[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the division of jointly owned property (relating to demolition compensation benefits). The two relocation-awarded housing units arising from the demolition of the house in Dongcheng District owned by the decedent, Liu Yong, were not divided in the previous statutory inheritance case because "there were no conditions for division" and the court advised the plaintiffs to file separate lawsuits. The appellants, Liu Shufen and the other three, sued again to request division and payment of the depreciation compensation without any new facts. The respondents entrusted Beijing Henglue Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe agent claimed that it constituted a duplicate lawsuit. The core dispute was whether it constituted a duplicate lawsuit and whether the house met the conditions for division. Both the first-instance and second-instance courts determined that it constituted a duplicate lawsuit, and ruled to dismiss the lawsuit and uphold the original ruling by dismissing the appeal. The applicable legal provisions are Article 247 of the Civil Procedure Law and the judicial interpretations thereof.

I. Review of the case

"Can the demolition housing be divided before the property ownership certificate is obtained?" and "Can a lawsuit be filed again after the previous case has been adjudicated but the assets have not been divided?" are common questions in inheritance and demolition disputes. The root of this case lies in the demolition compensation benefits of the house located at No. 502 in Dongcheng District, Beijing, which was owned by the decedent Liu Yong. Liu Yong had two marriages and multiple children during his lifetime, and both Liu Yong and Wang Juan have already passed away. In 2019, No. 502 was included in the urban renewal project. Liu Dashan, Liu Guirong, and Company A signed a compensation and resettlement agreement, selecting two relocation reward properties (No. 3 Unit 1106 of Building 36 and No. 2 Unit 2501 of Building 38 in Shuguang Jiayuan Residential Area) with a total price of over 3.31 million yuan. After deducting the purchase price, the remaining compensation was taken by Liu Dashan. In 2021, Liu Shufen, Liu Hongmei, Li Yuzhen, and Liu Ran sued for division of multiple inheritances including the demolition housing. In May 2023, the judgment confirmed that the parties would jointly obtain the compensation benefits of the two demolition houses, but specified that "as the houses have not yet undergone property registration, there are no conditions for division. Only ownership shall be determined, and the parties may claim again when conditions permit". After the appeal, the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment in November 2023, emphasizing again that "the rights to the relocation houses may change, and the parties may handle the matter again when the rights are clear". In February 2024, just three months after the final judgment of the previous case, Liu Shufen and the other three plaintiffs sued again, requesting that the two houses be owned by the defendant and that the defendant pay 54% of the total house price as compensation for the houses that have already been delivered and obtained property ownership certificates.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Does this case constitute a repeat lawsuit?The previous lawsuit already requested the division of the demolition housing, but the effective judgment did not support the request due to the lack of conditions for division and explained that the claimant could file a separate lawsuit. Now, if the plaintiff sues again without new facts, does this essentially negate the outcome of the previous lawsuit?
  • Focus II: Whether the house involved in the case meets the conditions for division.The house has not signed a sales contract, has not been actually delivered, and does not have a property ownership certificate. Does it meet the prerequisites for division?
  • Focus Three: Whether the "new facts" claimed by the appellant are established.The appellant claimed that the house was ready for delivery and registration, but failed to submit new evidence to prove it.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The party concerned (the respondent) claimed that:The house involved in the case has not been signed a contract, not actually delivered, and there is no property rights certificate. It is obvious that it does not meet the conditions for division. The appellant sued again without new facts, essentially denying the judgment of the previous lawsuit, which constitutes a repetitive lawsuit and should be dismissed.

