Point of view | Is the unauthorized disposition of the joint property of the husband and wife valid? Is it invalid? Or is the effect "to be determined"?

What are the legal consequences of the unauthorized disposition of the couple's common property by one of the spouses? To answer this question, it is necessary to clarify the form of community of the couple's common property, to distinguish the purpose of the disposition of the couple's common property, and not to ignore the way of disposing of the couple's common property. The author lists the following three cases to be compared and analyzed.

A man and a woman are husband and wife and registered for marriage in 2010. Female C is the ex-wife of male A, and the two have a son, male Ding, who is raised by female C. After A man and B woman got married, A man learned that his ex-wife C and C were living in financial difficulties. Ding Nan immediately graduated from university and faced employment and marriage. A man out of care for the life of his son Ding Nan, June 1, 2020 through their own bank account to C woman transferred 500000 yuan, for C woman for the son Ding Nan to buy commercial housing paid down payment, commercial housing registered in the name of C woman, Ding Nan. In May 2021, A- man died of illness, and while dealing with A- man's belongings, B- woman found the remittance recorded in A- man's passbook and wanted to sue C- woman and D-man in court, demanding a joint return of the 500000 yuan. Can the B- daughter's claim be supported by the court?

First, the husband and wife have not agreed that the joint property of the husband and wife shall be shared by the husband and wife, except in the case of legal division, neither husband and wife shall claim half of the right to dispose of the joint property.

According to the Marriage Law, the Supreme People's Court on the application<中华人民共和国民法典>Several provisions of the effect of time, the joint property of husband and wife is based on the provisions of the law, due to the existence of the relationship between husband and wife. In cases where the spouses do not choose another property system, the spouses share the common property in common, rather than in shares. According to the general principle of common ownership, during the existence of the marriage relationship, the common property of the husband and wife shall be regarded as an indivisible whole, and the husband and wife shall have joint ownership of all the common property without any share, and the parties cannot divide their personal share of the common property. The equal right of husband and wife to dispose of the common property does not mean that each husband and wife has a half share of the common property. Only at the end of the common relationship can the common property be divided and their respective shares determined.

Second, both spouses have the right to dispose of common property on an equal footing, but care should be taken to distinguish between "daily needs" situations.

During the existence of the marriage relationship, both husband and wife have equal rights to the common property. If the common property is disposed of due to the needs of daily life, either party has the right to make a decision. If an important decision is not made on the common property of the husband and wife due to the needs of daily life, the husband and wife Both parties shall negotiate on an equal footing and reach a consensus.

To sum up:In this case, male student A remitted 500000 yuan from his bank account to female C without authorization. The money was used to purchase a house for male Ding. It was obviously not due to the daily needs of male and female A that the common property was given to others free of charge, which seriously damaged the property rights and interests of female B. It violated the principle of fairness in the civil law. Such donation should be invalid.

Ms. He and Mr. Huang registered their marriage in 2019 and gave birth to a daughter after marriage. Ms. He took care of her family and daughter at home after marriage. Mr. Huang is working hard to start a business for his family and runs a trading company. The good thing is not long. In September 2021, Ms. He learned that Mr. Huang had maintained an improper relationship with the female employees of his company for a long time, and the female employees also gave birth to a daughter for Mr. Huang. Mr. Huang concealed Ms. He and remitted 300000 yuan to female employees on April 1, 2021. For this reason, Ms. He wants to sue the female employee and Mr. Huang, demanding confirmation that the gift is invalid and claiming that the female employee should return the grant of 300000 yuan. Can Ms. He's claim be supported by the court?

First, the husband and wife have not agreed that the joint property of the husband and wife shall be shared by the husband and wife, except in the case of legal division, neither husband and wife shall claim half of the right to dispose of the joint property. Both spouses have equal rights to dispose of common property, but care should be taken to distinguish between "daily necessities. The reason is the same as before and will not be repeated.

Second, civil subjects engaged in civil activities shall not violate public order and good customs.

