[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over the division of family property. The public housing unit and self-built house at No. 36 in Shijingshan District, Beijing were subject to housing demolition in 2020, resulting in compensation and subsidies, early relocation incentives, and the resettlement housing unit No. 2702 in Area A, among other demolition benefits. The plaintiffs, Zhang Xiguo and the other three individuals, claimed that the aforementioned benefits should belong to them, while the defendants, Zhang Xiling and the other three individuals, raised objections on the grounds that the will for the public housing unit was invalid and that the plaintiffs' household registration was merely registered without actual residence. The plaintiffs appointed Beijing Hengluo Law Firm as their legal representative.Li YonghuiThe lawyer represented the client in the lawsuit. The lawyer used the expropriation compensation agreement, the house donation agreement, the will, and videos, witness statements, etc. to prove that the rights to the south-facing room of the public rental housing and the self-built house belong to Zhang Xinguo. The will is a true expression of Li Xirong's intention. The court ultimately ruled that the benefits of Resettlement House No. 2702 should be enjoyed by Zhang Xinguo, and the defendant should pay the division of the compensation amount of 484,968.2 yuan. Applicable legal provisions: Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

I. Review of the Case Facts

How to divide the benefits of public housing demolition, who owns the self-built house after its renovation, and whether other children can share the demolition house if the elderly leave it to one child in their will—these are high-frequency issues in family property division disputes. Zhang Xiting and Li Xirong were a couple and had four children: eldest son Zhang Xizhu, second son Zhang Xiguo, eldest daughter Zhang Xilan, and second daughter Zhang Xiling. In the 1950s, Zhang Xiting was allocated a public housing unit at No. 36 in Beijing, which was lived in by the whole family. In 1975 and 1978, Zhang Xiguo successively saved and purchased bricks to renovate and build three self-built houses in the south wing of the house.

In 1987, the public housing unit of Zhang Xizhu was replaced by a building. Zhang Xingting and Li Xingrong moved in and lived there until March 30, 1993, when Zhang Xingting died. After that, the leaseholder of the building was changed to Zhang Xizhu, who obtained the property rights through the housing reform; the leaseholder of No. 36 was changed to Li Xingrong, and the plaintiff, Zhang Xiguo's family, continued to live there. After 1998, Li Xingrong returned to No. 36 to live. On March 27, 2007, Zhang Xiguo, Li Xingrong, and Zhang Xiling signed an agreement stipulating that one public rental housing unit and one self-built house would belong to Zhang Xiguo, and the other self-built house would belong to Zhang Xiling. Zhang Xiguo lived with Li Xingrong for a long time and took care of her daily life. On November 7, 2010, Li Xingrong left a will stating that No. 36 would be inherited by Zhang Xiguo; and on November 29, 2010, Li Xingrong died.

The lessee of House No. 36 has not been changed. The plaintiffs, Zhang Xiguo and others, have been living there and paying rent, and are the actual lessees. In 2020, the house was demolished. Zhang Xiguo signed the compensation agreement for the demolition on November 14, 2020, and selected the resettlement housing; but on November 16, the defendant, Zhang Xiling, also signed the compensation agreement for the demolition, with six people to be resettled, and received compensation and subsidies of 540,869.3 yuan, early relocation incentives of 250,000 yuan, and a resettlement housing unit at Building No. 1, Unit No. 2702 in Area A. The plaintiffs believe that the demolition benefits should belong to them. Due to unsuccessful family negotiations, they entrusted our law firm to handle the case.Li YonghuiThe lawyer filed a lawsuit in court.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the will and the house donation agreement made by Li Xirong truly reflect his intention, and whether they are legal and valid.The defendant claimed that the will was invalid on the grounds of lack of signature, formal defects, and lack of capacity at the time of making the will, which needs to be determined based on the video and witness testimonies.
  • Focus II: How should the demolition benefits of House No. 36 be divided?The party to whom the compensation for the south-facing room in the public housing and self-built houses belongs directly determines the ownership of the compensation money and the resettlement housing.
  • Focus 3: Whether the four plaintiffs' household registration is just a formality, or whether they actually live there and are entitled to compensation.The defendant denied the plaintiff's rights on the grounds that the plaintiff had other public housing and a dormant household registration without actually living there. The lawyer needs to provide evidence to prove the facts of residence and lease.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff claimed in the original lawsuit that:The plaintiffs, Zhang Xinguo, Li Xizhi, Zhang Xrui, and Zhang Xisheng, claimed that they were the actual lessees of House No. 36 and had lived there for a long time. Based on the will, the gift agreement, and the expropriation compensation agreement, they requested that the court rule that the demolition benefits of the house (including the compensation and assistance funds and House No. 2702) should belong to the plaintiffs.

