In love, due to factors such as living together and entering marriage, both men and women often purchase property together. Lovers, due to their close relationship, tend to handle financial transactions more casually and rarely sign written agreements. Once the relationship between the two parties breaks down and ends, it is highly likely to cause property disputes. The once sweet lover, now facing court, will inevitably bring a certain degree of embarrassment and trouble to both parties' lives.

 

Yang Juan, a practicing lawyer at Guangdong Legal Shengbang Law Firm, combined with a recently concluded case of cohabitation dispute to interpret the law and provide a wake-up call for men and women in love.

Case Review

Mr. Gao and Miss Gu are campus lovers, and they started living together after graduating from college. In 2017, the two families began discussing marriage matters. Miss Gao's parents proposed that they must buy a house before getting married, so Mr. Gao and Miss Gu purchased a commercial house for over 1.2 million yuan. Mr. Gao paid over 250000 yuan in advance for the down payment, mortgage fee, intermediary fee, and purchase tax, totaling over 50000 yuan, while Ms. Gu paid 150000 yuan in down payment. Both parties jointly applied for a loan of over 800000 yuan from the bank, but the main borrower was Mr. Gao, who repaid the monthly mortgage. The property certificate is registered as shared ownership, with Mr. Gao accounting for 10% and Ms. Gu accounting for 90%. A year after purchasing the house, the two broke up due to a broken relationship, and Mr. Gao moved out of the house. At present, the house in question has been occupied by Ms. Gu, and the mortgage, property management fees, water, electricity, and gas fees are all bound to Mr. Gao's bank card, which is borne by Mr. Gao alone. Both parties failed to reach an agreement on the issue of housing division, so Mr. Gao filed a lawsuit with the people's court.

 

Lawyer Yang Juan has accepted the commission of Mr. Gao, the male partner, to act as the plaintiff's agent in the aforementioned cohabitation dispute case.

 

Opinions of both the plaintiff and defendant

The plaintiff claims that the property in question was jointly purchased by both parties for the purpose of marriage.

Due to loan reasons, the house was unable to write only the name of the woman as requested by the defendant's parents, so it was registered in shares. The plaintiff only symbolically registered 10% of the shares, and the remaining 90% was registered in the defendant's name. The relationship between the two parties has broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation, and the plaintiff and defendant cannot continue to jointly occupy and use the house. Therefore, they can only request the people's court to divide the involved house in accordance with the law. The plaintiff claims to divide the house according to the actual investment ratio of both parties, and requests that the house be owned by the defendant, who will return the plaintiff's purchase capital.

 

Defendant's defense: The defendant requests the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for the following reasons:

1. The plaintiff and defendant do not have a legal cohabitation relationship, and the cause of the case is incorrect. The plaintiff and defendant did not live in the name of husband and wife during their romantic relationship, so there is no legal cohabitation relationship. The property ownership of both parties is clear, there is no confusion, and there is no need for property separation.

 

2. Although the contributions made by both parties for the purchase of the house are mixed, there is already a clear agreement on the ownership and share of the house after purchase. The purchase contribution has been converted into physical property, and there is no issue of returning the purchase price or resolving the property. The male partner's contribution exceeding 10% is a voluntary gift made by the plaintiff during the romantic period in pursuit of the opposite sex in order to cohabit with the defendant. There is no dispute between the two parties regarding the registered and confirmed ownership of the property involved in the case.

 

3. A mortgage is a repayment made by the property owner to the bank, and after the completion of the house purchase and sale contract, there is no longer a problem of capital contribution. After the plaintiff and defendant signed a mortgage contract with the bank, the plaintiff voluntarily used their bank card account as the repayment account. As an adult male, the plaintiff voluntarily bears the cost of the mortgage, and the paid mortgage has no right to claim that the defendant should return it. If the plaintiff believes that the defendant should bear some of the costs, it needs to be resolved through another legal means, and the cohabitation relationship with this case is not the same legal relationship.

 

Focus of controversy

1. Legal relationship between the plaintiff and defendant

2. The ownership of the house and the repayment of the remaining mortgage

 

Lawyer's opinion

1. This case is a property dispute arising from cohabitation, which refers to a stable long-term living relationship between a man and a woman without marriage registration. The plaintiff and defendant live together in the name of husband and wife without obtaining marriage registration. During the cohabitation period, the income and property jointly obtained by both parties shall be treated as general shared property; When the cohabitation relationship is terminated, the creditor's rights and debts formed during the cohabitation period for joint production and living can be treated as joint creditor's rights and debts.

 

From the time they fell in love and purchased a house, it can be seen that the purpose of purchasing a house is to get married. From the ownership registration of the property involved in the case, the contribution of the plaintiff and the defendant during the purchase process, and the proportion of shares registered during the ownership registration process, it can be seen that there is a discrepancy between the contribution proportion and the registered ownership share. The defendant claims that the reason for the discrepancy is entirely due to the plaintiff's voluntary donation behavior, and the plaintiff voluntarily donates a portion of their own contribution to the defendant for free. However, based on the rules of daily life experience, it can be inferred that:, The plaintiff should have made a gift on the condition of marriage. If the romantic relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has ended and the condition of marriage cannot be met, the defendant should return the property donated by the plaintiff to the defendant for the purpose of marriage. Conditional gift behavior, if the conditions do not hold or disappear, the paying party may request return. The payment of property before marriage is usually due to the burden of old customs and is not voluntary. When two people cannot get married due to various reasons, one party requests the other party to return it, and the court should support it. This is also in line with the legal concept of fairness and folk customs.

 

2 According to Article 90 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (Trial) At the termination of the joint ownership relationship, the division of common property shall be handled according to the agreement if there is an agreement; if there is no agreement, it shall be handled according to the principle of equal division, and the contribution of the joint owners to the common property shall be taken into account, and the actual needs of the joint owners in production and life shall be appropriately taken into account. However, the division of joint property between husband and wife shall be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Marriage Law, It should be handled according to the principle of equal division, and appropriate consideration should be given to the actual production and living needs of the co owners.

 

Although the above judicial interpretations have been abolished after the Civil Code came into effect, they still have reference and reference significance for judicial practice.

 

Although the property involved in the case was jointly purchased by the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff alone undertook all the mortgage payments. During the cohabitation period, the plaintiff also bears the majority of the living expenses. Therefore, when dividing the property, factors such as the actual contribution shares of both parties, loan repayment situation, and the contribution of both parties to the shared property should be considered.

 

Review results

The court adopted the agency opinion of Lawyer Yang Juan and ruled that the property in question belonged to the defendant, and the remaining mortgage was repaid by the defendant. Based on the market value of the property, the defendant returned the purchase price in proportion to the plaintiff's actual investment.

 

Lawyer's reminder

1. Sign an agreement to stipulate the matters of capital contribution and the share of property rights, and sign the "Capital Contribution Agreement" or the "Declaration of Joint Property Owners";

2. Agree on the property rights of both parties based on the actual amount of investment, which is more fair and reasonable. In case of a breakup, there will be no disputes arising from the imbalance of rights and obligations;

3．When handling mortgage procedures, it should be clearly agreed whether it is a joint loan or an individual loan. After both parties jointly purchase a house, if it is determined that both parties will jointly bear the future monthly contributions, both parties can apply for a mortgage loan from the bank as joint borrowers. In this case, the monthly contributions borne by both parties should generally be roughly equal. If there is a significant difference in the actual monthly contribution amount borne by both parties, it is best to clearly agree through a written agreement. If one party does not bear the monthly contribution at all, there is no need to adopt a joint loan approach to prevent disputes from occurring.