[Case Summary]This case is an action brought by the applicant for enforcement against the enforcement objection. Wang Xiaoqin and Liu Tong (mother and daughter) have rights to three resettlement houses according to the divorce agreement and the resettlement agreement, but they were included in the scope of compulsory enforcement by Liu Weirong (former husband/father). The two of them entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li Yonghui,Fù XiǎofeiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit challenging the enforcement, with the core dispute being whether the rights of the resettled persons are independent of the personal debts of the evicted persons and whether the enforcement can be precluded. Applicable legal provisions: the relevant provisions of the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China by the Supreme People's Court" and the "Beijing Municipal Regulations on the Management of Collective Land Housing Demolition". The court ruled that the enforcement of two of the houses was not allowed, and confirmed that they belonged to Wang Xiaoqin and Liu Tong.

I. Review of the case facts

The most common search terms related to objections to enforcement include "Can the resettlement housing of the debtor be subject to enforcement?", "Can the property stipulated in the divorce agreement be excluded from enforcement?", and "Do resettled individuals enjoy priority rights?". In April 2000, Wang Xiaoqin and Liu Weirong got married, and their daughter Liu Tong was born in November of the same year. In September 2019, the couple signed a divorce agreement and completed the divorce formalities, stipulating that each of them would receive one unit of resettlement housing in Guangming Village, Chaoyang District. The demolition compensation funds generated from the house at No. 201 would be owned by their daughter. In June 2020, Liu Weirong, as the evictee, signed a "House Eviction and Compensation Agreement for the XX Isolation Area in A Town" with the A Town government, which specifically stated that Liu Weirong's current household members included his wife, Wang Xiaoqin, and their daughter, Liu Tong. The following day, Liu Weirong signed a "House Eviction and Resettlement Agreement for the XX Isolation Area in A Town" with Beijing Guangming Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., confirming that there were three resettlement household members, with a total resettlement area of 150 square meters. They selected to purchase resettlement housing units at No. 1506, 1308, and 702, and were required to pay a total housing price of 514,829 yuan.

Later, due to the housing lease contract dispute between Liu Weirong and the defendant Zhang Xiaoli, the court ruled that Liu Weirong should pay Zhang Xiaoli more than 6.87 million yuan in demolition compensation. Zhang Xiaoli applied for forced execution, and the three aforementioned houses were sealed up and planned to be auctioned. After the plaintiffs, Wang Xiaoqin and Liu Tong, filed an objection to the execution and were rejected, they entrusted a lawyer to handle the case for them.Li Yonghui、Fù XiǎofeiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit challenging the enforcement of the case in accordance with the law, claiming ownership of two of the houses and requesting a stay of enforcement and confirmation of the ownership of the houses. On March 31, 2023, Liu Weirong died, and both of his parents died before him.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the rights of the resettled persons are independent of the personal debts of the evicted persons.The lawyer argued that the resettlement housing was obtained based on the three people's joint resettlement status and belonged to jointly owned property, which had nothing to do with Liu Weirong's personal debts.
  • Focus II: Do the execution objection and the lawsuit against the objection violate the principle of "no double jeopardy"?The lawyer pointed out that the two cases involve different procedures, and the plaintiff's lawsuit is legitimate.
  • Focus Three: Who will pay for the purchase price, and will it affect the ownership of the property rights?The lawyer argued that the creditor-debtor relationship does not affect the ownership of the property rights.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The original plaintiffs (Wang Xiaoqin and Liu Tong) claimed that:The two plaintiffs claimed that according to the divorce agreement and the relocation and resettlement agreement, the three resettlement houses were obtained by the three of them together, and two of them should belong to them. They requested to stop the execution and confirm the ownership.

