Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)aaapublished in(发表于) 2013/12/17 15:37:19 Beijing court 1 minor property disputes， finding that sale and purchase agreement
Seller with "limited property rights to ban" as an excuse against buyers agreement would not be valid; the Court deems that the legislation is not introduced, the Protocol is both really mean
Property sale and purchase agreement was found effective
The Beijing News (by staff reporter Zhang Yuxue) 3 years ago, Ms yin will be a small property for sale. In October, her "small property cannot be traded" for the prosecution of buyers, requests the Court to order for the contract is not valid.
Buyers, says Ms Yin due to soaring sued for "broken".
Recently, mentougou district court verdict, the two sides signed sale and purchase agreement. Ms Yam appeal.
Sellers
Contracts in violation of the relevant provisions of
Ms Yam said in January 2010, she with a unit clerk Mr Chu signed a sale and purchase agreement, will own a small property in one village of mentougou sold for 450,000 dollars to Zhu.
Ms Yam said after the signing, she learned that the agreement with Mr Zhu in violation of national "small property sale" provision, agreement shall be valid contracts. So she started looking for refunds, Zhu asked to confirm the contract avoided, but they have not agreed, "so sue me".
In the complaint, YIN asked the Court for an order that she and Mr Zhu's agreement would not be valid.
Buyers
Soaring property sellers who want to break
"Prior to the contract signing, I know that housing is a small property. "The trial, Mr Zhu said, because property prices than prices have a significant advantage, and choose to purchase for your own use. He thinks Ms yin was prosecuted, because of soaring, feeling lost, initiation to break ideas.
"Signed the agreement, pay contributions on time, after I and the village Committee also signed occupancy agreements, also gave me the keys, housing completed the actual delivery, its actual use should be me. "Mr Chu suggested that Ms yin's lawsuit has been a 2-year time bar, should be rejected by the Court of its prosecution.
Court
Property rights of the parties have not agreed to go through
Court finds that in this case, the seller and buyer sign the signed sale and purchase agreement is the real intention of the parties, and is not contrary to mandatory provisions of the laws and administrative regulations, should be a valid contract. In addition, both sides clearly trading Ltd-home, about the houses for small property facts informed.
Recently, the Court stated that given my small property-related legal provisions had not yet been introduced, property rights of parties v House formal procedure of no clear agreement, YIN asked the court invalidate a contract claim, not to support it.
"Now the House is in my name. Property is not for sale, and I am definitely going to appeal the verdict. "After the sentencing, yin said.
Lawyer claims
Contracts valid transactions are not necessarily safe
Beijing, long an law firm senior partner Chen Xu believed that although the representation of buyers and sellers of contracts are actually saying and signing of the contract parties ' performance under the contract, but because the contract involves explicit sale of small property, contracts can continue to perform, well worth exploring.
Chen Xu said recently, land, housing construction in cleanup investigation, jointly called for the suspension of the Department property room, clearly highlighted the limited property rights housing does not exist "regularized" the possibility, so purchasers ' rights once violated it would be difficult to be upheld. The case of, does not mean that limited property rights housing transaction security, homebuyers choose houses, is still not desirable.
Lantern law firm in Beijing Bao Hua said that even with a contract, sale of houses with limited property rights cannot.
The other case
Painter to buy houses with limited property rights is liable to tengfang
In July 2002, the painter Li Yulan Ma Haitao signed an agreement with farmers, agreed to 45,000 dollars to purchase is located in Tongzhou district, a limited property rights in songzhuang town houses.
Later, songzhuang re-planning parks and roads, many farmer's courtyard facing demolition, homeowners will receive large sums of compensation.
In December 2006, Ma Haitao sued in court to confirm the two sides signed sale and purchase agreement is null and void, return housing e Lee Yuk LAN.
E Lee Yuk LAN argues that the agreement valid and effective "Ma Haitao is residential registration, right to claim a refund for housing, sued over time".
Tongzhou District Court of first instance considered, in violation of laws, administrative rules and mandatory provisions of the contract is null and void. E Lee Yuk LAN are residents, members of the rural collective economic organizations may not be sold in accordance with housing. Judgment our contract invalid, limitation by contract is void ab initio, e Lee Yuk LAN to make room for housing back, Ma Haitao Li Yulan reimbursement of payment of 93,808 dollars.
