The following is a sample essay on property disputes that I collected and sorted out for all my classmates, hoping to help you with your study and writing!
civil appeal 1
Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Jia Mingzhi, born on XX, XXXX, Han nationality, resident of XXXX, Beijing, living in XXXX.
Tel: XXXX
Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): Beijing Vanke Property Service Co., Ltd., living in Beijing Vanke City Garden in Zone B of Tianzhu Industrial Development Zone, Shunyi District, Beijing.
legal representative: Xie Wei, general manager.
Tel: XXXX
In the case of the property service dispute between the appellant and the appellee, I hereby appeal to your court because the appellant refuses to accept the Civil Judgment (2111) Shunminchuzi No.3223 (hereinafter referred to as the first-instance judgment) of Shunyi District People's Court of Beijing.
Appeal request:
1. Revoke the judgment of first instance;
2. remand the case for retrial or revise the judgment according to law, and reject the appellee's prosecution or all the claims put forward by the appellee in the first instance.
Facts and reasons:
1. The appellee does not have the main qualification to sue the appellant, and his prosecution shall be rejected according to law.
in 2111, the main body of the Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement signed with the appellant was Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd., not the appellee of this case.
the appellee did not provide any evidence to prove that it was the same company as Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd..
Article 61 of the Contract Law stipulates that the parties shall fully perform their obligations as agreed.
the parties shall abide by the principle of good faith and fulfill the obligations of notification, assistance and confidentiality according to the nature, purpose and trading habits of the contract.
There are hundreds of companies in the appellant's community. What is the relationship between Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. and Beijing Vanke Property Services Co., Ltd., the appellant has no obligation to investigate and understand, and Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. or Beijing Vanke Property Services Co., Ltd. has never issued any effective notice to the appellant.
In fact, Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. has long been missing, and its subject qualification cannot be found.
The appellee did not submit the relevant name change documents to the court as evidence, which made it impossible for the appellant to cross-examine such evidence. The court of first instance used the evidence that was not presented in court as the basis for determining the appellee's subject qualification in this case (see lines 2-4 on page 3 of the first-instance judgment), which directly violated the basic principle that "evidence should be presented in court and cross-examined by the parties" as defined in Article 66 of the Civil Procedure Law.
therefore, the appellee in this case does not have the subject qualification to sue the appellant, and his prosecution should be dismissed.
second, to avoid the mistakes in the subject qualification, the appellee sued the appellant for paying the property service fee, of which seven years' fee exceeded the limitation of action, and the appellee had already lost the right to win the lawsuit.
Article 11 of the Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement signed between the Appellant and Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. clearly stipulates the payment time of property management and elevator fees, that is, "the first quarter fee shall be paid within the first month of each quarter".
on March 3, 2111, the appellee sued the appellant for paying the property fee from October 2111 to February 2119, which lasted for nine years.
outside this lawsuit, the appellee never urged the appellant to pay the property fee.
the so-called limitation of action refers to the legal system in which the obligee fails to exercise the right to ask the people's court to protect his civil rights within a certain period of time, that is, the people's court will no longer protect his civil rights if he loses this right.
the property fees and elevator fees claimed by the property management company to the owners are common creditor's rights.
the claim for creditor's rights is based on property interests and is not dominant.
if the obligee is slow to exercise his rights for a long time, the legal relationship will be in an uncertain state, which is not conducive to maintaining the stability of social transaction order. Therefore, the limitation of action applies to the claim for creditor's rights, and the limitation of action is two years.
because the appellee has not claimed the property fee from the appellant for a long time, the legal relationship between the two parties has been in a stable state, and the appellee has no right to claim the property fee from the appellant for the first seven years.
The appellant has clearly put forward the defense of limitation of action in the trial of first instance, but the court of first instance turned a blind eye to it, and rejected the appellant's objection without any explanation and explanation, which has seriously violated the provisions of China's civil law on limitation of action.
third, the judgment of the first instance held that the property management service agreement voluntarily signed by the original defendant did not violate the mandatory provisions of the law and was legal and valid.