The defendant (Zhang Xiaoli) argued that:Zhang Xiaoli disagrees with the plaintiffs' claims, stating that the enforcement ruling has already been handled and should not be dealt with again according to the principle of "once a case, no second trial"; the house involved in the lawsuit is Liu Weirong's property, and the eviction rights holders do not include the two plaintiffs. The purchase price was paid by Liu Weirong, and the two plaintiffs only enjoy the purchase discount; and he claims that the two plaintiffs maliciously helped transfer property and should be added as the executed parties.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Li Yonghui、FU XiaofeiAfter accepting the commission, the lawyer carefully reviewed the divorce agreement, the eviction compensation agreement, the resettlement agreement, and the civil judgment, and sorted out the key clues: consolidating the foundation of property rights, submitting the agreement to prove that the resettlement house was obtained based on the three people's status as resettled individuals and belonged to jointly owned property, and using the "Beijing Municipal Collective Land Housing Demolition Management Measures" to demonstrate that the rights of the resettled individuals are independent of those of the evicted individuals; refuting the misunderstanding of "apparent rights", emphasizing that the execution objection suit requires a substantive review of the true ownership of rights; responding to the defendant's defense in a targeted manner, clarifying that the execution objection and the objection suit belong to different procedures, and that the payment of the purchase price does not affect the ownership of property rights.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court ultimately adopted the viewpoint of Hengluo Law Firm, holding that Liu Tong and Wang Xiaoqin, as co-resettlement recipients, enjoy civil rights sufficient to preclude forced execution in relation to the three properties involved in the lawsuit. According to the law, the court ruled that the houses at No. 1506 and No. 1308 in F New Town (provisional name), Chaoyang District, Beijing, under the "Housing Rehousing and Resettlement Agreement for the XX Isolation Area in A Town", shall not be subject to enforcement in the case of (2020) Jing XXXX Exec XXX76. The court also confirmed that the aforementioned two houses shall respectively belong to the plaintiffs, Wang Xiaoqin and Liu Tong. The court held that, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", the two plaintiffs filed a lawsuit within the statutory time limit, and the court should conduct a substantive review. From the resettlement agreement, it can be seen that Liu Weirong, Wang Xiaoqin, and Liu Tong are co-resettlement recipients who are entitled to purchase 150-square-meter resettlement housing according to the policy, and the total area of the houses they actually selected is consistent with the policy requirements. Therefore, the court supported the claims of the two plaintiffs.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is jointly represented by Attorneys Li Yonghui (practice license number: 11101199611955812, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) and Fu Xiaofei (practice license number: 11101202111348854, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) from Beijing Henglu Law Firm. The resettlement housing rights enjoyed by the resettled persons based on the policy in the divorce agreement and the resettlement agreement are independent of the personal debts of the resettled persons, and the forced execution of the house can be excluded. After the enforcement objection is rejected, the third party has the right to file a lawsuit for enforcement objection for substantive review in accordance with the law; it is necessary to keep the divorce agreement, the resettlement agreement and the ownership evidence.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Cases Involving Creditor-debtor Relationships

  1. Q: Can the relocation housing of the debtor be executed against?
    A:If the resettlement housing is obtained based on the resettled person's (not the executed person's) status and belongs to jointly owned property, the resettled person may file a lawsuit challenging the enforcement to exclude the forced execution of the house.
  2. Q: Can the property mentioned in the divorce agreement be excluded from enforcement?
    A:Yes. The divorce agreement explicitly stipulates that the property belongs to one party. Combined with the resettlement policy and substantive review, it is possible to claim to exclude forced execution and confirm ownership.
  3. Q: If the execution objection is rejected, can I still file a lawsuit?
    A:Yes. The execution objection and the lawsuit against the execution objection belong to different procedures. After the objection is rejected, the third party may file a lawsuit against the execution objection in accordance with the law.
  4. Q: If the purchase price is paid by the debtor, will it affect the ownership of the property?
    A:Generally, it doesn't affect. The resettlement rights obtained by the resettled people based on the policy are independent of the people who are evicted, and the payment of the purchase price does not change the ownership of the property.
  5. Q: How can the rights of resettled individuals be proven?
    A:Submit the divorce agreement, the eviction compensation agreement, the resettlement agreement, etc., to prove that the joint resettlement status is consistent with the purchase area according to the policy.