The appellant claimed that:This case was initiated based on the inheritance results of the previous lawsuit. The subject matter and claims of this lawsuit are different from those of the previous lawsuit, and only handling the unfinished matters of the previous lawsuit does not constitute a duplicate lawsuit. The fact that the house is ready for delivery and document processing constitutes a "new fact". The first-instance court applied the law incorrectly, and dismissing the lawsuit would result in the permanent loss of substantive rights.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Li YonghuiThe lawyer pointed out that the appellant's claim for compensation for the depreciation of the house is a lawsuit for the division of jointly owned property. The house in question has not been signed a contract for, delivered, or registered with a property ownership certificate, so it does not meet the conditions for division. The first-instance ruling should be upheld. The dispute in this case originated from the inheritance of Liu Yong's house. Liu Yong was mainly cared for by Liu Dashan during his lifetime. The appellant has not had any contact with Liu Yong for many years, and the dispute over the inheritance ratio in the previous lawsuit is the root of the conflict. The appellant's request to stop signing the property ownership certificate is caused by his own actions. Liu Dashan believes that the house originally belonged to him, and the appellant can only receive monetary compensation. During the first-instance trial, Liu Dashan also proposed division, but the appellant demanded division based on the current value, so Liu Dashan disagreed with it. The first-instance ruling has clear facts and correct application of the law, and should be upheld.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court of first instance found that as of the trial, the property rights registration of the house involved in the case had not been completed. The appellant failed to submit any new evidence to prove that the conditions for property rights registration had been met. His litigation request essentially negated the judgment of the previous case and constituted a repetitive lawsuit. Therefore, the court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit in 2024. The court of second instance held that, according to Article 247 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 parties in this case are exactly the same as those in the previous case. The subject matter of the litigation is based on the same legal relationship of the co-ownership of the inheritance among the heirs, and the litigation requests all aim at the distribution of the demolition compensation benefits corresponding to the two resettlement houses, with consistent core demands. Although the appellant claimed to be based on new facts, the house involved in the case has not signed a sales contract or completed the ownership registration. Therefore, the court of first instance's finding that the appellant's litigation request essentially negated the previous judgment that "the conditions for division do not exist" was not improper. In summary, in accordance with Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1, and Article 178 of the Civil Procedure Law, the court ruled to dismiss the appeal and maintain the original ruling. This ruling is final and binding.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Li YonghuiAgent. The principle of "once and for all" is an important principle of civil litigation, which ensures the efficiency of litigation and saves judicial resources. When exercising their litigation rights, parties must not violate legal provisions and cannot abuse their right to sue. For demolition resettlement housing that has not yet undergone property rights registration and does not meet the conditions for division, if the plaintiff has already explained in the previous lawsuit that "claims will be raised separately when the conditions are met", and there are no new facts to sue again, it is likely to be deemed as a repeated lawsuit and dismissed by the court. When encountering such complex disputes involving family matters and demolition, it is necessary to promptly entrust professional lawyers to accurately grasp the litigation strategy.

VI. Common Questions and FAQs about the Division of Jointly Owned Property in Demolition Cases

  1. Q: Can I sue for property division if the demolition housing hasn't been issued with a property ownership certificate yet?
    A:Generally, it is necessary to have property registration or delivery conditions before the property can be divided; if the plaintiff has already stated in the previous lawsuit that "the claim will be made separately after the conditions are met", there is no possibility of bringing a new lawsuit based on the same facts, and the lawsuit may be dismissed as a duplicated one.
  2. Q: The previous case was settled without a divorce, can I still sue again now?
    A:If the litigation request essentially negates the judgment result of the previous lawsuit and the parties, the subject matter of the litigation, and the requests are the same, it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit, and the court will rule to refuse to accept or dismiss the lawsuit.
  3. Q: How to determine the share of a demolition house owned by multiple people?
    A:First, determine the joint ownership relationship and proportions based on inheritance, gift, or investment, etc. After meeting the conditions for division, request physical division or compensation in the form of cash through litigation.
  4. Q: What constitutes a repeat lawsuit?
    A:If the parties involved in the subsequent lawsuit are the same as those in the previous lawsuit, the subject matter of the lawsuit is the same, the claims are the same, or the subsequent lawsuit essentially negates the judgment of the previous lawsuit, then this constitutes a repeated lawsuit.
  5. Q: What should I do if I can't get the certificate for the inherited demolition benefits?
    A:First, the ownership ratio can be confirmed through inheritance litigation. After the conditions for certificate issuance and delivery are met, the property can be divided. This way, it can avoid the situation where blind and repeated litigations are dismissed by the court.