(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
Li Mounan filed a lawsuit with this court: 1. The three defendants cooperated with me in handling the registration procedures for the transfer of ownership of the No. 1 house in Haidian District, Beijing, and changed the property owner of the house to me; 2. The litigation costs in this case were borne by Li Moulan.
Facts and reasons: Qi Mouxiang and Li Moujie are husband and wife, and the two have four children, namely Li Mounan, Li Moulan, Li Mouhui, and Li Mouxia. In 1998, because Li Moujie was seriously ill, except for me, the three children were all in other places, in order to facilitate the care of Li Moujie, with my consent, after Li Moujie applied to his unit, I rented a two-bedroom house in Shijingshan District No. 1 and replaced it with a house in Haidian District. In 1998, Li Moujie's unit was reformed, and Li Moujie suggested that I buy the disputed house in his name, so that Li Moujie's length of service could be calculated, and after the real estate certificate was processed, the property would be transferred to my name, and Qi Mouxiang also agreed. Therefore, I purchased the disputed house in my father's name and went through the relevant procedures. In 2003, Li Moujie died, and Qi Mouxiang, Li Mouhui, and Li Mouxia all recognized that the disputed house was purchased by me in the name of Li Moujie, and that the disputed house belonged to me.
I believe that the disputed house was replaced by the house in Shijingshan that I originally rented, and with the consent of my parents, I purchased it in the name of Li Moujie, and a contractual relationship between me and Li Moujie has been formed to buy the house in my name, and now that Li Moujie has died, Li Moulan did not cooperate with the transfer procedures, so she sued the court.
The defendant argued
Li Moulan argued that she did not agree with Li Mounan's litigation request and asked the court to reject it. The house at issue is the joint property of Li Moujie and Qi Mouxiang, and the two parties jointly contributed to the purchase, and there was no fact of borrowing a name to buy a house, and Li Mounan did not reach any written or oral agreement with Li Moujie to buy a house in a borrowed name, nor did he actually contribute to the purchase of the disputed house, so he requested the court to reject all of Li Mounan's requests.
Li Mouhui argued that I agree with Li Mounan's litigation request.
Li Mouxia argued that I agree with Li Mounan's litigation request.
The court ascertained
Qi Mouxiang and Li Moujie are husband and wife, and the two have four children, namely Li Mounan, Li Moulan, Li Mouhui, and Li Mouxia. Li died on April 3, 2003. Qi Mouxiang passed away on January 29, 2019. The house ownership certificate of House No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as House No. 1) located in Haidian District, Beijing was issued on August 27, 2001, and the property owner was Li Moujie.
With regard to the disputed evidence and facts, this court finds as follows:
1. Li Mounan asserted that he purchased House No. 1 in the name of his father Li Moujie, and provided the following evidence:
1. A copy of the lease contract and agreement of the public residential house located in No. 1 Shijingshan District, Beijing, showing that in order to take care of his father Li Moujie, he signed an agreement with the original property right unit of the disputed house to replace the Shijingshan house with the disputed house. Zheng, the original property rights unit, appeared in court to testify. Li Moulan did not recognize the copy of the lease contract, and had no objection to the authenticity of the agreement, but believed that the agreement clearly stated that both parties A and B each had the right to use the housing for a long time, even if the lease relationship was replaced before the house was sold, the distribution right of the house after the replacement was completed belonged to the unit and was assigned to Li Moujie, and the sales relationship that occurred after that was another legal relationship.
In the lawsuit, after the court's investigation to the unit, the unit issued the "Employee Housing Situation Questionnaire", and Li Moujie, as the person who filled in the form, recognized that the No. 1 house was exchanged; So far, the owner of the property has not changed. Both parties have no objection to the authenticity of the evidence, and this court confirms it, and can support the authenticity of the lease contract and agreement provided by Li Mounan.
2. A copy of the house sale contract and bills, proving that Li Mounan signed the "House Sale and Purchase Contract" with the unit in the name of his father Li Moujie and purchased the disputed house. Li Moulan recognized the authenticity, but believed that the original was kept by Li Moulan, which did not meet the review standards for buying a house in a borrowed name, and could not prove Li Mounan's litigation claim.
3. The original house ownership certificate, proving that Li Mounan holds the ownership certificate of the house at issue; Li Moulan recognized the authenticity and proved that the property owner of the property involved in the case was Li Moujie.
4. Gas receipts, proving that Li Mounan has been living in the disputed house and is the actual owner of the disputed house. Li Moulan recognized the authenticity, but the main bill was formed after Li Moujie's death, and it was normal for Li Mounan to pay the relevant fees for the actual house where he lived.