According to the "Civil Code", families should establish a good family style and promote family virtues. Husband and wife should be faithful to each other, respect each other, and care for each other. Civil subjects engaged in civil activities shall not violate the law, public order and good customs.

To sum up:In this case, during the existence of the relationship between Mr. Huang and Ms. he, Mr. he maintained an improper relationship with a female employee for a long time and gave birth to an illegitimate daughter. Mr. he's behavior was contrary to public order, good customs and social morality. Mr. Huang's donation behavior based on the relationship between men and women that is not protected by law has seriously damaged Ms. He's legitimate rights and interests, which is fundamentally contrary to social morality and has no legal effect.

Ms. Li and Mr. Ning registered their marriage in 2006. After marriage, Ms. Li ran the company. After hard work, she achieved success in her career and had certain family savings. Two properties and two luxury private cars were purchased, and the couple registered a property and a private car under their names. Later, due to emotional discord, Mr. Ning filed for divorce from Ms. Li and claimed that the husband and wife's property should be divided by 50%. In response, Ms. Li believed that after marriage, she worked hard to accumulate the husband and wife's property and did not agree to split them in half. Mr. Ning then privately disposed of the real estate and vehicles under his name, transferred the real estate under his name to his sister, and sold the private car under his name to a third person, Mr. Yuan, through a second-hand car dealer. Afterwards, Ms. Li learned that Mr. Ning privately disposed of the husband and wife's property and sued to the court respectively, demanding that Mr. Ning's sister return the property and Mr. Yuan return the vehicle. Can Ms.'s claim be upheld by the court?

First, the husband and wife have not agreed that the joint property of the husband and wife shall be shared by the husband and wife, except in the case of legal division, neither husband and wife shall claim half of the right to dispose of the joint property. Both spouses have equal rights to dispose of common property, but care should be taken to distinguish between "daily necessities. The reason is the same as before and will not be repeated.

Second, when one of the spouses is involved in the unauthorized transfer of the joint property of the husband and wife to a third person other than the husband and wife, the transfer shall be determined on the premise of whether the property transferee constitutes a good faith acquisition. Article 28 of the (I) for the Interpretation of Marriage and Family of the Civil Code stipulates that if one party sells a house jointly owned by the husband and wife without the consent of the other party, the third party buys in good faith, pays a reasonable consideration and has registered the real estate, and the other party claims to recover the house, the people's court will not support it. At the same time, the article also stipulates that if one of the spouses disposes of a jointly owned house without authorization and causes losses to the other party, and the other party requests compensation for losses during divorce, the people's court shall support it.

Whether it is Article 106 of my country's previous "Property Law" and its judicial interpretation, or Article 311 of the "Civil Code" that is now in force, the system of "bona fide acquisition" is clearly set up. Good faith acquisition should be noted that: (a) the transferee must be in good faith. In practice, the standard of good faith is not uniform because of movable or immovable property. The view of the Supreme Court is that (1) there are different opinions on the criteria for the determination of movable property in practice, but the system of good faith transfer lies in the legislative purpose of taking into account the interests of all and the security of the transaction,Whether the transferee has a right to transfer to the transferor., should assume a certain degree of duty of care. Whether the assignee has fulfilled its duty of care should be judged on the basis of the specific circumstances and circumstances of the transaction. For example, the place of movable property transaction is in a public trading place, which should generally be considered as the buyer's duty of care. The assignee is grossly negligent and does not know that the transferor has no right to transfer is considered to be non-bona fide. (2) In the case of immovable property, the reliance of a third party on the registration of the immovable property should be used as a criterion for determining whether it constitutes a bona fide acquisition of the immovable property. (II) bona fide allocation of the burden of proof. To which side the burden of proof is assigned will likely affect the outcome of the referee. According to article 216 of the Civil Code, which expressly recognizes the presumptive effect of the register, in the case of immovable property, the burden of proof should, in principle, be borne by the spouse who denies that the third person is a bona fide person, and if it cannot prove that the acquisition was made in bad faith, the third person should be presumed to be in good faith. (III) the time node of the third person's goodwill state. FromDailyLife shows that real estate transfer registration takes a certain amount of time and cannot be completed in an instant. On the issue of determining the time node of the third party's good faith, the Supreme People's Court held that it was more reasonable to set the time for determining whether the third party was in good faith to be recorded in the register. For the registration of the transfer of special movable property such as vehicles, it is obviously.Transactions at the same timeIt can be done, so there is no need to emphasize the time node of the third party's good faith state.

