(in order to protect the privacy of the parties and avoid unnecessary disputes, the names of the parties are aliases in the following cases, and if so, contact us to withdraw them. I'm not sure
Original claim
The plaintiff, wang ying and wang chi hong, filed an action in the court confirming the invalidity of the contract between sun and the defendant for the purchase and sale of house no. 1 in the eastern city of beijing (hereinafter referred to as the “house”)。
Facts and reasons: the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, sun's successor. The defendant is a husband and wife. The plaintiff's mother, zhu xiaojun, and the defendant's father, sun xiaojun, were registered for marriage on 24 may 1995. Both were widowed and remarried without children. In 1998, zhu xiaocheng and sun xiaocheng jointly purchased the house in question. In 2001, sun tsai xian transferred the property in question to the defendant, sun tsai xuan. The purchase and purchase contract shall be deemed null and void。
Sun ai-hoon died on 22 december 2014 and chu ai-hoon died on 1 june 2019. It was only after the death of zhu yao-chun that the complainant was informed of the above-mentioned circumstances concerning the house. Zhu has never consented to the sale of the house to sun. Zhu yao-chun made a will to leave the case to the plaintiffs. In addition to sun, there are five children: sun, sun, sun, sun, xiao, sun, sun. Zhu xiaoqiao has only one son, one son and one son. In the light of the above, the complaint against the sales contract violated the legitimate rights and interests of zhu and his heirs in the case against the house and was therefore brought before the courts。
The defendant argued
The defendant, mr. Sun xian, argued that he did not agree to the plaintiff's claim in its entirety. The contract of sale and sale was entered into with zhu xiaojun with the knowledge and consent of sun and sun. There is a historical reason for a complaint about a house transfer to sun. The complaint relates to a change of house, which was rented prior to the marriage. House a (hereinafter " room a " ) was the defendant's super-leased house, which was transferred from sun's front door to facilitate the care of the elderly。
In 1998, in order to use sun's working age and benefit from a discount, the building and room a were registered under sun's name. Both defendants paid for the costs of changing the house. In 2001, sun and sun-chio entered into an action for the transfer of the house on a commercial basis, and zhu agreed that the property in question was owned by the defendant, but the housing authority did not need zhu to appear, so zhu did not go. No objection was raised by zhu yao xuan after he had been involved in a house transfer in 2001. The title certificate in respect of the house was kept by the two defendants and the title certificate in respect of room a was kept by chu and sun。
The defendant, sun kosheng, sun chiu, sun xiao, sun siu, sun chiu de, argued that he did not agree to all the plaintiffs ' claims. There are two one-bedrooms, one two-bedroom and two two-bedrooms replaced by sun at the front door, one one one-bedroom and one-bedroom. Both houses are in the name of sun, and in exchange for public rental housing, the tenants are sun。
Between 2001 and 2002, zhu was aware of the transfer of the house to sun-cai. Because sun had lost two rooms after he had replaced his house, sun had paid sun's compensation for the house, and sun had given tens of thousands of dollars to the two elderly. Sun tsing once said sun tsing had no room, so he gave him a room. The five defendants had no opinion and were aware of the charges against sun-yo. Both the plaintiff and zhu xiaojun were aware of this. In addition, it has been verified that the house before the conversion was owned by sun chiu, and that room a was owned by sun chiu。
Court found
On 24 may 1995, zhu and sun were registered as married, both of them remarried, without children. Sun ai-hoon died on 22 december 2014 and chu ai-hoon died on 1 june 2019. Zhu and former husband, one of the two children of the plaintiff, one of young and one of hong. Sun and his ex-wife (deceased) have six children: the accused, sun, sun, sun, xiao, sun, and sun. The defendant is a husband and wife。
On 31 december 1997, sun chiu chong (buyer, original lessee) signed a letter of contract for the purchase and sale of houses with company r (seller) of beijing city, under which sun chi chong was given a preferential policy of 4791. 64 for the purchase of the premises in question. On 17 may 2000, sun xiaocheng acquired ownership of the house。
On 1 march 2001, sun tsing entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of houses in the city of beijing (hereinafter referred to as the contract for litigation) as a seller and the defendant sun tsing made an offer of 51,244 yuan. In 2001, sun tsai obtained a title to the house。
On 31 august 2011, the defendant sun chiu-feng registered the transfer of property between husband and wife in connection with the complaint。
On the basis of the housing records drawn up by the court, the registration form for the application for the sale of the house is as follows: the applicant, sun ai xian (seignure), was advised to consent to the sale (spouse opinion); the applicant, sun ai xian (separate seal), submitted an application for the purchase of the house, which he intended to sell for family reasons, and where he lived in a. Under the terms of the deposit, there is zhu zhu zhou zhou zhou zhu zhou zhu zhu zhu zhu zhu zhu zhu zhou, the owner of the above-mentioned house, the lover of sun zhou zheng, who agreed to sell the said house。
