(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 Moutao filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance and requested: 1. Order Li Moufan to illegally transfer the cash of 12.175 million yuan obtained from the house involved in the case in which Li Moutao has 50% ownership and immediately pay Li Moutao and pay it to Li Moutao immediately; 2. Order Zhang Mouya to bear joint and several liability for Li Moufan's payment obligations.
Li Moufan's appeal request: revoke the first-instance judgment, remand for retrial or change the judgment in accordance with law.
Facts and reasons: 1. The court of first instance found that the facts were wrong, Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya registered the property owner of the house as Li Moufan when they purchased the No. 1 house in Haidian District, Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the house involved in the case), and did not raise any objection to this for 14 years thereafter. Zhang Mouya and Li Moufan formed a gift contract relationship for the house involved in the case.
When Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya divorced, they also did not deal with the house involved in the case registered in Li Moufan's name, and when the house involved in the lawsuit, it was also Li Moufan who repaid the debt in full, and Li Moufan handled the core matters of the house involved in the case as the property owner and obligor of the house involved in the case;
2. Li Moutao actually does not exist as both the donor and the donee's agent, if it is determined that the two parties are borrowing names to buy the house, Li Moutao should bear the burden of proof, and it is not conducive to the protection of the interests of Li Moufan, who was a minor at the time, Li Moutao's statement seriously violates the common sense of daily life and the divorce agreement between Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya.
The defendant argued
Li Moutao argued that he agreed with the judgment of the court of first instance and did not agree with Li Moufan's appeal request and reasons. The facts ascertained in the first instance were clear and the law was correctly applied. The house involved in the case is the joint property of Zhang Mouya and me during the existence of the marital relationship, and each has a 50% share, and there is no evidence to prove that Zhang Mouya and I donated the house involved in the case to Li Moufan.
Zhang Mou Yashu said that the house involved in the case was donated to Li Moufan by me and Li Moutao, and Li Moutao did not submit evidence to prove that it was a borrowed name to buy the house, and the first-instance judgment was inconsistent with the divorce agreement between me and Li Moutao and the fact that Li Moufan repaid a huge mortgage to avoid the bank from executing the house involved in the case.
The court ascertained
Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya were originally husband and wife, and gave birth to a daughter, Li Moufan, on February 11, 1989. On July 10, 2003, Li Moutao paid 2454108 yuan to Beijing M Company for the purchase of the house involved in the case. On June 6, 2004, Li Moutao, in the name of Li Moufan (Party B), signed the Beijing Commercial Housing Sales Contract with Beijing M Company (Party A), stipulating that Party B voluntarily purchased the house involved in the case, with a construction area of 320.52 square meters and a price of 2454108 yuan. Li Moutao signed "Li Moufan" at Party B of the above contract, and paid the public maintenance fund, deed tax, stamp duty and other expenses.
Later, the house involved in the case obtained a house ownership certificate, and the owner was registered as Li Moufan. After the house ownership certificate was issued, it was kept by Li Moutao for a long time, and then Li Moutao handed over the original ownership certificate to the bank when he went through the mortgage procedures, and Li Moufan took it from the bank in 2015. In addition, Li Moutao also invested in the purchase of four other houses, and registered all the property rights of two houses and 99% of the property rights of two houses in Li Moufan's name.
Since September 2003, Li Moutao has taken possession of the house. Li Moufan sued the court in November 2017 to demand that the tenant return the house involved in the case, and Li Moutao participated in the lawsuit as a third party. After the trial, the court ruled that the lessee vacated the house involved in the case to Li Moufan. Li Moutao appealed against the judgment, and the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court made a judgment, holding that the house involved in the case is now registered in the name of Beijing R Company, an outsider to the case, and Li Moufan is no longer the owner of the house involved in the case, and he filed a lawsuit in this case as the owner of the house involved in the case to require the tenant to vacate the house, which lacks factual and legal basis and cannot be established, so the previous civil judgment is revoked and all of Li Moufan's litigation claims are rejected.
Li Moutao sued Li Moufan and Beijing R Company in a separate case in the court, requesting confirmation that the house sale contract signed by the two parties was invalid. After the trial, the court made a judgment that the house sale contract was valid and that the judgment had taken effect. Li Moufan sold the house involved in the case for 24.35 million yuan. Li Moufan said that because Li Moutao prevented the sale of the house, he paid an additional 1.9 million yuan in liquidated damages.
