[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the confirmation of ownership of a house (purchased under someone else's name/joint ownership). The plaintiff, Wang Ying, used her aunt Liu Cui Fen's name to purchase a house through the housing reform program in 2000, with an agreement that the ownership would be transferred after five years. However, the defendant refused to fulfill the agreement and denied that the purchase was made under someone else's name. Beijing Henglu Law FirmLi YonghuiOn behalf of the plaintiff, the attorney submitted the remittance receipt, the audio recording, and the housing price calculation table to prove the contribution of the investment and the deduction of the service years. The core disputes include: the identification of the investment subject, the property value of the deduction of service years, and whether there is a duplication of litigation. In the end, the court ruled that the house shall be jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant in equal shares of 50%. Applicable legal provisions: the relevant provisions of the Property Law.

I. Review of the case

"How to prove the actual investment when buying a house under someone else's name" and "Does the calculation of work experience count as a share of property rights?" are typical issues in disputes over housing reform and purchasing houses under someone else's name. The plaintiff, Wang Ying, and the defendant, Liu Cui Fen, are relatives (the defendant and the plaintiff's mother are sisters). In 2000, during the housing reform in Beijing, the defendant, as a military family member, obtained a welfare purchase quota from XX Company. However, as she already owned two houses and faced financial constraints, after consulting with the plaintiff and her mother, the plaintiff invested the funds to purchase the disputed house (Unit 3, Building 2, Chaoyang District) under the defendant's name. It was agreed that the house would be temporarily registered under the defendant's name and transferred to the plaintiff after five years. The plaintiff paid the full purchase price of 34,404 yuan (including 30,000 yuan transferred by the plaintiff's mother and an additional 4,000 yuan in cash), and used the defendant's 33-year work experience to offset part of the purchase price. After the house was delivered, the plaintiff's family has lived there permanently. However, the defendant refused to fulfill her commitment to transfer the ownership, even provoking conflicts and suing the plaintiff to vacate the house multiple times. In 2021, the plaintiff first sued for purchasing a house under someone else's name, and the court ruled that the house was jointly owned. To confirm her share of property rights, the plaintiff commissioned a lawyer to handle the case.Li YonghuiFile a lawsuit and claim to enjoy the ownership of the house in proportion to the investment amount.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Identification of the entity that contributed the funds for the purchase of the house.The defendant insisted that the purchase price was paid by himself, and the plaintiff's remittance was for other purposes. He denied the relationship of buying the house under someone else's name.
  • Focus 2: The property value of the service years offset.When the defendant used his 33-year work experience to offset part of the purchase price of the house, how should we determine his contribution to the ownership of the house?
  • Focus Three: The defense of repeated prosecution.The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had previously filed a similar lawsuit, and that the current case constituted a duplicate lawsuit, which should be dismissed.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The party (the plaintiff) claims that:The house involved in the case was purchased by the plaintiff with his own funds and in the defendant's name. The plaintiff paid the full purchase price of 34,404 yuan and lived there for a long time. The two parties reached an agreement on purchasing the house under the defendant's name, so it should be confirmed that the plaintiff enjoys the corresponding share of the property rights.

The defense argued that:The plaintiff is filing a repeat lawsuit, and the request for ownership in the previous case has been rejected; the purchase price was paid by the defendant himself, and the plaintiff's remittance was for "payment for goods" rather than the purchase price; housing reform housing is subject to registration, and the length of service is a personal benefit that does not constitute a basis for joint ownership.

