[Case Summary]This case involves a third-party action challenging the enforcement of a judgment. Xiao Liu paid in full for a commercial housing unit and moved in, but the developer defaulted on its debts and the house was sealed by the court because it did not have a property ownership certificate. The applicant for enforcement requested that the enforcement continue. Xiao Liu entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Chen Mei'aoThe lawyer represented the defendant in the lawsuit, organized evidence around "the buyer and seller had signed a legal and valid sales contract before the seizure, the buyer had paid the full purchase price, the buyer's only housing, and the failure to transfer the ownership due to reasons beyond the buyer's control", and claimed to exclude the forced execution according to the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Cases of Objections and Reconsiderations in Enforcement by People's Courts". The court adopted the lawyer's opinion, determined that Xiao Liu met the conditions for excluding enforcement, and ruled to reject the applicant's request for enforcement, successfully protecting the property. Core dispute: Determination of the conditions for excluding enforcement when the buyer of a commercial housing transacts before seizure. Applicable legal provisions: Articles 28 and 29 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Cases of Objections and Reconsiderations in Enforcement by People's Courts".

I. Review of the case

Many home buyers are searching for "What should I do if the court seizes the house I bought with full payment?”“Under what circumstances can enforcement be precluded?"..."How to file a lawsuit challenging the enforcement of a judgment or rulingWhen encountering such situations, people are often facing the dilemma of having their houses being involved in developers' debts. On June 6, 2016, Xiao Liu signed a "XX Commercial Housing Sale and Purchase Contract" with a Beijing-based real estate development company, paying the full amount of 8,105,805 yuan to purchase the house. On the same day, the two parties also signed a "Agreement", agreeing to provide Xiao Liu with the connected underground garage, exterior decoration of the house, and courtyard projects at a price of 1,894,195 yuan. Adding the two contract prices together, Xiao Liu actually purchased the house for a total price of 10 million yuan. After the developer delivered the house in the same year, Xiao Liu immediately moved in. However, in June 2022, a court's seizure notice disrupted the peaceful life of Xiao Liu's family—because the house had not yet obtained a property ownership certificate, and the real estate company had not repaid its external debts, the court seized the house. Subsequently, Xiao Liu filed an execution objection, and the court issued the No. 239 Execution Ruling, deciding to suspend the execution of the involved house. The applicant for enforcement, a certain asset management company, was not satisfied with the ruling and sued Xiao Liu and the real estate company in court, requesting to allow the continued execution of the involved house, which led to the current lawsuit over the execution objection.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether Xiao Liu had signed a legally valid house purchase contract and paid the purchase price before the court sealed up the house.This is the basic fact that determines whether we can rule out the possibility of execution.
  • Focus Two: Whether Xiao Liu meets the conditions for consumers to exclude enforcement against them.It involves a comprehensive assessment of the housing situation under one's name, the purpose of purchasing the house, and the fault of not transferring ownership in time, etc.
  • Focus Three: Does the fact that Xiao Liu's spouse owns another house mean that Xiao Liu loses the qualification to be excluded from enforcement?It needs to be judged based on the house area, distance, and the actual living situation of the family.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The original plaintiff (the applicant for enforcement):The applicant claimed that Xiao Liu did not meet the requirements of the "exclusion of enforcement conditions" and could not be excluded from the enforcement of the involved house. Firstly, the payment time of the purchase price was earlier than the signing time of the house purchase contract, which was obviously different from the real purchase of a house. Secondly, Xiao Liu's spouse, Shen * owned a house located at No. 12, Chaoyang District, Beijing, so Xiao Liu did not meet the relevant requirements. Thirdly, the involved house had not been registered online.