The defendant argued that:The four defendants do not agree with the plaintiff's claims, arguing that No. 36 is a public housing unit, and the will should be invalid because it lacks the right to dispose of the property; the will does not meet the formal requirements because it lacks Li Xrong's signature; Li Xrong was seriously ill at the time and suffered from diabetic complications that caused him to go blind, so he lacked the capacity to make a will; the four plaintiffs also have other public housing units and their household registration is empty and they do not actually live there, so they should not be entitled to compensation.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Li YonghuiThe lawyer overcame obstacles such as difficulty in obtaining evidence and proving the validity of the will during the representation, and after repeated evidence collection and review, concluded that: in the courtyard layout formed after repeated renovations and expansions of the house, the right to the public rental housing and the self-built house in the south wing should be enjoyed by Zhang Xguo; although the will and the house donation agreement of November 7, 2010 did not bear Li Xrong's signature, they were supported by the video of thumbprinting and the witness's testimony, which constituted her true intention expressed during her lifetime. The interests corresponding to one public rental house and one self-built house involved in the compensation agreement for the expropriation should be enjoyed by Zhang Xguo and the plaintiff.

  • Submit evidence materials such as the expropriation compensation agreement, the house donation agreement, the will, and the video, to form a complete chain of evidence for the ownership of rights
  • Witnesses Wang Mou, Zhang Mou, and Gao Mou were called to testify in court to prove the overall living conditions of the house and the authenticity of the gift agreement and the will
  • Based on the notarized certificate and other materials, it is demonstrated that the southern room of the public rental housing and the self-built house corresponds to the right owned by Zhang X Guo

IV. Outcome of the case

In accordance with Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court finally ruled as follows: 1. The corresponding benefits of House No. 2702 of the resettlement housing corresponding to the "House Acquisition Compensation Agreement for Public Houses in the XX Shantytown Renovation Project" (Agreement No. XXDH) shall be enjoyed by Zhang Xguo; 2. Regarding the acquisition compensation benefits and corresponding relocation incentive fees involved in House No. 36 in Shijingshan District, Beijing, Zhang Xiling and Zhang Xiang shall pay the partitioned compensation of 484,968.2 yuan to Zhang Xguo, Zhang X, Zhang Xrui, and Li Xzhi within seven days after the judgment takes effect. The plaintiffs' demolition benefits have been clarified and supported by the court.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

The demolition of public housing and self-built houses involves complex issues of inheritance and division of family property. It is crucial to timely preserve wills, gift agreements, and proof of residence and payment. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Li YonghuiThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101199611955812, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acted on behalf of the client, reinforced the validity of the will through video and witness testimonies, and successfully clarified the ownership of the demolition benefits for the client.

VI. FAQs on Disputes over Family Division of Assets and Demolition Benefits

  1. Q: How should the benefits arising from the demolition of public housing be divided among the children?
    A:It is necessary to comprehensively determine the situation based on factors such as public housing tenancy, investment in the renovation of self-built houses, actual residence, and testamentary donations, and then the court will divide the compensation money and the benefits of the resettlement housing according to law.
  2. Q: Is the will drawn up by the elderly valid if it's not signed but only stamped with their fingerprints?
    A:There are legal requirements for the form of a will, but if there is no signature or thumbprint, the court can prove that it is the testator's true intention of making a will through evidence such as videos and witness testimonies, and the court will comprehensively determine its validity.
  3. Q: If my household registration is left empty in the demolished house, can I get the demolition compensation?
    A:The key point is whether the person actually lives there, whether they are a resettled person, and whether they have evidence of corresponding rights. It's generally difficult to claim rights based on mere empty registration. This needs to be judged in light of the specific expropriation policies.
  4. Q: If siblings cannot reach an agreement on the ownership of the demolition house, can they file a lawsuit?
    A:It is possible to initiate a lawsuit for the division of family assets or the partition of jointly owned property, and the court will make a judgment on the division of the demolition benefits based on the evidence and the law.
  5. Q: If the house was built by the children themselves and is demolished, will it be counted as the parents' property or the children's property during the demolition process?
    A:Generally, based on the investment in the renovation, the approval process, and the family agreement, the children who carried out the renovation can claim corresponding rights. It is recommended to keep evidence such as the purchase of bricks and the construction process.