As we know, there are three basic conditions to be considered in identifying a co-tenant, namely, having a registered permanent residence, having lived for one year and not having a registered permanent residence. Among them, living for one year is one of the most critical conditions. However, when actually handling a case, I met many residents and friends who only understood this article superficially, thinking that living for one year means living in a public house for one year. In fact, judging from the current judgment cases related to Shanghai public housing, living here for one year is actually to be fully demonstrated, rather than simply living for one year. What does the argument come from? According to experience, we should demonstrate it from two aspects. One is when you live, and the other is why you live. Only by meeting the requirements of the above two aspects at the same time, can you meet the conditions of sharing after living for one year. Next, I take a case recently handled by Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court as an example, hoping to help residents and friends better understand.
Here's the case. In the 1970s and 1980s, in order to support the construction of third-tier cities, the mother of prosecutor Xiao Liu moved her household registration to the Hongkou District public housing rented by Xiao Liu's grandmother, which is what we usually call the educated youth housing allocation. After Xiao Liu's mother's account moved away, only Xiao Liu's grandparents and uncles and aunts lived in public houses. 1982, Xiao Liu was born and settled in a public house, but because his mother could not take care of him, Xiao Liu lived with her grandparents and aunt in her husband's room for more than two years. Because the public housing is only 20 square meters, but there are three families living at the same time, with a large population and a small area. Considering this situation, Xiao Liu's grandfather unit allocated a set of public houses in Dongzhi Branch Road 1987, but when he actually got this suite, his grandfather had already passed away, so grandma left her husband's room with her uncle, aunt and their daughter, and moved her registered permanent residence from her husband's room to a newly allocated house in Dongzhi Branch Road. Later, according to the policy of educated youth, Xiao Liu's mother returned to Shanghai and left her hukou in the public house on Dongzhangzhi Road where Xiao Liu's grandmother lived. However, he did not actually live, but lived with her husband Lao Liu and her daughter Xiao Liu in the public house in Huma Village allocated by Lao Liu. And purchased the after-sale property right of this public house on 20 16. Also in this year, the public houses on Changzhi Road in the east moved, and Xiao Liu's grandmother and mother moved their hukou back to her husband's room in Hongkou. In this way, until 2020, Hongkou's husband's family was requisitioned by the state. When the announcement was made, Xiao Liu's uncle had died, so there were only five accounts in the public house, namely Xiao Liu's grandmother, aunt and aunt's daughter, that is, cousin, Xiao Liu himself and mother. Later, as a representative of the whole family, Xiao Liu signed a relocation agreement with the relocation group and chose monetary compensation. The living area of public houses determined in the agreement is 20.5㎡, the converted building area is 3 1.57㎡, and three bricks are * * * 2.66 million, and finally * * got about 3.9 million.
Later, when the family was ready to sit down and discuss how to divide the relocation funds, Xiao Liu's aunt thought that the relocation funds should belong to her mother and daughter, and others did not. Xiao Liu's mother thinks that she and her daughter Xiao Liu are registered in public houses and have actually lived before, so they should belong to public houses. In addition, the old mother is the lessee, and of course she should enjoy the share of relocation. However, Aunt Liu retorted that Xiao Liu's mother had already enjoyed the welfare housing allocation on 20 16, and could no longer enjoy the welfare of moving public houses. As for Xiao Liu, although he has an account, he has not actually lived for more than 30 years. Obviously, he belongs to an empty account and does not belong to a public housing tenant. Although the old mother is the lessee, she has already enjoyed the relocation of public houses in Dongzhi Road before, and she can no longer get the relocation fee. In addition, public houses have been managed by my daughter and I, and the contribution to public houses is greater than others, so the money for relocation should belong to my mother and daughter. The last few families couldn't convince anyone, and the relocation team coordinated several times without results.
The case has developed here, in fact, it is difficult to coordinate again, and it can only be solved through legal channels. From a legal point of view, Xiao Liu and Aunt Xiao Liu have their own opinions about right and wrong. First of all, the first contradiction in the dispute is whether the old mother can enjoy the benefits of moving. On this issue, because the old mother is the lessee, even if she has already enjoyed the benefits of moving back, in principle, it will not affect her second enjoyment of the benefits of moving back to public houses. So from this perspective, Aunt Liu's statement is incorrect. Secondly, everyone's second contradiction is whether Xiao Liu is a roommate. To solve this problem, we need to review Xiao Liu's situation again. Xiao Liu was born in a public house in 1982, and lived for about 2 years. There is no welfare house outside. At first glance, Xiao Liu seems to fully meet the three conditions of getting along with people. But as mentioned above, living for one year needs to be demonstrated from two aspects: "when to live" and "why to live".