In December of the same year, the second intermediate people's Court of Final Appeal upheld upheld.
(Original title: property sale and purchase agreement was found valid)
卖房人以“小产权房禁售”为由诉买房人协议无效；法院认为相关法规未出台，协议为双方真实意思表示
小产权房买卖协议被认定有效
新京报讯 (记者张玉学)3年前，阴女士将一套小产权房出售。今年10月，她以“小产权房不能买卖”为由，起诉买房人，请求法院判令双方合同无效。
买房者称，阴女士因房价飙升起诉要求“毁约”。
近日，门头沟法院一审判决，双方房屋买卖协议有效。阴女士提出上诉。
卖房者
合同违反国家有关规定
阴女士称，2010年1月，她与某单位科员朱先生签订了《房屋买卖协议》，将自己在门头沟某村的一套小产权房以45万元出售给朱先生。
阴女士称，签约后，她得知与朱先生的协议违反了国家关于“小产权房禁售”的规定，协议属于无效合同。于是，她就开始找朱先生要求退款、确认合同无效，但对方一直不同意，“让我去起诉”。
诉状中，阴女士请求法院判令她与朱先生的协议无效。
买房者
房价飙升卖房人想毁约
“合同签订之前，我就知道该房屋是小产权房。”庭审中，朱先生说，由于小产权房价格比商品房价格有明显优势，选择购买用于自己使用。他认为阴女士之所以起诉，是因为房价飙升，觉得亏了，萌生毁约的想法。
“签订协议、支付房款后，我与村委会也签署了入住协议，钥匙也给了我，房屋完成了实际交付，其实际使用人就应该是我。”朱先生提出，阴女士的诉讼已经过了2年诉讼时效，法院应予驳回其起诉。
法院
双方未约定产权办理
法院审理认为，本案中，买卖双方签订的《房屋买卖协议》是当事人真实的意思表示，且不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，应为有效合同。加之，双方均明确在买卖诉争房屋时，对于该房屋为小产权房的事实均知情。
近日，法院表示，鉴于我国对小产权房的相关法律规定尚未出台、双方当事人就诉争房屋正式产权手续的办理并无明确约定，法院对于阴女士要求确认合同无效的诉讼请求，不予支持。
“现在这个房子还在我的名下。小产权房是不可以买卖的，我肯定要提起上诉。”宣判后，阴女士表示。
■ 律师说法
合同有效 交易不一定安全
北京隆安律师事务所高级合伙人陈旭认为，虽然合同是买卖双方真实意思的表示，签订合同后双方当事人要按照合同履约，但因为合同的内容涉及明确不能买卖的小产权房，合同是否能继续履行，值得探讨。
陈旭称，近期，国土部、住建委在联合清理排查、叫停小产权房，明确强调小产权房不存在“转正”的可能性，因此购房人的权益一旦被侵犯就很难得到维护。该案的判决，并不意味着小产权房屋交易就安全，购房者选择这样的房屋，仍然是不可取的。
北京兰台律师事务所律师包华表示，即使有合同，小产权房也不能买卖的。
■ 另案
画家购买小产权房被判腾房
2002年7月，画家李玉兰与农民马海涛签订协议，约定以45000元购买位于通州区宋庄镇一处小产权房。
后来，宋庄重新规划园区和道路，很多农家院落面临拆迁，房主会得到巨额拆迁补偿。
2006年12月，马海涛向法院起诉要求确认双方房屋买卖协议无效，李玉兰返还房屋。
李玉兰辩称，双方协议合法有效，且“马海涛是居民户口，无权要求退还房屋，起诉超过了时效”。
通州法院一审认为，违反法律、行政法规强制性规定的合同无效。李玉兰是居民，依法不得买卖农村集体经济组织成员住房。故判决双方合同无效，诉讼时效因合同无效属自始无效，李玉兰应腾退房屋，马海涛给付李玉兰补偿款93808元。
同年12月，二中院终审维持了原判。
(原标题：小产权房买卖协议被认定有效)
赞