Legal Opinion by Hengluo Law Firm:Li YonghuiThe lawyer submitted key evidence: remittance receipts (in August 2000, Liu Yumei remitted 35,000 yuan to the defendant, of which 30,000 yuan was used for the purchase of the house); audio evidence (the defendant explicitly acknowledged that the plaintiff paid the entire purchase price of 34,404 yuan); facts of house possession (the plaintiff's family actually lived in the house for 24 years, which corroborated the agreement to buy the house under a different name); and a housing price calculation table (proving that the plaintiff's seniority was offset, reducing the total housing price by 12,394 yuan, and that the defendant's seniority contribution accounted for 26.49%). The lawyer argued that the house was purchased with joint funds from both parties (the plaintiff's cash + the defendant's seniority) and should be jointly owned in accordance with relevant regulations.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that, where co-owners do not stipulate that the real estate is held in joint ownership or shared ownership, or the stipulation is unclear, it shall be deemed that the ownership is held in joint ownership unless there are other circumstances such as a family relationship. Regarding the investment, the audio recording submitted by the plaintiff can prove that the plaintiff paid a purchase price of 34,404 yuan. According to the "Unit Sale of Public Housing Price Calculation Table", it can be seen that the disputed house was offset by the defendant's 33-year work experience; the source of the house was that the defendant sold it at cost price from Beijing XX Construction Company in 2000; and from the perspective of possession and use, the house has been possessed and used by the plaintiff and her parents all along. Based on the housing reform policies, the disputed house should be identified as jointly purchased by the plaintiff with the defendant's work experience offset. Considering the special nature of the source of the house, the investment, and the offset of the work experience, the house should be held in joint ownership by the plaintiff and the defendant in proportion. The court determined that 50% of the share of the disputed house should be owned by the plaintiff, Wang Ying, and 50% by the defendant, Liu Cui Fen. Judgment: First, the disputed house shall be held in joint ownership by the plaintiff, Wang Ying, and the defendant, Liu Cui Fen, each holding 50% of the share; Second, the plaintiff's other claims are dismissed. The case acceptance fee of 8,800 yuan shall be borne by both parties in the amount of 4,400 yuan each. 法院认为，当共有人对不动产没有约定为按份共有或共同共有，约定不明确的，除具有家庭关系等外视为按份共有。关于出资，根据原告提交的录音可以证明原告支付了购房款34404元，根据《单位出售公有住房房价计算表》可以看出涉案房屋抵扣了被告33年工龄；房屋来源系2000年被告从北京XX建设公司成本价出售，从占有使用情况看一直由原告及其父母占有使用。综合房改政策，涉案房屋宜认定为由原告出资、抵扣被告工龄而共同购买，考虑房屋来源、出资及工龄抵扣的特殊性，应由原、被告按份共有。法院酌定涉案房屋50%份额归原告王英所有，50%份额归被告刘翠芬所有。判决：一、涉案房屋由原告王英与被告刘翠芬按份共有，各占50%份额；二、驳回原告其他诉讼请求。案件受理费8800元，由双方各承担4400元。

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmLi YonghuiAgent. Although buying a house under someone else's name can solve a temporary problem, it hides many legal risks. When cooperating to buy a house or dealing with property disputes, it is necessary to sign a written agreement, clarify rights and obligations, and keep evidence such as remittance receipts and audio recordings. In housing reform projects, the length of service can be converted into property value, which may affect the determination of property rights shares; the investment and possession facts are the key to confirming property rights.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Cases Involving Purchasing Property under Someone Else's Name

  1. Q: How to prove the actual investment when buying a house under someone else's name?
    A:Keep the remittance receipts, bank transaction records, chat logs, audio recordings, and actual residence evidence to form a complete chain of evidence to prove the borrowing agreement and the fact of investment.
  2. Q: Does the length of service count towards the calculation of the ownership share?
    A:In the housing reform program, the working years can be credited as property value, and the contribution ratio can be determined according to the housing price calculation table, which affects the share of joint ownership.
  3. Q: What should I do if the other party changes their mind after I buy a house under someone else's name and transfer the ownership to them?
    A:You can sue to confirm the ownership share or request a transfer of ownership based on a written agreement and evidence of investment and possession. Please pay attention to the statute of limitations and the preservation of evidence.
  4. Q: Can I reclaim a housing reform apartment registered under someone else's name?
    A:Where it can be proven that the property was financed by the party himself/herself, that there is a written agreement on the use of the other party's name, and that there is no family relationship between the parties, the party may claim a share in the ownership or request a legal title to the property.
  5. Q: If my previous lawsuit was dismissed, can I sue again?
    A:If the claims in this lawsuit are different from those in the previous case (such as confirming ownership and shareholding ratios) and there is new evidence, it is generally not considered a repetitive lawsuit, and the claimant can assert their rights separately.