Some children who contribute to the elderly when their parents buy a house belong to them in their diary, is it a will

(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 are any similarities, please contact us to revoke them.) )

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

The plaintiff alleged

Qian filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance: 1. Request a judgment in accordance with law to confirm that the house involved in the case belongs to Qian; 2. The litigation costs of this case are borne by Qian Moujie, Qian Moucong, and Qian Mouxin.

Qian's appeal request: 1. Revoke the original judgment and change the judgment in accordance with law to support Qian's first-instance litigation claim; 2. The litigation costs of the first and second instance shall be borne by Qian Moujie, Qian Moucong, and Qian Mouxin.

Facts and reasons: 1. The court of first instance found that the facts were unclear and the law was wrongly applied. The evidence submitted by Qian is sufficient to prove that he and his father Qian had just reached an agreement on the purchase of the No. 1 house in Haidian District, Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the house involved in the case) by him in his father's name, and that he enjoyed ownership of the house involved in the case. Qian actually took possession of and used the house involved in the case. Qian Moujie, Qian Moucong, and Qian Mouxin also recognized that the purchase price was made by Qian. The house involved in the case should be owned by Qian. 2. The court of first instance omitted important facts in the case, such as that the purchase money was paid by Qian, and that Qian actually occupied and used the house involved in the case. When the written materials and diaries were discovered does not affect the existence of the fact that Qian contributed to the purchase of the house and the house was owned by him.

The defendant argued

Qian Moujie, Qian Moucong, and Qian Mouxin argued that they did not agree with Qian's appeal request and reasons. 1. The house involved in the case belongs to Qian Mougang. Before the housing reform, the tenant of the house involved in the case was Qian Mougang, and after the property right was purchased, the property owner registered on the property right certificate was Qian Mougang. Qian Mou never expressed to Qian Mou before his death that he gave Qian the house involved in the case. Within three years of Qian's death, all heirs, including Qian, agreed to divide the house involved in the case in accordance with the legal inheritance method.

2. There is no factual basis for Qian's claim that he actually occupied and used the house involved in the case. The house has been idle since Qian's death, and both parties agree that the house involved in the case is vacant. Qian has never paid any fees. 3. The court of first instance did not omit to determine the fact that the purchase price was made by Qian, and took this as the focus of the case. The court of second instance is requested to uphold the first-instance judgment in accordance with law.

The court ascertained

Qian Mougang and Gao Mougang are husband and wife, and have two sons and two daughters, namely Qian Moujie, Qian Mouxin, Qian Moucong, and Qian Mou. Gao cancelled his account due to death on April 9, 1992, and Qian just passed away on June 18, 2015. The house involved in the case was originally allocated by Qian Mougang's work unit, but it was sold in 1995 due to housing reform, and Qian Mou contributed 30,375.39 yuan to purchase it, and it was registered in Qian Mougang's name.

The court found the facts and evidence in dispute between the parties as follows:

Qian submitted to the court the materials and diaries written by Qian before his death, and asserted that Qian had agreed to the ownership of the house involved in the case; Qian Moujie, Qian Moucong, and Qian Mouxin recognized its authenticity, but believed that it could not fully reflect Qian Mougang's expression of intent, nor did it have the nature of a will. The court held that, according to the written materials and diary content of Qian Mougang provided by Qian, the content of Qian Mougang's record was mainly daily activities and mood at the time, and it was an expression aimed at individuals, and its content and form did not reflect the willingness to express to others.

The court held that Qian asserted that he had reached an agreement with Qian Mougang to purchase the house involved in the case in the name of Qian Mougang and that the house involved in the case belonged to him, so the focus of the dispute in this case was: whether the materials and diaries written by Qian Mougang could prove that there was an agreement between Qian Mougang and Qian Mougang to purchase the house in his name and that the property rights of the house belonged to Qian.

