party B with a construction area of 56.63 square meters, which would be sold at a cost price of RMB 1,450 per square meter of construction. Party B should pay a total of 38,023.99 yuan. The back of the contract is stamped with Zhang Mouwu's name seal. On May 26, 1998, Company B issued a receipt of 20,000 yuan to Zhang Mouwu for the purchase price of the house involved in the case, and the payer was Zhang Mouwen. On December 24, 1998, Company B issued a receipt of 11,000 yuan to Zhang Mouwu for the purchase price of the house involved in the case, and the payer was Zhang Mouwen. In June 2001, Company B issued a receipt of RMB 7,023.99 to Zhang Mouwu for the license fee for the house involved in the case, and the payer was shown to be Zhang Mouwen. Later, the house involved in the case was registered in the name of Zhang Mouwu.

During the trial, Zhang Mouwen submitted an audio recording on August 22, 2019 to prove that Zhang Mouwen and Zhang Mouwu reached an oral agreement on the ownership of the house involved in the case, and each party accounted for half of the property rights of the house involved in the case. So on the same day, Zhang Mouwu and his wife gave their ID cards to Zhang Mouwen and asked Zhang Mouwen to go through the relevant procedures. Zhang Mouwu has recognized the oral agreement between the two parties with practical actions and fulfilled the obligations of the oral agreement. But later Zhang Mouwu repented and went to reapply for an ID card. After cross-examination, Zhang Mouwu said that the recording was recorded without Zhang Mouwu's knowledge and without Zhang Mouwu's consent. The content of the conversation confirmed that Zhang Mouwen and Zhang Mouwu communicated and negotiated to settle down, and even if they wanted to add Zhang Mouwen's name to the real estate certificate, it was only for the purpose of settling down. As for the legal consequences of adding his name to the house book and settling down again, Zhang Mouwu did not take into account the legal consequences mentioned by Zhang Mouwen, and the content was incoherent. Afterwards, Zhang Mouwu realized that he handed over his ID card and household registration book to Zhang Mouwen, and if Zhang Mouwen changed the ownership of the house involved in the case without authorization, Zhang Mouwu would not be able to control it.

Therefore, Zhang Mouwu asked Zhang Mouwen to return his ID card, but Zhang Mouwen refused many times, but Zhang Mouwu reported the loss and reissued the ID card. Zhang Mouwen repeatedly mentioned the two concepts of "settlement" and "additional name settlement", which has the possibility of misleading Zhang Mouwu to misunderstand the same concept; The content of the audio recording is not clear in some places, and Zhang Mouwu does not recognize the legality and authenticity; Although part of the content of the audio recording is relevant to this case, it cannot prove Zhang's claim, and Zhang Mouwen and Zhang Mouwu did not reach a consensus agreement on "jointly owning the house and each holding half of the share".

According to another investigation, on September 24, 2019, Zhang Mouwen sued Zhang Mouwu in the court of first instance for a contract dispute on the grounds that Zhang Mouwen and Zhang Mouwu had borrowed their names to buy a house, and asked Zhang Mouwu to assist Zhang Mouwen in handling the registration procedures for the transfer of ownership of the house involved in the case, and registering the transfer of the property rights of the house involved in the case to Zhang Mouwen's name. The court of first instance held that Zhang Mouwen's claim that the two parties were borrowing their names to buy a house and requiring Zhang Mouwu to cooperate with the transfer of ownership was not based on sufficient evidence, and ruled to reject Zhang Mouwen's claim. Zhang Mouwen was not satisfied and appealed. The Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment.

The court of first instance held that, according to the law, the parties had the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims. In this case, Zhang Mouwen submitted audio evidence to prove that Zhang Mouwen and Zhang Mouwu reached an agreement that the property rights of the house involved in the case belonged to both parties and that each of them accounted for one-half of the property rights, which Zhang Mouwu did not recognize. Zhang Mouwen claimed that Zhang Mouwu was remorseful and did not perform the oral agreement reached by the two parties, but Zhang Mouwen filed a lawsuit soon after the so-called above-mentioned oral agreement on the grounds that the two parties had a borrowed name to buy a house, so Zhang Mouwen had already overturned the oral agreement he advocated in this case with his own behavior. Therefore, Zhang Mouwen's litigation request to confirm that one-half of the property rights of the house involved in the case belonged to him had no basis in law and was not supported by the court.

During the second-instance trial of this court, Zhang Mouwen submitted evidence 1. A letter of proof that Zhang Mouwu reported the loss of his ID card, intending to prove that after Zhang Mouwen and Zhang Mouwu reached an oral agreement to divide half of each, Zhang Mouwu handed over his and her husband's ID cards to Zhang Mouwen and then repented and reported the loss of his ID card, constituting a breach of contract; In this regard, Zhang Mouwu's cross-examination opinion is: he does not recognize the purpose of evidence 1, evidence 2 is not new evidence, and he does not recognize the authenticity, legitimacy and relevance of evidence 2.

The facts ascertained by this court through trial are no different from those found by the court of first instance, and this court affirms them.

Referee Result:

The court of first instance ruled that Zhang Mouwen's claim was rejected.

The result of the second-instance judgment: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

Real Estate Lawyer Comments:

The Civil Code stipulates that in the event of a dispute over the ownership or content of a property right, the interested party may request confirmation of the right. A party may request confirmation of the real right only if there is evidence to prove that the record in the immovable property register is inconsistent with the real right status and that he is the real owner of the real right in the immovable property.

According to the relevant regulations of the mainland, when the immovable property right is changed due to a legal act, in addition to the act of sale, gift, mortgage and other reasons, it must also be registered before the effect of the change in the real right can occur. In this case, Zhang Mouwen asserted that he enjoyed one-half of the property rights of the house involved in the case, mainly on the basis of what he claimed was an oral agreement reached between him and Zhang Mouwu. As mentioned above, a causal act can only cause a change in property rights, but registration is still required before the change in property rights can be finalized. Accordingly, even if the two parties reached an agreement that each of the houses involved in the case was entitled to one-half of the shares as claimed by Zhang Mouwen, because the two parties had never registered, Zhang Mouwen's oral agreement to confirm that one-half of the property rights of the house involved in the case belonged to him lacked legal basis and was difficult for the court to accept.

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!