This determination seriously violates the facts for the following reasons:
(1) When the Appellant signed the Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement, there was no trading condition of equal negotiation between the Appellant and Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd., and the Appellant signed the agreement not voluntarily, but under compulsion.
at that time, the background was that the developers took advantage of the real dilemma that the majority of owners had no place to live and were eager to take over the house, forcing the majority of owners to sign the unilaterally formulated format text, otherwise they would not handle the house delivery procedures.
the majority of owners have no right to make any amendments to the contract text, only to accept all the conditions set by the other party in the contract.
These so-called "equality" agreements, like the treaty of nanking and the Treaty of Sorrow and Ugliness that imperialism forced old China to sign, are out-and-out "traitorous treaties" for the majority of property owners, with no fairness or justice at all!
(2) From the analysis of the contents of the agreement, the Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement completely restricts the legitimate rights of the owners and evades the obligations that the property company should bear.
for example, article 7 of the agreement clearly stipulates that there is no personal safety and property custody or insurance relationship between Party A (the owner) and its users and the property manager in this property.
it is the duty of any legally existing service company to safeguard the personal and property safety of the owner, but the appellee evaded his own responsibility through this clause.
Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Property Service Disputes clearly stipulates that: in any of the following circumstances, if the owners' committee or owners request to confirm that the contract or relevant clauses of the contract are invalid, the people's court shall support it: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
the realty service contract mentioned in the preceding paragraph includes the prophase realty service contract.
therefore, the Beijing Vanke city garden property management service agreement shall be invalid.
(3) Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement is a preliminary property management agreement, not a permanent agreement.
Paradoxically, the interim agreement was recognized as a permanent agreement by the court of first instance.
The majority of owners buy houses, a necessity for survival, with all their money and heavy debts. After the houses are delivered, they not only have to repay the loans owed by banks, but also become lifelong debt slaves of property companies.
bank loans will eventually be paid off, while the debts of property companies will last forever.
in order to ensure that the appellee's illegal interests can continue, the appellee has repeatedly maliciously obstructed the majority of owners to set up owners' meetings or owners' committees, and refused to provide office space and related materials, resulting in the owners' committees not being able to work normally, and the' legal right' given by law to the owners' committees to select and hire property service companies could not be exercised.
(4) The appellee Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. has not provided any evidence to prove that it has provided any service to the appellant, and has no right to charge the appellant property service fees.
(5) The property fees charged by the appellee have not been publicized according to law, nor have they been used for public utilities in the community.
in October, 2115, Beijing implemented the "Beijing residential property service inspection standard", which clearly stipulated that: if the paid services are carried out by using * * * parts and * * * facilities in residential areas, the relevant owners and owners' meeting must agree with opinions or agreements.
since taking over the residential property, the appellee has never submitted an annual work report to the owners, and has never publicized the basic situation of making profits by using the owners' public parts and facilities.
the appellee did not provide any evidence to prove that "the property management service fee is the fee used by Party B (the appellee) for the daily operation of the garden". In fact, most of this fee was privately absorbed by the appellee.
fourth, the poor quality of the first-instance judgment and unclear jurisprudence are a shame of the judiciary.
(1) The language of the first-instance judgment is out of order and the logic is chaotic.
Page 1 of the first-instance judgment reads: "The plaintiff Vanke Property Company claims that the defendant defaulted on the property service fee from October 2111 to February 31, 2116 ..." On page 3, it becomes "Now Vanke Property Company requires Jia Mingzhi to pay the property service fee (including elevator fee) from May 6, 2111 to February 31, 2119.
"First, the time difference between the description of the first-instance judgment is more than three years, and the starting and ending times are different, which makes the appellant at a loss.
secondly, does the appellee want the property service fee or the elevator fee? The judgment of the first instance has never been made clear.
in the first instance, the appellee only filed a lawsuit for the property service fee, and included the elevator fee in the calculation, which obviously made a logical mistake.
according to article 11 of the original Beijing Vanke city garden property management service agreement, the property service fee and the elevator fee are two parallel expenses.