The defendant's (the house buyer's) position:Xiao Liu claimed that he was a bona fide purchaser of the commercial housing, having signed the contract, made the payment, and actually moved in. Therefore, his legitimate rights and interests should be protected first. He requested that the plaintiff's request for continued enforcement be dismissed.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:As Xiao Liu's agent, Beijing Henglu Law FirmChen Mei'aoThe lawyer requested in court to reject the plaintiff's claims and pointed out: First, before the court sealed up the involved house, Xiao Liu had already signed a "House Sale Contract" and a compensation agreement with the real estate company. It can be determined that the subscription agreement constitutes a commodity sale contract, and it is a true expression of the parties' intention and is legally valid. The real estate company has delivered the house to Xiao Liu, and both parties have actually performed their obligations. The court sealed up the house on June 28, 2022, which was much later than the date of signing the contract. Xiao Liu's legitimate rights and interests as a purchaser of the commercial housing should be given priority protection. Second, when Xiao Liu purchased the house, he was single and unmarried with no other real estate under his name. The purchase was solely for family residence, which meets the requirements of Article 29(2) of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Handling Cases of Objections and Reconsiderations in Enforcement" and entitles him to request the exclusion of forced execution. Although his spouse owns a house purchased before marriage located in Chaoyang, the family of three has always lived in the involved house, and the small size of the house cannot meet their living needs. The couple has also been working in Yanqing all along. Third, Xiao Liu failed to complete the transfer registration not due to his own reasons. As a purchaser, he has always acted in good faith and repeatedly urged the real estate company to handle the registration, but the company refused to do so on the grounds that the pre-sale license had expired or that the number of current houses for sale was limited. The lawyer emphasized that Article 29 does not require that consumers who have not completed the transfer registration are free from fault, and the plaintiff's corresponding claims are not important factors to be considered by the court in making a judgment.

IV. Outcome of the case

After the trial, the court adopted the opinions and demands of Hengluo Law Firm and ultimately ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit. The court held that, in this case, the evidence submitted by Xiao Liu showed that before the seizure of the involved house, he had already signed a contract with the real estate company, purchased the involved house, and actually paid the purchase price. Although his spouse owned another property, the house was smaller in size and located dozens of kilometers away from the involved house. Based on the circumstances of the case, the court held that Xiao Liu at least met the requirements set forth in Article 28 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objections and Review Cases by People's Courts", and his request to suspend the enforcement of the involved house had a legal basis. As a result, Xiao Liu's property was preserved, and his legitimate rights to avoid enforcement were supported by the judiciary.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

After purchasing the house with full payment and actually moving in, the house may still be sealed up due to the developer's debts; timely fixing the evidence such as "signing the contract, making the payment, moving in before the house was sealed up, and not transferring the ownership for reasons beyond one's own control" is the key to avoiding the execution. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Chen Mei'eThe lawyer (practice certificate number: 11101201911105336, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. It is recommended that the purchaser handle the online registration and transfer of ownership as soon as possible after signing the contract. If the house is sealed up, the purchaser should promptly raise an execution objection and entrust a professional lawyer to file a lawsuit against the execution objection to safeguard his/her right to expect ownership in accordance with relevant judicial interpretations.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions about Lawsuits to Challenge the Execution of Judgments

  1. Q: If I buy a house with full payment but it hasn't been transferred to my name yet and it's been sealed up by the court, can I still keep the house?
    A:If you can sign a legal and valid sales contract before the seizure, have paid the full price and legally possessed the property, and the failure to transfer ownership is not due to your own reasons, you can request to exclude the forced execution in accordance with relevant regulations.
  2. Q: If my spouse owns a house, can I still exclude the house I bought myself from being subject to enforcement?
    A:It all depends on the size of the house, the distance to the house involved in the case, and the actual living situation of the family. If the spouse's house clearly cannot meet the living needs, it may not necessarily lead to the loss of the right to exclude enforcement.
  3. Q: Can I still sue after my objection to enforcement has been rejected?
    A:The applicant for enforcement or the third party who disagrees with the ruling may file a lawsuit against the enforcement objection to review and eliminate the claim for enforcement through litigation procedures.
  4. Q: If the developer has been delaying the transfer of ownership, is that my fault?
    A:If the buyer has actively urged the transfer of ownership, but the transfer failed due to reasons attributable to the developer (such as pre-sale license or restrictions on the sale of second-hand houses), it is generally considered that the failure is not due to the buyer's own reasons.
  5. Q: If you encounter a developer's debt problem when buying a house, how can you prevent your property from being seized in advance?
    A:After signing the contract, promptly complete the online registration and transfer of ownership, and keep the payment and move-in receipts. If you find that the developer's operations are abnormal, consult a lawyer as soon as possible and, if necessary, protect your rights through litigation.