[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the confirmation of contract termination and refund (related to buying a house under someone else's name). The plaintiff, Ma Zhiyuan, as the sole heir of Wang Jiali, claimed that Wang Jiali and Ma Yuan signed the "Agreement on Purchasing a House under Someone Else's Name" to buy House No. 1705. However, the divorce judgment has confirmed that the house is the joint property of Ma Yuan and Zhao Ziyi. Therefore, the contractual purpose cannot be achieved, and the plaintiff requests to terminate the agreement and refund the purchase price of 3.4 million yuan. Beijing Henglu Law FirmLi YonghuiThe defendant's agent, Zhao Ziyi, claimed that the agreement was forged, that the funds used for the purchase of the house came from the couple's joint property, and that the divorce judgment had already confirmed the joint ownership of the house. The core disputes were the authenticity of the agreement, the source of the funds used for the purchase of the house, and the actual ownership of the house. In the end, the court ruled that the agreement was terminated and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the return of 3.4 million yuan. The applicable legal provisions are the relevant provisions on the termination of contracts in the Civil Code.

I. Review of the case

How to determine the authenticity of a "house-buying agreement in someone else's name" and "can others reclaim a house that was divided in a divorce judgment?" These are the difficulties in dealing with cross-border divorce and property issues involving house purchases under someone else's name. Wang Jiali and Ma Zhiyuan were a married couple with a daughter, Ma Yuanyuan. In 2013, Zhao Ziyi and Ma Yuanyuan registered their marriage, but divorced in 2015 and remarried in 2016. In 2020, Zhao Ziyi sued Ma Yuanyuan for divorce, and the court ruled that Houses No. 1904 and No. 1705, as well as the parking space, belonged to Ma Yuanyuan, who was required to pay Zhao Ziyi 3.4 million yuan as the discounted value of House No. 1705 and Parking Space No. 129. In 2023, after Wang Jiali passed away, Ma Yuanyuan and Ma Yue issued a "Declaration of Waiving Inheritance". After Ma Yuanyuan paid the 3.4 million yuan to the court, Ma Zhiyuan and Ma Yue sued for civil loans, but the case was dismissed. Now, the plaintiff, Ma Zhiyuan, has submitted the 2015 "Agreement" between Wang Jiali and Ma Yuanyuan, which stipulated that Wang Jiali did not have the qualification to purchase the house under Ma Yuanyuan's name and required the agreement to be rescinded and Zhao Ziyi to return the 3.4 million yuan. Zhao Ziyi has entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe agent shall respond to the lawsuit.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The authenticity and legal validity of the "Agreement on Purchasing a Property under Another's Name".The plaintiff claimed that the agreement was genuine, but the purpose of the contract could not be achieved because the house was identified as joint property; the defendant questioned the authenticity of the agreement, arguing that it was not signed before the purchase of the house.
  • Focus 2: The source and nature of the funds used to purchase the house.The plaintiff claimed that the down payment was paid by Wang Jiali; the defendant provided evidence that the 2.295 million yuan was transferred by Zhao Ziyi and the loan was repaid jointly by the couple.
  • Focus Three: The actual ownership of House No. 1705.The divorce judgment has confirmed that the house is the joint property of Ma Yuan and Zhao Ziyi.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The party involved (the defendant, Zhao Ziyi) claimed that:There is a suspicion of forgery in the "Agreement on Purchasing a House under Another's Name", and it cannot be proven that the agreement was signed before the purchase of the house. The funds used for the purchase of the house came from the joint property of Zhao Ziyi and Ma Yuan, not from Wang Jiali's investment. The divorce judgment has confirmed that House No. 1705 is the couple's joint property. The plaintiff's evidence is insufficient to prove that the agreement was fulfilled, and the request for return should be rejected.

