Case introduction:
Xia Mi, Xia Lu and Xia Xiang are brother and sister, and Zhu Zhen is their mother.
On August 8, 2007, Xia Lu, as the entrusted agent of Xia Xiang (the buyer and Party B), signed the House Agency Contract with Zhu Hongtao (the seller and Party A) and a real estate agency in Beijing, stipulating that Party A would sell the disputed house to Party B, and the house was affordable. The transaction price of the house is 720,000 yuan, and the living expenses and related taxes of 22,000 yuan are all borne by Party B, and the down payment of 654.38 yuan+00,000 yuan is kept by the intermediary. On the day when the intermediary cooperates with Party A and Party B to modify the bottom bill in the real estate development company, Party B will transfer the remaining house price of 765.438 yuan+00,000 yuan to Party A's account.
On September 3rd, 2007, Xia Xiang and a real estate development company in Beijing signed the Beijing Commercial Housing Purchase and Sales Contract and completed the change order. On the same day, Xia Lu paid the house price of 7 10000 yuan to the seller Zhu Hongtao from his bank account. The house was delivered the next day, and Shami decorated it and merged it into the house.
On June 7th, 2009, the property ownership certificate was issued, and the owner of the house was registered as Xia Xiang, so the house was economical and applicable. Xia Mi holds the Commercial House Sales Contract, the Property Ownership Certificate, the Housing Agency Contract, the Deed Tax Form, the Household Registration Book and other relevant materials for purchasing the disputed house.
On March 201May 15, Xia Mi sued Xia Xiang to the court and asked Xia Xiang to transfer the disputed house to his name.
Trial process:
During the trial of this case, Xia Xiang had no objection to Xia Lu's payment, but thought that Xia Lu was entrusted by him to pay for it.
Xia Lu testified in court that during July and August 2007, the family discussed buying a house for Xia Mi. At that time, Xia Xiang wanted to borrow other people's indicators to buy affordable housing. Xia Xiang offered to lend her index to buy a house for Xia Mi. To this end, Xia Mi, Xia Xiang, Xia Lu and their parents all reached an agreement at the scene, verbally agreeing to expose their capital in the summer and borrow Xia Xiang's indicators to buy a house, and the house they bought will be transferred five years later. Zhu Zhen, the mother of three children, testified in court, and the situation was consistent with Shahrukh.
Regarding why the relevant materials of the disputed house are in Xia Mi's hands, Xia Xiang said that when she lived in the disputed house from 2008 to June 20 1 1, she kept the relevant materials in the house. Xia Mi refused to recognize this, saying that Xia Xiang entrusted Xia Lu to buy a house, so Xia Lu handed the relevant materials to Xia Mi after buying a house.
During the trial, Xia Xiang submitted a number of bank vouchers, which proved that Xia Lu used Xia Xiang's passbook on June 1 65438+1day, June 65438+1October 23, March 27, 2007 and September 7, 2007. Xia Xiang said that he had paid 820,000 yuan in advance for Xia Lu.
Xia Mi denied this, and denied that the above money had nothing to do with the purchase of the disputed house. Xia Mi also submitted the Purchase and Sale Contract of Beijing Stocking House signed by her husband (seller) and outsider Bi Guicheng (buyer) on June 6, 2007. Bi Guicheng testified in court, proving that the house payment was directly credited to Gao Jiangxiang's account for the house purchase and sale contract, so she had more economic exchanges with him and entrusted financial management. Xia Xiang admitted that he had received the purchase price of 6.5438+0.47 million yuan paid by Bi Guicheng, but denied that the money was the purchase price of Xia Lu and his wife, not to mention the source and nature of the money.
During the trial, Xia Xiang was responsible for Zhang Qi's repeated payments to Xia Lu from June 2005 165438+ 10 to February 2008. Xia Xiang said that he trusted Xia Lu completely, so he entrusted the money for buying a house to Xia Lu, but denied that Xia Lu put his own money in his own name to help him manage his finances.
