From a Civil and Commercial Perspective: Analysis of the Ownership Rights and Nature of Contributions from Parents in Supporting Children to Purchase a House
Published:
2024-12-04
父母的出资在子女婚姻幸福时并不重要，但在子女离婚时，出资的性质对父母保护自身权益至关重要。一般情况下，父母出资且登记为权利人的，父母可在离婚诉讼中主张确认财产份额；而父母出资但未登记为权利人，父母可依据民间借贷关系要求返还购房款，法院通常倾向于认定为借贷关系。
The financial contribution of parents is not important when their children are happily married, but when their children are getting divorced, the nature of the contribution is crucial for parents to protect their own rights. Generally, if parents contribute and are registered as rights holders, they can claim confirmation of property shares in divorce litigation; if parents contribute but are not registered as rights holders, they can request the return of the house purchase funds based on private lending relationships, and courts usually tend to recognize it as a lending relationship.
Keywords:Joint contribution, lending, gift
In real life, young children often have limited savings and are unable to buy a house after just starting work, so it is common for parents to assist their children in purchasing a home. If the children can successfully enter the marriage hall and live happily, the nature of the parents' contribution is not important. However, once the young couple faces divorce, the nature of the parents' contribution becomes particularly important if they want to protect their investment. Especially in cases where there is no relevant agreement between the parents and the children, how should the parents' rights and contributions be recognized?
1. Parents contribute and are registered as rights holders
(1) Both parents and their children are registered as rights holders
In this case, parents can file a lawsuit to confirm property shares before the divorce litigation or property disputes after divorce, to avoid their property being unfairly divided in the divorce litigation or subsequent property disputes.
(2) Parents and their own children are both registered as rights holders
In this case, the author tends to believe that the property rights of the house belong jointly to the parents and their own children, and if the other party provides evidence of contribution, appropriate economic compensation should be given to the other party.
2. Parents contribute but are not registered as rights holders
If parents contribute but are not registered as rights holders, how their contribution is recognized in the divorce litigation or property disputes after divorce will be further analyzed based on the specific circumstances of each case.
(1) Since the property rights of the house are not registered in the parents' names, they have no right to claim rights and cannot participate in the divorce litigation or property disputes after divorce.
The parties involved in the divorce litigation or property division litigation are the spouses, so third parties are not allowed to participate in the litigation.
(2) Parents have no right to claim property rights over the house, but under the premise of a private lending relationship, they can file a lawsuit to claim the return of the house purchase funds.
1. After parents, as plaintiffs, provide corresponding transfer vouchers, if the defendant believes that the funds are not a loan, they should provide corresponding evidence for that defense, proving that the loan is not a gift from the plaintiff to the defendant. After the defendant presents evidence for the relevant defense, the burden of proof shifts back to the plaintiff, who should continue to provide evidence for the establishment of the lending relationship. If the plaintiff has proven their contribution at the time of the house purchase by the two defendants, they have fulfilled their burden of proof regarding the claimed lending relationship. If the defendant does not recognize the lending relationship but fails to prove the existence of a gift relationship between the parties, they should bear the legal consequences of not being able to provide evidence. Therefore, in general, the court will recognize the lending relationship between the contributing parents as plaintiffs and the defendants as the couple.
2. For parental contributions, the court tends to recognize them as loans, generally believing that the benefiting defendant bears the main burden of proof for the gift relationship, and must meet the standard of "excluding reasonable doubt." It is believed that parents providing financial assistance to help their children purchase a house is not a legal obligation, but rather a temporary loan for assistance, thus recognizing the parents' contribution as a loan.
3. From the perspective of legal application, in practice, people's courts often base their judgments on the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions on the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases." In some cases, based on Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's provisions, it is believed that parents have proven the relevant facts of their contribution, and if the defendant does not contest or contests insufficiently, it should be recognized as a lending relationship. In other cases, based on Article 16 of the Supreme People's Court's provisions, it is believed that parental contributions are more of a temporary assistance nature, and the evidence provided by parents regarding their contribution with a clear repayment time does not mean it is a gratuitous gift. In the absence of reasonable explanations from the defendant, the defendant should bear the adverse consequences.
(3) This loan is usually recognized as a joint debt of the couple.