The plaintiff (Ma Zhiyuan) claims that:As the sole heir of Wang Jiali, since the house has been divided among Zhao Ziyi and Ma Yuan and the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved, she requests to rescind the agreement and have Zhao Ziyi return the liquidated damages of 3.4 million yuan obtained in the divorce litigation.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Li YonghuiThe lawyer, acting as Zhao Ziyi's attorney, focused his defense on the following points: Firstly, this case might be a fraudulent lawsuit. Zhao Ziyi has already reported the case to the police, and the agreement may have been forged. Ma Yuan colluded with her parents to avoid dividing property in the divorce. Secondly, there was no real borrow-name purchase relationship between Wang Jiali and Ma Yuan. In 2015, Zhao Ziyi transferred 2.295 million yuan to purchase the 1705 property, while Wang Jiali purchased another property in the same residential area. Thirdly, even if the agreement were genuine, Wang Jiali did not contribute all the funds and the two did not form a borrow-name relationship. The down payment of 4.095 million yuan was transferred by Ma Yuan, and the loan of 1.6 million yuan was repaid from the couple's joint property. Even if some of the funds were contributions, they were gifts to help the Ma family. Fourthly, the divorce case has confirmed that the cash deposit of 11.7 million yuan far exceeded the purchase price of the property, which could be converted into contributions. The lawyer emphasized that the divorce judgment has confirmed that the 1705 property is a marital joint property.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that Wang Jiali and Ma Yuan signed the "Agreement", which stipulated that the actual ownership of House No. 1705 belonged to Wang Jiali. However, Wang Jiali did not have the qualification to purchase property in Beijing, and the effective judgment of the divorce case confirmed that House No. 1705 was the joint property of Ma Yuan and Zhao Ziyi. Therefore, the contractual purpose could not be achieved. The plaintiff, as the sole heir, requested to rescind the agreement, and Ma Yuan did not object. It was confirmed that the agreement was rescinded on the date the lawsuit was served to Ma Yuan (September 2, 2024). Regarding the return of the property after the rescission of the contract, the divorce judgment had already determined that Zhao Ziyi had the intention to purchase the property and that the house was the joint property of the two defendants. There was no evidence to prove that Zhao Ziyi agreed to purchase the property under another's name, and the agreement had not been effectively performed. The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Wang Jiali and Ma Yuan had performed the "Agreement", so the request for Zhao Ziyi to return 3.4 million yuan lacked factual and legal basis and was not supported. Judgment: First, it is confirmed that the "Agreement" was rescinded on September 2, 2024; Second, the plaintiff's other claims are dismissed. The case acceptance fee of 34,000 yuan and the preservation fee of 5,000 yuan shall be borne by the plaintiff. 法院认为，王佳丽与马媛签订《协议》约定1705号房屋实际产权归王佳丽所有，但王佳丽没有北京购房资格，且离婚生效判决已确认1705号房屋为马媛、赵子毅夫妻共同财产，合同目的无法实现。原告作为唯一继承人要求解除合同，马媛亦不持异议，确认协议于起诉状送达马媛之日（2024年9月2日）解除。关于合同解除后返还问题，离婚判决书已认定赵子毅有购买意愿，房屋为二被告共同财产，没有证据证明赵子毅同意借名购买，《协议》实际未能履行；原告证据不足以证明王佳丽与马媛已履行《协议》，故要求赵子毅返还340万元缺乏事实和法律依据，不予支持。判决：一、确认《协议》于2024年9月2日解除；二、驳回原告马致远其他诉讼请求。案件受理费34000元，保全费5000元由原告负担。

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmLi YonghuiAgent. Buying a house under someone else's name involves ownership of the property, the source of the funds, and the legality of the agreement, which carries extremely high risks. An agreement that is not genuine or has flaws may be invalidated; unclear sources of funds for the purchase of the house may easily lead to property disputes; and if the actual ownership of the property does not match the agreement, it may trigger ownership disputes. If there are property disputes, it is necessary to seek help from a professional lawyer in time and pay attention to keeping ownership evidence such as investment certificates and divorce judgments.

VI. Common Questions and FAQs about Cases Involving Pseudo-Name Purchases of Real Estate and Cross-Divorce Scams

  1. Q: How to determine the authenticity of a contract for purchasing a house under someone else's name?
    A:The court reviews the signing time of the agreement, the signatures of the parties, the source of the funds, and the performance of the agreement. If there are inconsistencies or if the agreement cannot be proven to have been signed before the purchase of the house, it is unlikely to gain support from the court.
  2. Q: Can others reclaim the house that was divided in the divorce judgment?
    A:The ownership of the house confirmed by the effective divorce judgment has legal effect. If others claim the return of the house by claiming that it was purchased under a false name, they need to provide sufficient evidence, otherwise it will be difficult to overturn the judgment.
  3. Q: Is it valid to buy a house under someone else's name when one doesn't have the qualification to purchase a house?
    A:The loan agreement to evade purchase restrictions may be deemed invalid or unenforceable due to violating policies, and the contractual purpose may not be achieved. In such cases, the contract can be terminated, but there's no guarantee of a refund.
  4. Q: When parents contribute funds to help their children buy a house, is this considered a loan or a gift?
    A:Based on a comprehensive assessment of the transfer notes, agreements, and joint repayment by the couple, if there is no clear agreement on the use of a borrowed name, it is often deemed as a gift or act of assistance.
  5. Q: Can the heir claim the right to inherit the borrow-under-another-name agreement entered into by the decedent?
    A:Heirs can inherit the corresponding rights, but if the agreement is not authentic, the performance is not in accordance with the agreement, or the house has already been registered as a legal property, the request for a refund is often rejected.