Dowa Case Analysis | Unit welfare housing purchased during marriage not divided during divorce

Case Summary:

The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1996 and had a son, Guo Mou Yi, in 1997. In June 2003, the plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit with this court, and this court issued a civil judgment (2003) Shenfu Fa Min Yi Chu No. 2208, granting the divorce between the plaintiff and defendant, with the son Guo Mou Yi being cared for by the plaintiff, and the defendant paying child support of 800 yuan per month. In April 1997, the plaintiff purchased a property at Fu Rong Road XX Village XX Building XXX from the Shenzhen Residential Bureau for 97307.3 yuan. The property ownership certificate provided by the plaintiff indicates that the registered share is 1/2 for both the plaintiff and defendant, and it is a non-market commercial housing.

Proceedings:

In this case, the plaintiff explicitly requested the confirmation that the使用权 of the property at XX Village XX Building XXX belongs to the plaintiff, and disagreed with the handling of the ownership of the property. The plaintiff claimed that the property was a welfare house allocated by the plaintiff's unit, the purchase price was paid by the plaintiff, and the family expenses during the marriage were borne by the plaintiff. The defendant had faults, not taking care of the family and child-rearing, and therefore claimed that the使用权 of the property should belong to the plaintiff. The defendant did not acknowledge this, stating that the property was the joint property of the couple, and if the plaintiff wanted to obtain the使用权 of the property, the plaintiff should compensate the defendant a lump sum of 2225 yuan per month for 30 years. The plaintiff did not agree with the defendant's claim.

The plaintiff claimed that 10 years ago, the plaintiff and defendant filed for divorce at Futian Court, but due to the inability to contact the defendant at that time, Futian Court made a judgment by default, dissolving the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant, and no division of the property at XX Village XX Building XXX was made at the time of divorce. Now that the defendant has returned to Shenzhen and wants to forcibly enter the property at XX Village XX Building XXX, the plaintiff now requests the court to: 1. The使用权 of the property at XX Village XX Building XXX belongs to the plaintiff; 2. The defendant bears the litigation costs of this case.

The defendant argued that the defendant and the plaintiff have equal rights to the property at XX Village XX Building XXX, and if the plaintiff wants to fully possess the property rights, the defendant should be compensated an amount equivalent to half of the total property rights, and the compensation funds should meet the defendant's needs for renting or buying a house.

Judgment Result:

The使用权 of the property at XX Village XX Building XXX in Shenzhen (Shen房地字 No.××) before the disposal of ownership belongs to the plaintiff Li Mou, who shall compensate the defendant Guo Mou Jia 2000 yuan per month (from November 2013 to the time of the disposal of property ownership, to be paid before the 15th of each month); The litigation costs of this case are 2233 yuan (already pre-paid by the plaintiff), of which 1116.5 yuan shall be borne by the plaintiff and 1116.5 yuan by the defendant.

Legal Analysis:

Considering the facts of this case, the property at XX Village XX Building XXX involved in this case was purchased during the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant, and the registered share of the property is 1/2 for both the plaintiff and defendant, so the property should be the joint property of the couple. The property was purchased by the plaintiff through their unit and has a "green book" property ownership certificate, which should be recognized as the ownership of the plaintiff and defendant over the property.

Furthermore, in this case, the plaintiff does not agree to dispose of the ownership of the property, so the court does not handle the ownership of the property. Although the ownership has not been handled, for the use of the house, the plaintiff in this case claims that the使用权 of the involved property belongs to the plaintiff, as the property has been lived in and used by the plaintiff all along. The court determines that the使用权 of the property before the disposal of ownership belongs to the plaintiff based on the specific use of the house. Since the involved property is the joint property of the couple, the plaintiff should compensate the defendant accordingly for using the property. Regarding the standard of compensation, the court refers to the current market rental price of the area where the property is located and decides that the plaintiff should compensate the defendant 2000 yuan per month until the property ownership is disposed of. In divorce proceedings, property is a common target for property division, and the specific nature, ownership, and use of the house will affect the final division result.