The business was at a loss, and the husband sold the husband and wife's shared real estate privately to fill in the deficit. Due to the inability to transfer the ownership, the buyer took the couple to court with a petition——
Is the contract valid for selling the house without telling his wife?
Husband and wife co-owned property is an important part of husband and wife’s common property.
In real life, it is not uncommon for a spouse to sell a shared real estate without authorization, which has also caused many social conflicts.
In Huaian District, Huaian City, Jiangsu Province, after the husband Xu sold the house shared by the couple without telling his wife Ding, the couple was brought to court by the buyer for failing to perform the transfer procedures. The court ruled that the couple lost the case in the first instance.
The wife, who has always been unaware of her husband’s sale of the house, applied to the procuratorial organ for supervision.
After careful investigation and verification, the undertaking prosecutor finally restored the truth and issued a retrial prosecution proposal to the court.
In the end, the court reversed the original judgment.
Wife applying for supervision
The house was sold without knowing it
"My house was sold by my husband, and my bank card was frozen. How can this make me live!" One day in August 2020, a 26-year-old young woman, Ding Mou, walked into the 12309 Prosecution Service Hall of the Huai'an District Procuratorate Tell the prosecutor about his grievances-
In 2016, the house built by Ding and her husband Xu in Xu's hometown was demolished and they were allocated a resettlement house.
Because this house was jointly built by Xu and Ding, the village committee determined that the property rights of the resettlement house belonged to the husband and wife.
I thought that I would live a happy life ever since, but the huge benefits brought about by the house demolition made the two people's marriage rift, and the two often quarreled about the real estate distribution.
In early 2017, the two began to separate, and the child lived with Ding.
During this period, Xu also repeatedly suggested to Ding that he needed funds for his business and wanted to sell the house shared by the two to raise money, but Ding resolutely disagreed.
In April 2018, Xu called Ding and told him that he could get the resettlement house.
Ding and Xu, who were full of joy, came to the demolition office and signed the Resettlement Housing Settlement Form.
After Ding Mou signed the sign, Xu told him to leave, saying that he would take care of the rest.
Believing that it was true, Ding left the approval hall, waiting for the good news of the house closing.
However, after waiting for two years, not only did the house not get, but also some bad news.
In July 2020, Ding suddenly discovered that his bank card and WeChat account were frozen by the court.
Ding hurriedly went to the court for consultation. Only then did he know that the resettlement house she shared with her husband had been sold because the buyer had not been able to transfer the property after the buyer paid, and she and her husband Xu had been sued by the buyer to the court.
The Huai’an District Court of the first instance judged that Xu and Ding assisted the plaintiff in handling the real estate transfer registration procedures and compensated the plaintiff with 38,700 yuan.
Anxious Ding found a lawyer to apply to the court for a retrial, but the court informed her that the retrial application period had passed.
The desperate Ding hurried to the Huai'an District Procuratorate to appeal.
Husband confided the truth
Sell a house at a loss
After the Huai'an District Procuratorate accepted the case, civil prosecutor Xian Jianyou asked Ding in detail about what happened.
Ding said that he had no idea that the resettlement house had been sold to others, and he had not received a notice of litigation. He didn't know the situation of the case until he discovered that his bank card and WeChat account were frozen by the court.
Is what Ding said true?
In order to find out the truth, the prosecutor went to the court to retrieve the civil case file and carefully reviewed the "Settlement Housing Settlement Form" signed by Xu and Ding and the Demolition Office and the "Demolition and Resettlement Transfer Agreement" signed by the buyer and seller. And the "House Sales Contract".
There are the signatures and handprints of Xu and Ding in the "Settlement Housing Settlement Form". Ding himself also acknowledged this. However, in the "Demolition and Resettlement Transfer Agreement" and the "House Sales Contract" that involve the transfer of real estate, they Only Xu's signature was written, and Ding's signature was "Xu's ghostwriter".
Ding said that the "Demolition and Resettlement Transfer Agreement" and the "House Sale and Purchase Contract" were completely unaware of himself, and there was no way to sign them.
The prosecutor called Xu, and after many communications, he finally confided the truth--
It turned out that Xu had been thinking about selling the house shared with Ding because of a loss in business to fill the shortfall in business.
Xu had repeatedly offered to sell the house with Ding, but Ding refused. Xu finally decided to sell the house with his wife on his back to raise money.