The funds were used for the two defendants to purchase a house, which is ultimately registered in the names of the two defendants, and since the debt is used for the daily needs of the family, the loan is considered a joint debt of the couple and should be jointly repaid by the two defendants.
In practice, regarding large expenditures such as purchasing a house, if the intention of a gift is confirmed, the nature of the contribution should be cautiously recognized, and the party claiming the gift should bear the burden of proof.
According to Article 86 of the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation," the proof of the fact of a gift should meet the standard of "excluding reasonable doubt." Therefore, regardless of the extent to which the party claiming the lending relationship provides evidence, the party claiming the gift relationship should fully prove their claim until they meet the legal standard of "excluding reasonable doubt." Otherwise, the parents' contribution is likely to be recognized as a loan.
3. Situations where people's courts recognize parental contributions as gifts
(1) If parents contribute to solve the housing problem needed for their children's marriage life, and neither parent explicitly states before or after the expenditure that the funds are a gift or a loan, and it is believed that the parents are gifting to reduce the burden on their children, with the main purpose being to solve or improve their children's living conditions rather than to reclaim the contribution later. It is usually believed that since the dispute occurs between family members, compared to a gift behavior, a lending relationship is easier to collect and retain evidence, and easier to prove, thus imposing a stricter burden of proof on the plaintiff.
(2) In practice, during divorce litigation, it is common for one party to later write a loan note, and this loan note is written at a sensitive time when the relationship between the two defendants is tense. In the absence of one spouse, the court generally presumes that the loan note is issued in response to the tense relationship between the two defendants. Considering the current state of family relationships in society, it is quite common for parents to contribute to their children's marriage or to improve living conditions by purchasing a house. The main purpose of parental contributions is to solve or improve their children's living conditions rather than to reclaim the contribution later. Based on the familial relationship of the parents, the possibility of a gift is greater than that of a loan, thus recognizing the existence of a gift relationship.
(3) From the perspective of legal application, the Supreme People's Court tends to favor gifts.
Article 29, paragraph 2 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation on the Application of the Marriage and Family Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (I)" stipulates that when parents provide funds for the purchase of a house for both parties after marriage, it shall be handled according to the agreement; if there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear, it shall be handled according to the principles stipulated in Article 1062, paragraph 1, item 4 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. The provision in Article 1062, paragraph 1, item 4 states "the property received as a gift." Therefore, it can be seen from Article 29, paragraph 2 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation on the Application of the Marriage and Family Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (I)" that the Supreme People's Court believes that funds provided by parents for their children's marriage and house purchase generally belong to the nature of a gift.
(4) In terms of the burden of proof, according to Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the principle of "who claims, who proves" should be followed, and the party claiming the loan relationship should bear the burden of proof. Judges from the Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court pointed out that the establishment of a loan relationship should strictly adhere to the principle of "who claims, who proves." In real life, due to the close personal and property relationships between parents and children, even if there is an objective loan behavior, they often do not issue a loan receipt. Even if parents make gifts to their children or their children's spouses, it is often expressed verbally or without clear indication. In this case, the principle of "who claims, who proves" should be strictly enforced. If the parents' evidence regarding the loan is insufficient, it should be recognized that the funding is a gift. Based on the recognition of the gift relationship, there is no legally valid loan, thus it does not involve the issue of joint debts of the couple, and therefore, the couple does not need to return the funds.
4. Conclusion
(1) From the above analysis, it can be seen that whether parents attempt to reclaim funds in the name of a loan through litigation, or couples need to determine the nature of the funds in property disputes to ascertain the nature of the debt and repayment responsibility, these disputes often arise during times of family tension, with each party insisting on their own interests. In this situation, judges need to explore the possibility closest to the objective facts based on the evidence presented by both parties, considering both legal provisions and legal logic, while also taking into account the context of family relationships and social common concepts, to make relatively fair judgments based on a comprehensive consideration of multiple factors.
(2) It is best to assert a loan before the divorce litigation of the children or before property disputes after divorce.
(3) The author reminds everyone to make clear agreements regarding funding before providing funds, to prepare for unforeseen circumstances, and to avoid property loss and trouble in case of future disputes.
Key words:
Related News
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