The materials written by Qian Mougang and the content of his diary show that he used first-person accounts, and the main content of the record was his perception of the words and deeds of others, his own feelings, thoughts, considerations, and personal analysis and judgment, which did not conform to the form of expressing his wishes to the outside world; Qian admitted that the evidence was discovered when Qian had just passed away and was packing up his things, and it can also be seen that Qian had no intention of delivering the record to Qian before his death, and it could not be determined that it was an expression of intent to Qian, so the handwritten materials and diary should be determined to be Qian Mougang's record of his feelings rather than the evidence or basis for expressing it externally, and the court could not determine that Qian Mougang had an expression of intent to dispose of property rights and interests externally, and then it could not be considered that Qian Mougang had reached an agreement with Qian on the purchase of a house in his name and the ownership of the house.

Qian asserted that when Qian was alive, he said that the house involved in the case belonged to him, but the court did not accept this because there was no evidence to prove it. Because the available evidence could not prove the existence of the agreement between Qian and Qian, there was no factual basis for Qian's request to confirm that the house involved in the case belonged to him, and the court could not support his claim.

Referee Result:

All of Qian's claims were dismissed.

Real estate lawyer Jin Shuangquan commented

The reason for Qian's request to confirm the ownership of the house involved in the case was that Qian and Qian had just reached an agreement to buy a house in a borrowed name, and he would purchase the house in his name with his own funds. Qian shall bear the burden of proof on the basic facts that gave rise to the legal relationship. The house involved in the case was originally allocated by Qian Mougang's work unit, but it was sold in 1995 due to housing reform, and Qian Mou contributed 30,375.39 yuan to purchase it, and it was registered in Qian Mougang's name.

Based on the evidence provided by Qian, such as the written materials and the contents of the diary before Qian's death, it cannot be proved that Qian and Qian Mougang reached an agreement to buy a house in a borrowed name, that is, Qian Mougang agreed that Qian Mougang made capital contributions in the name of borrowing Qian Mougang and the house was directly owned by Qian. Moreover, this case is not a dispute over the confirmation of rights, and Qian's request to confirm the ownership of the house on the grounds that he and Qian had just borrowed their names to buy a house had no basis in law and was not supported by the court.

Case handling experience

This case of housing title confirmation dispute has brought us the following important enlightenments:

First of all, the establishment of a borrowed name purchase relationship needs to be supported by clear and sufficient evidence. In this case, Qian asserted that he and his father Qian had just reached an agreement to buy a house in a borrowed name, but the evidence provided failed to meet the standard of proof required by law. This reminds us that in order to assert a special legal relationship in a similar transaction, it is necessary to collect and retain evidence that can clearly and directly prove the agreement of the parties, such as written agreements, clear oral agreements between the parties, etc.

Second, for the determination of ownership of major properties such as real estate, the court usually adopts strict review standards. Relying only on vague and circumstantial evidence, such as personal diaries or daily writing materials, is often difficult to obtain support from the courts. This requires the parties to clarify their rights and obligations through formal and standardized legal documents as much as possible when dealing with real estate-related affairs.

In addition, with regard to the ownership of real estate, even if one party contributes to the purchase, if it is registered in the name of another person and there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a special agreement, the registration will usually prevail in law. This reminds us to pay attention to the legal effect of real estate registration and avoid ownership disputes caused by registration issues.

In addition, from the perspective of the heirs, the law and the principle of fairness should be followed when dealing with the property of the deceased. Even if all parties have different views on the ownership of the property, they should protect their rights and interests through legal channels and sufficient evidence, rather than claiming rights based on subjective speculation or personal understanding.

Finally, this case also reflects the importance of timely and clear expression of will and the conclusion of a legally valid will or agreement in the disposition and inheritance of family property. In this way, conflicts and disputes within the family can be avoided due to the ownership of property after the death of a loved one.

In short, this case reminds us that in real estate transactions and the disposal of family property, we should pay attention to the collection and preservation of evidence, the standardization and improvement of legal documents, and clarify property rights and interests in a timely manner, so as to protect our legitimate rights and interests and the harmony and stability of family relations.