The appellee himself didn't understand how his claim was constituted, and the court of first instance obviously became confused on this issue.
(2) Article 118 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates four conditions for bringing a civil lawsuit, which cannot be used as a substantive basis for determining the rights and obligations of the parties.
The court of first instance ruled this case on the basis of "Article 118 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (see page 3 of the first-instance judgment), which is ridiculous.
(3) The judgment of first instance overruled the appellant's litigation costs, which was unfair to the appellant.
in the course of litigation, the appellee has given up the litigation request to ask the appellant to pay a penalty of 5,599.19 yuan.
in the case that the appellant is partially defeated, the legal fees payable by both parties should be apportioned in proportion, and the court of first instance decided that all the legal fees should be borne by the appellant, which obviously violated the provisions of Article 29 of the Measures for the Payment of Legal Fees.
To sum up, the judgment of first instance failed to find out the appellee's subject qualification and the background of the appellant's signing the unequal agreement according to law, and the facts were unclear and the law was wrongly applied. This judgment is of poor quality and has a bad social impact, which should be corrected.
The appellant implores the court of second instance to send the case back for retrial according to law, or to revise the sentence on the basis of finding out the facts!
This is to
Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court
Appellant: Jia Mingzhi
Second Oxx year May 29th
Property service dispute case-civil appeal model essay [2]
Abstract: It is wrong for 52 yuan and late payment fee to bear joint and several liabilities. Although the Property Management Regulations stipulate that the owners should pay the property on time, However, it is also stipulated in Article 35 that the owners' committee shall conclude a written property service contract with the property management enterprise selected by the owners' congress. The property service contract shall cover property management matters, service quality, ... < P > (The following is the legal article provided by for your reference, I hope I can solve your related questions. I sincerely provide you with legal consulting services on economic disputes, criminal defense, corporate legal affairs, real estate disputes, intellectual property rights, marriage and family, etc. Hotline: 15921191258,13128816116, landline: 1755-6136936, QQ: 1813237818)
The ID number is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The ID number is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXX, and now lives in XX Building, XXXXX District, Ganglian Road, Luohu District.
Appellee: Shenzhen XX Property Management Co., Ltd., domiciled in XXXXXXXXX Room, Shenzhen Center, XXX Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, with organization code XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Legal representative: Wu Moumou, Chairman
Defendant in the original trial: Shenzhen xxx Catering Co., Ltd., whose domicile is Room xxxxxxxxxxXXXX,No. XX Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, and whose organization code is XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Defendant in the original trial: Beijing XXX Catering Co., Ltd., whose domicile is in Beijing XX Research Institute, XXX North Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing. Organization code xxxxxxxx
Legal representative: Tang Moumou, chairman of the board
Cause of action: property service contract dispute
The appellant refused to accept the civil judgment of Shenzhen Futian District People's Court (2118) Shenfu Famin San Chu ZiNo. xxxx, and appealed to your hospital.
Appeal request:
I.
2. Revise the judgment of this case according to law, that is, reject the appellee's claim that the appellant should bear joint liability;
III. The legal costs of this case shall be borne by the appellee.
Facts and reasons:
1. The original judgment found that the facts were unclear and the applicable law was improper, and it should be revoked.
(1) Paying the property management fees according to the requirements of the property management company is not the legal obligation of the owner, but based on the contract. It's a contractual obligation.
It's wrong for the court of first instance to decide that the appellant should be jointly and severally liable for the property management fee and the ontology maintenance fund of RMB * * * 226,155.52 and the late payment fee for the disputed property from June 2118 to September 2118 on the grounds that the property management regulations stipulate that the owner should pay the property service fee on time. But at the same time, it is stipulated in Article 35 that the owners' committee shall conclude a written property service contract with the property management enterprise selected by the owners' congress. The property service contract shall cover property management matters, service quality and service.