Third, when one of the spouses is involved in the unauthorized transfer of the joint property of the husband and wife to a third person other than the husband and wife, the transfer shall be transferred at a reasonable consideration to determine whether the transfer is valid.

Reasonable price means that the price of the subject matter is basically equivalent to the value of the object, excluding unreasonable low price or free transfer. Care should be taken to grasp: (a) the premise of good faith acquisition is a paid transaction. Article 18 of the (I) for the Interpretation of Property Rights of the Civil Code of (II) provides for a "reasonable price", which should be determined in accordance with the nature of the subject matter of the transfer, the quantity and the method of payment, taking into account factors such as the market price of the place of transaction at the time of the transfer and the customs of the transaction. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that whether the consideration for the sale of the house is reasonable or not is presumed to be reasonable as long as both parties have completed the transfer registration, but one of the spouses can prove that the consideration is quite different from the price difference of similar houses in the market or that the judge is sufficient to judge the consideration according to the schedule life experience. Under special circumstances, you can also apply to the court for housing valuation to judge whether it is unreasonable. (III) reasonable consideration should have been actually paid. China's good faith acquisition system is both the function of the improper profit system, the Supreme Court view that the so-called consideration refers to the actual payment of the consideration. (IV) the seller and the buyer have registered the ownership of the real estate and the property right has been transferred.

Fourth, when one of the spouses transfers the joint property of the husband and wife to a third person other than the husband and wife without authorization, the validity of the transfer shall be determined by the consent of one of the spouses.

The Supreme Court held that consent within the legal framework is an expression of intent, which is reflected in daily life, when the other spouse agrees to the sale of the property and vehicles jointly owned by the husband and wife, which can be expressed in writing, orally, by telephone or electronic data. In this regard, the assignee of the property and the vehicle can prove it in the litigation. In the case where one of the spouses has not made a clear statement, in accordance with the provisions of Article 140 of the Civil Code, in view of the closeness of the relationship between husband and wife, if the other spouse has not clearly expressed his opinion on the sale of real estate and vehicles, but his behavior has indicated that he has agreed to the sale, he may directly be deemed to have implicitly agreed to the sale.

Fifth, when one of the spouses transfers the joint property of the husband and wife to a third person other than the husband and wife without authorization, whether there is malicious collusion with the third party to determine whether the transfer is valid.

According to the provisions of Article 154 of the Civil Code, the civil legal act of malicious collusion between the perpetrator and the counterpart to damage the legitimate rights and interests of others is invalid. If one of the spouses maliciously colludes with a third party to transfer the property and vehicle for the purpose of concealing, transferring, etc., which seriously damages the interests of the couple's common property, the other spouse has the right to claim that the transfer is invalid.

To sum up:In this case, if Ms. Li claims that the third party should return the house and vehicle sold by Mr. Ning without authorization, she should prove that she did not agree with Mr. Ning to sell the house and vehicle, and her behavior does not show that she agreed to sell the house and vehicle. She should submit the house and vehicle transfer contract to prove whether the consideration is reasonable, and submit the real estate ownership and vehicle registration transfer procedures to prove whether the real right change has occurred, if necessary, apply for an assessment of the value of the house and vehicle to prove that the consideration is unreasonable, and apply to the court to obtain whether the third party has paid the consideration. Thus, the court can comprehensively determine the facts and decide whether the sale of houses and vehicles is invalid and whether the third party returns the houses and vehicles.