5. "Explanation of the Property Rights and Residence of House No. 1 in Haidian District, Beijing" (hereinafter referred to as the "Explanation of the Situation") written by Li Mounan: "... At the beginning of 1998, my father Li Moujie was seriously ill, and three of his four children lived and worked in other places. In order to facilitate the care of the children, the father Li Moujie submitted an application for changing the house to his unit, and the two units agreed to the housing exchange through negotiation. It is convenient to take care of them. In November 1998, his father Li Moujie's unit carried out housing reform. Father Li Moujie put forward his idea according to the relevant situation of the unit: I will fund and buy it in his name, so that because of his long working years, there will be many discounts, and he belongs to the employees of the unit, and the purchase procedures are simple. After the house ownership certificate is issued, the property rights of the house will be transferred to my name. In this regard, my mother Qi Mouxiang and I both agreed. Therefore, according to the above, I funded the house, and my father Li Moujie signed a house sale contract with his work unit, forming the status quo that the property owner of the house is Li Moujie, and the actual residence and use is me. Since I changed houses in 1998, I have been living in this house and have paid various fees related to it. Now my father Li Moujie has passed away, I plan to transfer the property rights of this house to my name in accordance with the arrangement before his death, and I hereby explain the property rights and actual residence in detail, and ask my family to assist in handling the relevant procedures. ”
In the note, Qi Mouxiang wrote on March 1, 2017: "The situation is true, agree to handle the transfer", and signed and sealed; Li Mouxia signed and pressed on March 15, 2017; Signed by Li Mouhui on March 27, 2017.
In the lawsuit, Li Moulan applied for an appraisal of whether Qi Mouxiang signed in the "Explanation of the Situation". Later, Li Moulan applied to withdraw the appraisal; Li Moulan said that she had never heard Qi Mouxiang say it, and it contradicted the content of the will. Because Li Moulan did not provide corresponding evidence to deny the authenticity of the evidence, and Li Mouhui and Li Mouxia also recognized the evidence, this court confirmed the authenticity and probative effect of the "Explanation of the Situation".
2. Li Moulan provided the following evidence:
1. The original "Housing Sales Contract" and the original receipt of the purchase price, the original "Public Residential Lease Contract" and the "Staff Housing Certificate", which prove that Li Moujie is the owner of House No. 1; It is proved that the testimony of Li Mounan and Zheng is inconsistent with the facts. Li Mounan has no objection to the authenticity of the evidence, but does not recognize the purpose of the proof.
2. Li Mouxia and Li Mouhui signed a declaration of renunciation of inheritance and notarized it, indicating that House No. 1 is the inheritance of their father Li Moujie; Li Mounan paid the notary fee, proving that Li Mounan had been aware of this fact. Li Mounan has no objection to the authenticity of the notarial deed, not that he paid the notary fee, and his cross-examination opinion on the evidence is that because the house will eventually be transferred to Li Mounan, if it is in accordance with the inheritance procedure, it will need to be notarized by the two, and he has objections to Li Moulan's purpose of proof.
3. Qi Mouxiang's 2011 will, the second of which is "located in a house in Haidian District, Beijing, inherited by his second son Li Mounan." "It is proved that the disputed property is the property of Qi Mouxiang. Li Mounan's opinion is an expression of the old man's performance of the agreement, and it is an expression of the transfer of the house.
4. Li Moulan provided a notarized will made by Qi Mouxiang on April 2, 2011, which contained the second article: "The property located in Haidian District, Beijing is the joint property of my husband and wife Li Moujie. After my death, my share of the above-mentioned real estate (including the share of the estate that I should inherit from Li Moujie) was inherited by my second son Li Mounan, and it was only used as the personal property of my son Li Mounan, not as the joint property of him and his spouse. "On March 1, 2017, Qi Mouxiang notarized a statement to withdraw the notarized will of April 2, 2011. Li Mounan's cross-examination opinion is that the notarial certificate has been revoked.
5. The notarial certificate file proves that Qi Mouxiang has always recognized that the three properties in Beijing are the joint property of Qi Mouxiang and Li Moujie, and there is no situation that the No. 1 house mentioned by Li Mounan is a borrowed name to buy a house. Li Mounan's cross-examination opinion is that Qi Mouxiang should be required by the notary office to state it as personal property, otherwise it would not be possible to handle notarization.
6. Witness testimony showing that Qi Mouxiang has always recognized that the disputed house is the joint property of his husband and wife, and has repeatedly informed his colleagues and neighbors of this matter. Li Mounan believes that the witness statements have nothing to do with the case.
7. The purchase contract and invoice of House No. 1 prove that the testimony of Li Mounan and Zheng is inconsistent with the facts. Li Mounan objected, arguing that it had nothing to do with the case.
For the original "Housing Sales Contract" and the receipt of the purchase price provided by Li Moulan, the "Public Housing Lease Contract", "Staff Housing Certificate" and the notarial certificate are all confirmed by this court to be true.
Adjudication Results
Within seven days after this judgment took effect, Li Moulan, Li Mouhui, and Li Mouxia cooperated with Li Mounan to transfer the No. 1 house located in Haidian District, Beijing to Li Mounan's name.