Under the introduction of others, the villager Hua and his wife found Xu and offered to buy this house.
On October 3, 2017, the two parties quickly reached two agreements-the "Demolition and Resettlement Transfer Agreement" and the "House Sales Contract", agreeing that Xu and Ding would transfer the demolition and resettlement rights to Hua and his wife. The real estate is the area of the resettlement community. The total price of a house of 120 square meters is 300,000 yuan. If the area of the house is less than 120 square meters, the seller needs to refund the buyer the difference in the price of the house.
On April 4, 2018, Xu asked Ding and himself to settle the settlement with the demolition department and signed the Resettlement Housing Settlement Form on the grounds of taking the house.
After that, the couple paid in full for the house, and Xu cooperated with the other party to hand over the rights of resettlement by signing the name of his wife.
On April 17, 2018, a couple of Hua took the "Demolition and Resettlement Rights Transfer Agreement", the settlement sheet and the payment receipt, and Xu Mouzhi went to the demolition department to obtain the housing certificate.
In the process of acquiring the house, the couple of Hua found that the resettlement community agreed in the agreement had not been completed. In order to get the new house as soon as possible, the couple and the demolition department applied for deployment and replaced a set of 104.4 from a completed resettlement community. An existing house of square meters.
After getting the house, the Huamou couple immediately renovated and moved in.
But when the couple of Hua found Xu and asked to go through the transfer procedures, Xu refused in every possible way, and then disappeared altogether.
The Hua Mou and his wife took Xu and Ding to court with a petition, demanding that the other party cooperate with the transfer and refund the difference in the price of the house at the same time.
On July 18, 2019, because Xu and Ding did not appear in court, the court pronounced in absentia, ruling that the purchase and sale contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was valid, and required the defendant to assist the plaintiff in the transfer of the property rights of the house involved in the case, and jointly return to the original house. The difference is 38,700 yuan.
After the verdict came into effect, the couple Hua applied for enforcement.
Soon, Xu and Ding’s bank accounts and WeChat accounts were frozen.
Procuratorate issues re-examination recommendations
The court revoked the original judgment
Prosecutor Xian Jianyou then went to the Demolition Office and the resettlement community to conduct on-site inspections, further consolidated the evidence in the case, and clarified the focus of disputes between the buyer and the seller: First, the "House Sales Contract" signed by Xu and the buyer, Hua, Whether it is valid; second is whether his wife Ding has the obligation to cooperate with the buyer in the transfer of the property rights of the house involved; third, whether there is a legal basis for ordering Xu and Ding to jointly return the house price difference of 38,700 yuan.
The first-instance judgment held that although Ding was signed by her husband, he ratified the house sale contract afterwards. Therefore, the house sale contract was valid. Xu and Ding should perform their obligations to cooperate with the buyer, Hua, and his wife, to go through the transfer procedures.
At the same time, the "Demolition and Resettlement Rights Transfer Agreement" stipulates that Xu and Ding will transfer the resettlement rights of the 120 square meters demolition and resettlement house to the Hua Mou at a total price of 300,000 yuan.
If the house area is less than 120 square meters, the seller needs to refund the buyer’s house price difference, so Xu and Ding should refund the house price difference of 38,700 yuan.
In this regard, the prosecutor believed that after Xu and Ding went to the demolition department to sign the Resettlement Housing Settlement Form in April 2018, Xu did not inform Ding of the transaction status of the house.
The buyer Hua also stated that although he saw Ding at the scene, he did not mention the resettlement housing transaction to Ding at the time, and that Hua applied for the deployment of the resettlement housing when he received the housing, and Ding later replaced the house involved in the case. The situation is unaware.
Therefore, it was not in line with the actual situation that Ding had ratified the contract afterwards in the judgment of the first instance.
Xu's signing and fingerprinting on the "Demolition and Resettlement Rights Transfer Agreement" in place of Ding was a unilateral act, and Xu's punishment of the house should be deemed as having no right to sanction.
However, according to the provisions of the Civil Code, the buyer purchased in good faith and paid a reasonable price, so even if Ding did not know the signing of the contract, he did not ratify it, but it does not affect the validity of the contract itself. 》Legal and effective.
