Husband sells house without consent and breaks the contract, does the wife have to bear the breach of contract liability?

The husband sold the jointly-owned house to another person without the wife's knowledge, and then regretted it and delayed cooperating with the buyer to transfer the property. The buyer listed both the husband and wife as co-defendants, demanding the return of the purchase price and payment of liquidated damages. Should the wife, who was unaware, bear the responsibility for the breach of contract?

Basic case situation

Li Mou and Huang Mou are a married couple. Li Mou signed the "House Purchase and Sale Agreement" with Zhang Mou without Huang Mou's knowledge.

The contract stipulates that Zhang Chengping purchases the joint marital property of Li Mou and Huang Mou, a house located in a local residential community, with a total value of 520,000 yuan. After the contract is signed, Zhang Chengping pays the initial payment of 375,000 yuan first, allowing Li Mou and his wife to repay the mortgage loan from the bank, and then Zhang Chengping will pay the final payment of 150,000 yuan in one installment after both parties complete the transfer registration. If Li Mou breaches the contract, he must return the initial payment of 375,000 yuan and pay 30% of the total contract amount as liquidated damages.

On the day the contract was signed, Zhang San paid the initial payment to Li Mei, but Li Mei failed to return the mortgage loan to the bank as agreed and did not fulfill the obligations defined in the contract.

So Zhang Cheng filed a lawsuit against Li Mou and Huang Mou, the couple, together in court, requesting the dissolution of the signed "Real Estate Purchase Agreement" and demanding the defendant to return the initial payment of 375,000 yuan and pay a penalty of 157,500 yuan.

After investigation, the house is registered in the names of Li Mou and Huang Mou, jointly owned by the couple. During the trial, all parties confirmed that Huang Mou did not sign or stamp their name on the contract in question, and only Li Mou's signature was present at the party A's end.

Court judgment

After hearing the case, the court held that the contract involved is a true expression of the intentions of Li Mou and Zhang Mou, therefore, the contract has legal binding force between the two parties.

But the house in question is jointly owned by Li Mou and Huang Mou as a married couple. Huang Mou did not sign or stamp the contract in question and did not acknowledge it either, so Li Mou's act of selling the house is an unauthorized disposition. Moreover, according to the principle of "he who asserts must prove," the plaintiff did not submit evidence to prove that Huang Mou was aware of and received or used the initial payment for the house, so the contract does not have legal binding force for Huang Mou.

In summary, the court ruled to dissolve the contract signed between the plaintiff Zhang San and the defendant Li Mu, with Li Mu to repay the plaintiff Zhang San the initial payment of 375,000 yuan for the house purchase and a penalty of 157,500 yuan.

After the judgment, neither party filed an appeal.

Dao Hua analysis

The jointly-owned house by the couple is an important part of the family's property and a relatively common item for sale in the real estate market.

The buyer should pay attention to reviewing the ownership status of the house when engaging in house transactions. Once a dispute occurs, it will cause the buyer to suffer losses and also affect the normal real estate transaction order.

In the aforementioned case, Li Mou, without Huang Mou's knowledge, unilaterally sold the jointly-owned house, which constitutes unauthorized disposition in civil law. However, since the buyer was unaware of the unauthorized disposition and had reasonable grounds to believe that Li Mou had the right to dispose of the house and paid a reasonable consideration, he is considered a good faith third party. Therefore, the court ruled that the contract in question is valid, and it should be the husband, Li Mou, who is solely responsible to the seller.

The handling of this case has protected the contractual rights of Zhang San, a bona fide third party, while effectively avoiding the transaction risk issues related to the jointly-owned house of the couple.

Therefore, when purchasing a house, if it is found to be joint property of a married couple, both parties should be required to be present for signing and to show a marriage certificate; if one party is really unable to attend the scene, a legally valid written authorization procedure should also be provided.

It is worth mentioning that in cases similar to this one, if the house buyer is a bona fide third party and has already registered the real estate, the house buyer can obtain ownership of the house.