In addition, after the trial, it was ascertained that on November 4, 2005, Li Moutao (Party A) and Zhang Mouya (Party B) signed the "Divorce Agreement", stipulating that both parties agreed to divorce through negotiation and agreed on the following terms of the agreement: 1. The parties went through formal divorce proceedings in November 2005; Two. Party A shall implement the following properties before May 30, 2006: 1. Give three houses to Party B, one for self-occupation and two for rent, Party A shall redecorate its houses and purchase furniture according to Party B's requirements, and Party A shall rent out the remaining two sets. Since January 2006, all rental income has been owned by Party B; 2
Party A is responsible for paying off all the mortgage balances of the above houses and settling all the arrears, and handing over the property ownership certificates of the three houses to Party B...... Four. Other properties under the name of Party B that were previously registered shall be handed over to Party A for full disposal, and Party B shall fully cooperate if it is necessary to change the property rights; ……
In November 2005, Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya went through the divorce procedures by mutual agreement at the Civil Affairs Bureau of Haidian District, Beijing. On the same day, the contents of the divorce agreement signed by the two parties at the civil affairs department are: 1. All items for personal use by the man and woman, including clothing, furniture and vehicles, are owned by the individual, and have been divided into two parties. 2. At present, all assets (including real estate) in the name of the husband belong to the husband; All assets (including real estate) in the woman's name belong to the woman and have been divided without dispute between the parties. After review, Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya both recognized that in addition to the house registered in Li Moufan's name, both parties had other immovable properties purchased after marriage.
The court held that. The house involved in the case was purchased with the joint property of the husband and wife during the existence of the marriage relationship between Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya, and the property rights were registered in the name of Li Moufan, and Li Moufan was not a minor at the time of the purchase and had no independent property. Although the certificate of ownership of immovable property is proof that the right holder enjoys the right to the immovable property, in practice, after the husband and wife jointly fund the purchase of the house, the property rights of the house may be registered in the name of the minor children based on various factors, so the house cannot simply be recognized as the property of the minor children in accordance with the registration situation, but the true intention of the husband and wife when purchasing the house should be examined.
Regarding the section on whether Li Moutao's act of investing in the purchase of the house involved in the case and registering it in Li Moufan's name constitutes a "gift", the law stipulates: "Where the donor clearly states that he will donate the gift to the minor, the gift shall be determined to be the minor's personal property." Since the gift under the Contract Law is a legal act of both parties, the donor's expression of intent to donate is true and free, and the donee should issue an expression of intent to accept the gift. In this case, when Li Moutao purchased the house involved in the case, and when he signed the house purchase contract and obtained the house ownership certificate in the name of Li Moufan, Li Moufan was still a minor, and his civil acts still needed to be represented by his parents, and at this time, Li Moufan's parents could accept gifts from a third party on behalf of Li Moufan.
If the expanded interpretation determines that Li Moutao's behavior constitutes a gift, and the donor and the donee are both Li Moufan's parents, so that a civil juristic act occurs between himself and himself, the act cannot be effective under the contract law, and at the same time, it does not belong to the above-mentioned gifting situation. Therefore, when Li Moutao purchased the house, the act of registering the house involved in the case in the name of Li Moufan and Li Moufan did not establish a gift.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya had a common intention to donate the house involved in the case to Li Moufan after Li Moufan became an adult, and Li Moutao never handed over the actual control of the house involved in the case to Li Moufan, and the use and income of the house were in the hands of Li Moutao. If it is considered to be a gift, Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya will not make such a disposal arrangement.
To sum up, Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya did not form an agreement to donate the house involved in the case to Li Moufan from beginning to end, combined with the fact that the purchase price and related expenses of the house involved in the case were paid by Li Moutao, and the purchase procedures were completed by Li Moutao, Li Moutao has been controlling the house involved in the case, keeping the original house ownership certificate for a long time, and registering the property rights of multiple houses purchased by using the joint property of the husband and wife after marriage in the name of Li Moufan, etc., it can be determined that the real owner of the house involved in this case is not Li Moufan, but should be Li Moufan's parents, that is, Li Moutao, Zhang Mouya's common property.
It can be seen from the content of the two divorce agreements that Li Moutao knew that the house involved in the case was registered in the name of Li Moufan, but at the time of divorce, he only disposed of the immovable property registered in the names of Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya, and did not divide the ownership of the house involved in the case, and the court found that Li Moutao only enjoyed 50% of the share of the house. Therefore, Li Moufan's act of selling the house involved in the case to an outsider infringed on Li Moutao's property rights and interests, and Li Moufan should compensate Li Moutao for the losses suffered by him, and Li Moufan claimed that his payment of liquidated damages of 1.9 million yuan was caused by Li Moutao's obstruction of his sale of the house, but the house involved in the case did not belong to Li Moufan's property from the beginning, so the liquidated damages should be borne by Li Moufan.
Now Li Moutao has sold the house involved in the case and requires Li Moufan to pay him 12.175 million yuan, and the court supports it. Regarding Li Moutao's request for Zhang Mouya to bear joint and several liability, there is no legal basis, and the court will not support it.