Although the contract is valid, the buyer and Mrs. Hua can file a lawsuit to terminate the contract and require the seller Xu to bear the responsibility for breach of contract based on the "House Sales Contract", but this cannot be used to force Ding who has not signed the "House Sales Contract" Cooperate with the registration procedures of property rights.
After that, in order to get the existing house as soon as possible, the Huan couple unilaterally went to the demolition department to change the resettlement location and took the existing house with an area of 104.4 square meters.
Hua's act of replacing the resettlement house not only changed the subject matter of the original price difference clause, but also unilaterally gave up the right to receive the 120 square meter house, excluding Xu's rights and interests. The original contract’s clause to make up the price difference by square has been substantially eliminated , If it is to be implemented, both parties must re-agree.
But Xu did not agree to make up for the replacement house based on the standard of 120 square meters. The original judgment ordered Xu and Ding to return the difference of 38,700 yuan for the purchase of the Huamou couple without factual and legal basis.
On January 6 this year, the Procuratorial Committee of the Procuratorate of Huai'an District found that the basic facts found in the civil judgment in this case lacked evidence and there was a statutory supervision situation, and then issued a retrial prosecution proposal to the court in accordance with the law.
On February 25, the trial committee of the court found that the judgment of the case was indeed wrong, so it issued a civil ruling in accordance with the law and decided to retry the case.
On March 31, the plaintiff Fang Hua and his wife applied to withdraw the lawsuit, and the court finally annulled the original judgment.
The reporter learned that due to rising housing prices, the price of the house involved in the case has increased from 300,000 yuan to more than 700,000 yuan. The buyer is now asking the seller Xu to refund the house payment and also to compensate him for the losses caused by the increase in house prices.
At present, the buyer and the seller have no objection to the refund of the house payment, but the liquidated damages cannot reach an agreement.
In order to resolve the conflicts between the parties, currently under the auspices of the court and the procuratorate, the three parties are actively communicating, hoping that through civil mediation, the three parties can achieve satisfactory results.
■Prosecutor's statement:
How to avoid the transaction risk of couples' shared real estate
Husband and wife shared real estate is an important part of family property, and it is also a common object of purchase and sale in the real estate market.
Because the seller of this type of real estate has a special identity relationship, it is easy for the buyer to ignore the careful review of the seller's transaction qualifications during the transaction of this type of real estate, thereby laying hidden dangers for the occurrence of disputes.
Once a dispute occurs, not only will you suffer losses, but also the normal order of the real estate transaction market will be affected.
Therefore, home buyers should especially understand the following three issues, as well as the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, in order to effectively avoid the transaction risks of couples' shared real estate.
1. Unauthorized disposition does not mean that the contract is invalid.
According to paragraph 1 of Article 597 of the Civil Code, if the ownership of the subject matter cannot be transferred because the seller has not obtained the right of disposal, the buyer can terminate the contract and request the seller to bear the liability for breach of contract.
In this case, the husband sold the joint property of the husband and wife without his wife’s consent, and he has no right to dispose of it. However, the buyer purchased in good faith and paid a reasonable price. Therefore, the "House Sale and Purchase Contract" is valid, and the husband should bear the buyer’s breach of contract that the property cannot be transferred. responsibility.
2. The validity of the contract does not mean a change in property rights.
According to Article 311 of the Civil Code, only a buyer can acquire the ownership of the house if he purchases in good faith, pays a reasonable consideration, and has registered for real estate.
Otherwise, although the "House Sales Contract" is valid, the parties to the contract are only acts of creditor's rights, and based on this, other co-owners who have not signed the contract can not be forced to go through the property rights registration procedures.
In this case, the husband signed the "Real Estate Sale Contract" without authorization, but the wife did not cooperate with the transfer, and the buyer still could not obtain the property rights. Although the contract was valid, it was only binding between the seller (husband) and the buyer, and the wife did not cooperate with the transfer. Contractual obligations.
3. The private modification of the contract is invalid.
According to Article 543 of the Civil Code, the parties can change the contract after reaching a consensus through consultation.
In this case, the buyer unilaterally exchanged the resettlement house with the demolition office, and the buyer and the seller did not re-agree on the content of the contract change. Therefore, the buyer’s claim for refund of the house price difference cannot be supported.
(Xian Jianyou Yang Guang, Procuratorate of Huaian District, Huaian City, Jiangsu Province)
Lu Zhijian Zhang Zhen Zhu Liang