Upon enquiry, the plaintiffs, wang ying and wang xian, stated that the register of the transfer of the house did not contain the signature and seal of zhu zhu zian, that sun zian ziang and sun ziang had been transferred without the consent of zhu zhu ziang, and that the file did not contain any proof that sun ziang had paid for the house; and that the defendant, sun zhou zian zhu zian ziang, had the name of zhu zhu zian zhu zhou zheng in his application for the sale of the house. The application for the sale of the house was written by sun yao, when sun yao wrote a telephone communication, which was made with the permission of the two elderly people; and, with regard to the complaint against the payment of the purchase price, the defendant, sun yao yao, claimed that sun yao hoo had replaced room a with sun yao xuan, and paid an additional 30,000 cash, plus the cost of the change was exceeded by sun yao, which is equivalent to the difference in the price of the house。
Decision
The contract for the purchase and sale of houses in the city of beijing between sun and the defendant sun is invalid。
Real estate lawyer reviews
A contract is void if: (i) a party enters into a contract by fraudulent or coercive means to the detriment of the national interest; (ii) malicious complicity to the detriment of the national, collective or third party interests; (iii) the concealment of an unlawful purpose in a lawful manner; (iv) the detriment of the public interest; and (v) the violation of mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. The disposition of shared immovable or movable property, as well as major repairs to shared immovable or movable property, shall be with the consent of the joint owner or all of the co-owners, who constitute more than two thirds of the share, unless otherwise agreed between the co-owners. The owner is entitled to recover if the person not in a power to dispose of immovable or movable property has transferred it to the assignee; unless otherwise provided by law, the assignee acquires title to the immovable or movable property: (i) the immovable or movable property to which the assignee has transferred is in good faith; (ii) the transferred immovable or movable property is at a reasonable price; and (iii) the immovable or movable property transferred is registered under the law and does not need to be registered and delivered to the assignee。
On the basis of the facts established in the present case, the house in question, although registered in the name of sun, was purchased on 31 december 1997, was owned during the relationship between sun and zhu and zhou, and therefore the house in question should be considered joint ownership. In such a case, the sale of the complaint to sun xian without the consent of the co-owner, zhu xian, constitutes no right to discipline; the defendant, zhu xian, should have been aware that zhu zhu has a joint right to the complaint and that sun has not paid for the house in question, does not constitute good faith acquisition. The plaintiff sought confirmation of the invalidity of the contract in question, which was supported by the court, on both the facts and the merits。
The defendant's arguments relating to the knowledge of zhou's contract and the plaintiff's claim that the time for suit exceeded the statute of limitations were not substantiated by the court。
It's a good case
Strict procedures for the disposal of community property: in this case, the property acquired during the marriage was the property of the couple, subject to the agreement of all the co-owners. This reminds us that legal procedures must be followed when dealing with common property and that unauthorized disposition by either party may lead to the avoidance of the contract。
Elements of composition acquired in good faith: when purchasing significant property such as property, the buyer is obliged to examine whether the seller has the right to dispose of it. In the present case, the defendant's failure to pay a reasonable price did not constitute a good-faith acquisition and loss of ownership of the house. This suggests that in a transaction the buyer should be careful to verify the title and the legitimacy of the transaction。
(c) critical role of evidence: the claims of all parties need to be supported by sufficient evidence on key issues such as whether the property transaction is agreed by the co-owners and whether the purchase price is paid. In the present case, the defendant failed to provide effective evidence to substantiate his claim, leading to the inadmissibility of his defence。
The law protects the legitimate rights and interests of the owner by providing for regulations that do not have the power to dispose of the property of others. This warns of respect for the property rights of others and that they may not dispose of their property without their permission。
Accurate interpretation of the statute of limitations: in cases involving the invalidity of a contract, as in the present case, the statute of limitations is not applicable. The parties should have an accurate understanding of the statute of limitations and avoid erroneous defences。
Each case is unique and requires a detailed analysis of the case by the lawyer in order to be able to make a professional judgement. Our team is good at dealing with all kinds of housing disputes. If you have a similar case, we sincerely hope that you will call for a detailed account of the situation, and we will do our best to provide you with answers