According to the No.3 document of Shanghai Higher People's Court in 2004, if the lessee or co-lessee allows the minor children of others to live in their rented public houses, it can generally be considered as help, which does not necessarily mean that the minors are allowed to share the right to acquire houses. Therefore, in this case, minors have no right to claim compensation for house demolition. This article means that even if minors live in public houses, they may not have the right to live, and they may not be able to get the benefits of moving. In this case, Xiao Liu's household registration is in grandma's public house, and she lives as a minor. Therefore, the fact that Xiao Liu lived for two years does not conform to the situation of "one year" in the contractual living conditions.
In 2020, Hongkou Court heard the case, holding that Xiao Liu's aunt and cousin had registered permanent residence, actually lived in public houses until they moved, and there was no room elsewhere, belonging to the same household. In addition, Xiao Liu was born and lived in public houses, so Xiao Liu is one of his roommates. And Xiao Liu's grandmother is a tenant of public housing, and of course she can enjoy the benefits of public housing relocation. Finally, it was decided that the relocation fund of 3.9 million yuan would be shared equally by Xiao Liu, his grandmother, aunt and cousin, that is, 1/4, with 975,000 yuan each.
Aunt Liu was very disappointed after the verdict was pronounced by Hongkou court. Because Shanghai is facing large-scale demolition at present, there are many people and few cases in the grass-roots courts, and some mistakes are inevitable. Therefore, we must adhere to what we think is right through legal channels, which is why our country has stipulated the system of second instance and final adjudication. Therefore, Aunt Liu resolutely appealed and demanded a change of sentence. However, according to the general situation, in the case that there is no problem with the basic facts identified in the first instance, the probability of changing the judgment in the second instance is actually relatively low. Therefore, if you want to complain, you must find loopholes and grasp the key points. Only in this way can you have a chance to turn over. For example, in the case of Xiao Liu, I think the reason why the court of first instance thinks that Xiao Liu belongs to a roommate is because the determination of the condition of living for one year only stays on the surface and ignores the substantive argument. Based on this, I would like to make two suggestions: First, although Xiao Liu lives in a public house, he lives as a minor and has never lived as an adult; In addition, Xiao Liu's biological parents also enjoyed welfare housing distribution in Shanghai, and the housing problem should be solved by their biological parents; Second, the public house where Xiao Liu's hukou is located is rented by his grandmother, so the reason for living is to help according to the provisions of Document No.3 in 2004. Based on the above two analysis, my legal opinion is that Xiao Liu's living in public housing for two years is only a temporary act of help. According to the regulations, it cannot be considered as meeting the requirement of "living for one year" when public housing is recognized. Therefore, Xiao Liu is an empty account, and of course he can't get the relocation money.
202 1, Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court held after trial that although Xiao Liu was registered in public housing, he only lived in public housing as a child, but did not actually live as an adult, which was helpful and therefore could not be regarded as a roommate. Based on this, the first-instance judgment was revoked, and 3.9 million relocation funds were divided among Xiao Liu's grandmother, aunt and cousin, with grandma taking 165438+ million and aunt and cousin taking 2.8 million. That is, after two trials, my aunt's family got nearly 1 10,000 more than the first trial.
In fact, the revision of the judgment of the Second Intermediate People's Court in this case revealed a signal to us, that is, the term "one year's residence" in the conditions for determining co-residents cannot be literally understood, and it is not necessarily 1 year. If you only live as a minor for a short time and no longer live as an adult, the living behavior in this case may be considered as an act of help. In this case, even if you meet the conditions of having an account and not having a house elsewhere, you may be excluded from the qualification of living together. Of course, the relocation of public houses is numerous and complicated, and it is impossible to summarize a class of cases through one case. The reason for sharing relevant cases is to help you better judge the situation of empty accounts. However, the actual situation of each case is different, and the verdict in the case cannot be fully applied to you. Therefore, specific problems must be analyzed in detail.