Upon inquiry by the court, Xia Xiang claimed that 1992 had been working, had been doing odd jobs, had no stable job and had never bought a real estate; Regarding the monthly income when buying a house in 2007, Xia Xiang said that he couldn't remember clearly. For the purchase of 700,000 yuan, Xia Xiang called it personal savings. As for the part that was used by Xia Mi's family after the house was delivered, Xia Xiang said that he lent the house to Xia Mi for living based on kinship, which Xia Mi did not recognize. Xia Xiang said that after the conflict between the two sides intensified, why did Gao Xiangxiang take the initiative to register and sue the house in his own name? Xia Xiang said it was for his personal safety.
Upon Xia Mi's application in the trial, the Beijing Higher People's Court randomly determined that the court entrusted an appraisal company in Beijing to appraise the houses involved. The appraisal result is 2065438+July 65438+May 2004. The market value of the house involved is 2.58 million yuan, and the unit price is 26000 yuan/square meter. Subsequently, Xiami paid an appraisal fee of 7,000 yuan.
Test results:
Beijing Changping District People's Court ruled after trial:
Xia Xiang assisted Xia Mi in handling the registration procedures of the ownership transfer of the disputed house within 7 days after the judgment came into effect, and registered the ownership transfer of the disputed house in Xia Mi's name.
After the judgment of the first instance, Xia Xiang refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the court of second instance, which decided after trial:
Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
Comment on the case of lawyer Jin Shuangquan buying a house under his real name;
Jin Shuangquan, a real-name housing lawyer, believes that Xia Mi and Xia Xiang have their own opinions on the contractual relationship involved in the housing litigation. Xia Mi claimed that they bought the house by name, while Xia Xiang claimed that they borrowed it. According to the principle of "whoever advocates gives evidence", the parties should submit evidence to prove the facts they advocate. If the evidence is insufficient or insufficient to prove the facts claimed, the party with the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. In this case, the executor of the house purchase dispute is Xia Lu. Xia Lu and Zhu Zhen are both immediate relatives of Xia Mi and Xia Xiang, and their testimony in the trial is basically the same, with high credibility. Combined with the objective reality that the relevant procedures, bills, materials and other original documents involved in the purchase of the disputed house in this case are kept in Xiami's office, and Xiami's family has been living in the house since the delivery of the disputed house, it can be concluded that the relationship between the two parties advocated by Xiami is reasonable and has factual basis, so the court found that there is a relationship between the two parties in the name of buying a house.
As for the bank voucher evidence submitted by Xia Xiang to prove its capital contribution, the time span from June, 2005 165438+ 10 to February, 2008 is long, and Xia Lu also has evidence to prove that its funds flowed into Gao Jiaxiang's account, so it can only prove that it has economic exchanges with Xia Lu, but can't prove the specific purpose of the relevant funds. Therefore, as the concrete implementer of the purchase, Xia Lu said that the funds purchased were loaned to Goldman Sachs, not Xia Xiang's own funds. In view of the general nature of money, in the absence of strong evidence to correct it, Shahrukh's testimony should be considered as a fact. Therefore, even if Xia Xiang paid the corresponding amount to Xia Lu, when Xia Lu denied the contractual relationship between and Xia Xiang, Xia Xiang did not submit the counter evidence to refute it, so the court refused to recognize the fact that Xia Xiang claimed that he entrusted Xia Lu to buy a house.
Because both parties have the relationship of purchasing houses under their own names, and both parties have agreed to transfer the ownership of houses to Xia Mi's name when the conditions for transfer are met, and now the corresponding conditions have been met, Xia Xiang should transfer the disputed houses to Xia Mi's name.
To sum up, the court's decision is correct.
Lawyer introduction:
Yisheng Lending to Buy a House lawyer network was founded by the real estate affairs department of Beijing Dongwei Law Firm, and dozens of professional lawyers with successful experience in lending to buy a house were led by Minister Jin Shuangquan to form a team of professional lawyers who borrowed to buy a house. After successfully representing a large number of affordable housing cases in Tiantongyuan, Huilongguan and other areas in Beijing, the team lawyers summed up their own experience in handling housing cases under their names, and then sorted out the precedents and relevant laws and regulations of Beijing courts at all levels in handling housing cases under their names, and had a discussion with the judges of Beijing courts to understand the standards of court trials. In the battle of lawyers, from pre-trial evidence collection to trial strategy, detailed litigation plans have been formulated to ensure the comprehensive protection of the legitimate rights and interests of clients.
Buying a house under the name, disputes over buying a house under the name, buying a house under the name of a lawyer, and buying a house under the name.