[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the division of inheritance. The resettled persons, Fang * and Xu *, have two daughters, Fang *1 and Fang *2. In 2011, they received three resettlement houses (totaling 250 square meters) and compensation of 1,602,335 yuan from the demolition. The two daughters signed an "Agreement" stipulating that two two-bedroom apartments would belong to Fang *2, and one one-bedroom apartment would belong to Fang *1 after their parents passed away. After their parents successively passed away, Fang *1 claimed that the one-bedroom apartment No. 201 should belong to her according to the agreement, but was rejected by Fang *2. The client, Fang *, entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for her.Li YonghuiThe lawyer defends the rights and interests of his client. The core dispute is the validity of the "Agreement" regarding the allocation of benefits for the parents' resettlement and whether Fang *1 can inherit Room 201 based on it. The applicable laws are the Inheritance Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and the relevant rules of the Civil Procedure Law. In the end, the first-instance court ruled that Room 201 belongs to Fang *1, and the three defendants shall assist in handling the property registration.

I. Review of the Case Facts

The dispute over the ownership of relocation housing often prompts families to search for terms such as "Is the agreement on dividing family property valid?", "How to divide relocation housing in the event of divorce or inheritance?", and "Who will inherit the relocation housing after the parents' death?". Fang * and Xu * had two daughters, Fang *1 and Fang *2; Fang *2 and her husband Zhang * had a son, Zhang *1. On October 26, 2011, Fang * and the Science and Technology Park Company signed the "Collective Land Residential Housing Demolition Compensation Agreement" and the "Housing Demolition Resettlement Agreement", with five people eligible for resettlement. They received a compensation of 1,602,335 yuan and obtained 250 square meters of resettlement housing per person, totaling three units: a one-bedroom unit at No. 201, a two-bedroom unit at No. 502, and a two-bedroom unit at No. 1304. On October 31, 2011, Fang *1 and Fang *2 signed a "Agreement", stipulating that two two-bedroom units would be given to the eldest daughter, Fang *2, and a one-bedroom unit would be given to the younger daughter, Fang *1, after the death of the two elderly parents (with Fang *1 only having the right to live in the unit during her lifetime), and the two daughters would jointly bear the responsibility of supporting their parents. Subsequently, the two two-bedroom units were registered under Fang *2's name. Fang *1 and Fang *2 took turns to support their parents. Fang * died on September 12, 2019, and Xu * died on October 14, 2021. The pre-registration person for Unit 201 is Fang *, but the ownership dispute has been put on hold. Fang *1 requested to confirm that Unit 201 belongs to her according to the agreement, but Fang *2 refused to cooperate, so she commissioned a lawyer to handle the matter.Li YonghuiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting that the court rule that House No. 201 in Tongzhou District, Beijing City, be owned by Fang *1.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The nature and legal effect of the "Agreement".Does the agreement constitute a marital property division agreement, effectively allocating the 100-square-meter resettlement benefits to Fang * and Xu *, and making arrangements for Fang *2's waiver of inheritance rights?
  • Focus II: Whether Fang *1 enjoys the rights and interests of Room 201.Under the premise that the "Agreement" is legal and valid, can Fang *1 acquire ownership of the one-bedroom apartment No. 201 based on the agreement and statutory inheritance?
  • Focus 3: Whether the defendant's defense that "the lack of a signature renders the contract invalid" can be established.Although Fang * and Xu * did not sign the agreement, they were aware of it and agreed to it. Is the agreement invalid because the other resettled individuals did not sign it?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The original plaintiff claimed that:Fang *1 claimed that the 100-square-meter portion of the resettlement benefits obtained by his parents from the demolition belonged to Fang * and Xu *, and had been agreed in the "Agreement" that the two daughters would each receive half of it. Room 201 should be inherited by him, and he requested the court to rule that Room 201 belong to the plaintiff and order the defendant to assist in handling the certificate of ownership.

The defendant argued that:Fang *2, Zhang * and Zhang *1 argued that the plaintiff did not have original joint ownership of the property in question, and the defendants and the deceased Fang * and Xu * also did not have the intention to donate; the agreement, as a family division agreement, lacked the signatures of other resettled persons and was not valid; even if it was in accordance with the will or statutory inheritance, it should be distributed between Fang *1 and Fang *2 according to the pre-registration or actual registration.