Property Lawyer Reviews
To determine whether it is a borrowed name to buy a house, it should be based on whether Li Mounan and his parents Li Moujie and Qi Mouxiang have signed an agreement to buy a house in a borrowed name, as well as the source and use of the house, the holding of the house purchase bill and property right certificate, and whether there is a reasonable explanation for the borrowed name to buy the house. In this case, according to the unit certificate provided by Li Mounan, it can be confirmed that House No. 1 was replaced by Li Mounan's unit with his house and his father Li Moujie's unit; The purpose is to facilitate the care of parents. Therefore, the No. 1 house comes from Li Mounan. The property right certificate of the current No. 1 house is kept by Li Mounan, and the house has been inhabited by Li Mounan, and the relevant fees have been paid, which confirms the fact that Li Moujie and his wife recognize that the house is enjoyed by Li Mounan.
Regarding the cost of buying a house, both sides have their own opinions. In the lawsuit, Li Mounan provided a "Statement of Circumstances" signed by Qi Mouxiang, proving that Qi Mouxiang recognized the fact that the house was purchased by Li Mounan and agreed that the house was owned by Li Mounan. Although Li Moulan objected, she withdrew the appraisal of the "Explanation of Circumstances", and the court confirmed the probative force of the "Explanation of Circumstances". The "Explanation of the Situation" is also after the notarial deed made by Qi Mouxiang, and Qi Mouxiang's expression of intent on the disposal of the estate does not constitute an obstacle to the determination of the ownership of House No. 1. Although Li Mounan and his parents did not sign a written or oral agreement on buying a house in their name, according to the evidence, it can be proved that House No. 1 was indeed funded by Li Mounan, and Li Mounan actually controlled and enjoyed the rights and interests of the house after the house was purchased, which can support the fact that the house was purchased by Li Mounan in the name of Li Moujie.
Li Mouhui and Li Mouxia also had no objection to the facts and litigation claims stated by Li Mounan. Therefore, the court supported Li Mounan's litigation request for the three defendants to cooperate with the transfer procedures of House No. 1. As for the seniority discount obtained by Li Mounan for the purchase of the house, it cannot be automatically recognized as a gift, because Li Moulan did not propose to deal with the seniority preferential money together in this case, so it can be resolved in a separate case.
Case handling experience
1. Be cautious when borrowing a name to buy a house, and a written agreement is crucial
In this case, Li Mounan did not sign a written agreement to buy a house in his borrowed name with his parents, which led to many disputes and difficulties in claiming the ownership of the house. This reminds people that when buying a house in a borrowed name, it is important to sign a detailed written agreement to clarify the rights and obligations of both parties, including important matters such as the capital contribution of the house, the ownership of the property, and the time of transfer. Otherwise, in the event of a dispute, it will be difficult to provide strong evidence to support one's claim.
For example, if Li Mounan signed a written agreement with his parents at the beginning of the borrowed name to buy the house, clearly stipulating the actual ownership of the house and the subsequent transfer, then after Li Moujie's death, it may be difficult for Li Moulan to raise objections to the ownership of the house.
Second, evidence preservation should be valued, and details determine success or failure
Li Mounan was able to provide a series of evidence in the lawsuit, such as the housing lease contract and agreement, gas receipts, "Explanation of Circumstances", etc., which supported his claim to a certain extent. However, the validity of some evidence is still controversial, which also highlights the importance of evidence preservation and evidence.
For example, for the copy and bill of the house sale contract, because the original is in Li Moulan's place, its probative power is relatively weak. Therefore, when it comes to major property transactions, it is necessary to properly preserve the original, complete and effective evidence to avoid being at a disadvantage in the dispute.
3. Comprehensive consideration of legal determinations, and many factors affect the results
When determining whether to buy a house in a borrowed name, the court will comprehensively consider a variety of factors, such as the source of the house, the capital contribution, the use status, and the holding of the title certificate. This shows that in real estate transactions and ownership disputes, it is not only based on a single factor to judge, but needs to be analyzed and demonstrated from multiple angles.
Just like in this case, although there was no written agreement to buy a house in a borrowed name, the court finally supported Li Mounan's claim based on other evidence. This reminds people to fully consider various factors that may affect the determination of ownership when dealing with real estate issues, and prepare accordingly in advance.
Fourth: the legal relationship between inheritance and borrowing a name to buy a house needs to be clarified
Li Moulan's evidence such as Qi Mouxiang's will tried to prove that the house was the joint property and inheritance of the husband and wife. However, the court finally determined that the house was bought in a borrowed name based on comprehensive evidence. This shows that in legal disputes involving real estate, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the two different legal relationships of inheritance and buying a house in a borrowed name, and the ownership of real estate cannot be handled simply according to the relevant provisions of the will or inheritance.
For example, if the purchase of a house in a borrowed name is mistaken for an inheritance relationship, it may lead to an erroneous judgment and damage the legitimate rights and interests of the real right holder.
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!