Adjudication Results
Judgment: 1. Li Moufan shall compensate Li Moutao 12.175 million yuan within seven days after this judgment takes effect; 2. Rejecting Li Moutao's other litigation claims.
Property Lawyer Reviews
The nature of the legal relationship between the parties shall be determined on the basis of the true intentions of the parties. In this case, Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya used the joint property of the husband and wife to purchase the house involved in the case during the existence of the husband and wife relationship, which was registered in the name of Li Moufan. Li Moufan claimed that Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya donated the house involved in the case to him, and Li Moutao claimed that the house involved in the case was only registered in Li Moufan's name, and the house involved in the case should still belong to the joint property of Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya. Since the parties have not signed a written contract in this regard, their true intentions should be inferred from the acts of the parties.
According to the facts ascertained in this case, the purchase price of the house involved in the case was paid by Li Moutao, and the house involved in the case has been controlled and used by Li Moutao since it was handed over, and the original property right certificate of the house has always been held by Li Moutao. Before Li Moufan became an adult, it was reasonable for Li Moutao to manage the house involved in the case and hold the property right certificate of the house involved in the case on his behalf, but after Li Moufan became an adult, Li Moutao never delivered the actual control of the house involved in the case or the income and rights certificate of the house involved in the case to Li Moufan, and Li Moufan never really controlled the house involved in the case. It can be seen from this that Li Moutao did not express his intention to donate the house involved in the case to Li Moufan.
Combined with Li Moutao's assertion at the trial that he registered the house involved in the case in the name of Li Moufan in order to avoid business risks, a reasonable explanation can be given for his use of Li Moufan's name to purchase the house, so the court found that Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya registered the house involved in the case in the name of Li Moufan only to purchase the house involved in the case in the name of Li Moufan, not to donate the house involved in the case to Li Moufan. Based on this, the court found that Li Moutao enjoyed a 50% share of the house involved in the case, and ruled that Li Moufan was correct in compensating Li Moutao with 12.175 million yuan.
Li Moufan claimed that Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya donated the house involved in the case to him, and the evidence was insufficient. Li Moufan asserted that Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya did not divide the house involved in the case in the divorce agreement, but this circumstance is not enough to deny the fact that the house involved in the case is owned by Li Moutao and Zhang Mouya. Li Moufan also claimed that he had repaid the relevant debts for the house involved in the case, but this act did not affect the ownership of the house involved in the case, and Li Moufan could resolve the relevant rights and obligations arising therefrom.
Case handling experience
In the above-mentioned case, the core contradiction is that there is a dispute over the actual ownership of the house in question, whether it is owned by the children registered in the name or whether it should be recognized as the joint property of the parents.
From this case, we can draw the following inspirations:
First of all, be cautious about property registration. In the disposition of property within the family, the act of registering the property in the name of the child needs to be carefully considered. Although registration has the effect of publicity, in practice, if it cannot be proved that there is a clear expression of intent to donate, the act of registration may not directly determine the final ownership of the property. This is a reminder that when registering a property, it is important to take into account all possible legal consequences and ensure that the act of registration is consistent with the true expression of intent.
Second, the importance of evidence preservation. In similar family property disputes, whether the parties' claims can be supported depends to a large extent on the evidence they provide. For example, in this case, the evidence regarding the payment of the purchase price, the actual control and use of the house, etc., played a key role in determining the true ownership of the house. Therefore, in daily economic activities, especially when it comes to the disposal of major assets, attention should be paid to retaining relevant evidence to deal with possible disputes.
Furthermore, the determination of the act of donation. The law has clear provisions and requirements for the act of gift, and it cannot be simply determined as a gift based on the single fact that the real estate is registered in the name of the child. This requires us to comprehensively consider the true intentions, behaviors and relevant evidence of all parties when judging whether it constitutes a gift. For parents, if there is a real intention to give, it should be clearly expressed through a written agreement or other form to avoid disputes in the future.
Finally, the impact of changes in marital relations on the disposition of family property. When a husband and wife divorce, new disputes can easily arise over property that has not been clearly divided, especially for property with ownership disputes such as the house in question. This suggests that couples should make a comprehensive and clear division and agreement on family property during the divorce process, so as to avoid unnecessary troubles in subsequent life due to omissions or ambiguity.
In short, this case reminds us that in the disposal of family property, especially real estate, we should fully consider the legal provisions and possible risks, and pay attention to the preservation of evidence and the clarity of intentions, so as to protect our legitimate rights and interests.
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!
![Australia's "Timing to Buy" Index hits a nearly 2-year high! Should I buy a house now?[fig]]()