Legal Opinion by Hengluo Law Firm:Li YonghuiThe lawyer pointed out that after the signing of the demolition agreement in 2011, in order to distribute the benefits to all the resettled people, Fang * and Xu * discussed and signed the "Agreement" with the two daughters. The parents knew about it and agreed to it, but they just didn't sign it. Since there were only the two daughters and no other children, the 100-square-meter resettlement benefits actually dealt with by the agreement belonged to the parents. In principle, the two daughters would each get half of it, and it had nothing to do with the other resettled people. This agreement was a family division and property division agreement, which also involved Fang *2's waiver of the inheritance rights to Room 201 and the arrangement of the duty of support. After the parents died, the agreement should be implemented according to the agreement.

IV. Outcome of the case

The first-instance court ruled that Room 201 of a certain residential complex in Tongzhou District, Beijing, belongs to the plaintiff, Fang *1. The three defendants and the third party, Technology Park Development and Construction Company, shall assist the plaintiff in completing the property registration formalities within 15 days and register the house under Fang *1's name. The court fees shall be borne by the three defendants. The court held that the "Agreement" was an agreement reached by Fang *1 and Fang *2 before their parents' death regarding their support and possible inheritance of property, which was a true expression of their intention and did not violate mandatory provisions or involve malicious collusion to infringe upon others' rights. It was binding on both parties. Even under statutory inheritance, the 100-square-meter demolition benefits as the parents' estate should be distributed among the two daughters. The area of the disputed Room 201 is almost the same as Fang *1's statutory inheritance, so it can be inferred that the agreement is fair and appropriate. Since the agreement was not a will, the court changed the case type to a dispute over property division and inheritance. The defendants' arguments that the agreement was invalid due to missing signatures or that the property should be distributed according to pre-registration were not accepted by the court.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is being handled by Attorney Li Yonghui of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (practice license number: 11101199611955812, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative authority). The family division agreement is an important legal document for family members to divide jointly owned property. When signing the agreement, it is necessary to ensure that all relevant right holders sign and confirm it, and to clarify the boundaries of each resettled person's interests to avoid disputes arising from "lack of signature" or "non-gift" in the future. In this case, although the parents did not sign the agreement, they gave their informed consent, and the agreement was still recognized as valid. This reminds the parties that it is advisable to make written arrangements for the distribution of demolition resettlement benefits as early as possible, and when necessary, to entrust professional lawyers to sort out the ownership and draft the agreement to protect their own inheritance and joint ownership rights.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Inheritance Cases Involving Division of Property

  1. Q: Is the family property division and asset disposition agreement valid if not signed by all rights holders?
    A:The validity of the agreement depends on whether it reflects the true intention of the relevant rights holders. If the parents are aware of and agree with the agreement, but have not signed it, and the handling of the agreement involves their own resettlement interests, the court may deem it valid; however, for safety's sake, it is recommended that all rights holders sign the agreement.
  2. Q: If the parents of a resettlement housing unit pass away after the house has been registered, who will own the property?
    A:First, we should distinguish between the owner's share and the inheritable share of the person being relocated. If the ownership has been clearly specified in the family division agreement, we should handle it according to the agreement; if there is no agreement, it will be distributed to the legal heirs as inheritance.
  3. Q: How to provide evidence in disputes over demolition housing between siblings?
    A:The demolition compensation agreement, resettlement plan, family division agreement, maintenance records, and registration pre-registration information, etc. should be collected to prove the parties' agreement and performance of the resettlement benefits.
  4. Q: What is the difference between a family separation agreement and a will?
    A:The separation agreement is an agreement to divide the jointly owned property during one's lifetime, which takes effect immediately; the will is an expression of intent to dispose of one's personal property after death. In this case, the agreement was determined not to be a will, so it was handled as a division of assets rather than an inheritance.
  5. Q: Can one simultaneously claim both subrogated succession and the division of family property?
    A:Yes. First, the parents' share of the property shall be determined in accordance with the separation agreement, and then this share shall be distributed as inheritance in accordance with the law or the will. There is no conflict between the two.