Parents sued their son for returning to the property. Nowadays, many young people can't afford to buy their own houses because of the rising house prices, so they will ask their parents for help, but there will also be some contradictions that lead parents to sue their sons for returning to the real estate. Let's have a look.

Parents sued their son for the return of the property. 1 If the property transferred by parents to their children is sold, the property right of the house will be transferred with the property certificate in the name of the children, which belongs to the property legally owned by the children, and parents cannot recover the property right of the house. If the child does not pay the house payment, the parents can claim the creditor's rights according to law and ask the child to return the house payment.

If the parents transfer the house to their children by gift, and the children violate the gift agreement or the conditions stipulated by law, the parents may apply for repossession of the house that has been transferred to their children by gift.

The Contract Law stipulates that:

Article 186 The donor may revoke the gift before the right to donate the property is transferred.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply to gift contracts with the nature of social welfare and moral obligation such as disaster relief and poverty alleviation or notarized gift contracts.

Article 192 If the donee is in any of the following circumstances, the donor may revoke the gift:

(a) serious infringement of the donor or the donor's close relatives.

(2) The donor fails to perform the maintenance obligation.

(3) Failing to perform the obligations stipulated in the gift contract.

The donor's right of revocation shall be exercised within one year from the date when he knows or should know the reason for revocation.

Article 193 If the donor dies or loses his capacity for civil conduct due to the donee's illegal act, the donor's successor or legal representative may revoke the gift. The right of revocation of the donor's heir or legal representative shall be exercised within six months from the date when he knows or should know the reason for revocation.

Article 194 Where the revocation right holder revokes the gift, he may request the donee to return the donated property.

Article 195 If the donor's financial situation has deteriorated significantly, which has seriously affected his production, operation or family life, he may no longer perform his gift obligation.

"People's Republic of China (PRC) Property Law" stipulates that

Article 14 The establishment, alteration, transfer and extinction of the real right of real estate that should be registered according to law shall take effect when it is recorded in the real estate register.

Article 15 Unless otherwise stipulated by law or in the contract, the validity of a contract concluded between the parties on the establishment, alteration, transfer and extinction of the real right of immovable property shall not be affected if the real right is not registered after the establishment of the contract.

Sixteenth real estate registration book is the basis for the ownership and content of real right. The real estate register is managed by the registration agency.

Seventeenth real estate ownership certificate is the proof that the right holder enjoys the real estate right. If the items recorded in the real estate ownership certificate are inconsistent with those recorded in the real estate register, the real estate register shall prevail unless there is evidence to prove that there is an error in the real estate register.

Article 39 The owner shall have the right to possess, use, profit from and dispose of his real estate or chattel according to law.

Article 40 The owner has the right to establish usufructuary right and security right on his real or movable property. When exercising their rights, the usufructuary right holder and the security right holder shall not harm the rights and interests of the owner.

Parents sued their son for returning the property. Parents contribute to the purchase of houses for their married children. Is it a loan or a gift?

Ms. Hong's husband, Mr. Lin, died of illness two years ago. Before his death, because his son and daughter-in-law wanted to buy a self-built house in the village, Mr. Lin paid all the purchase money for his son and daughter-in-law by bank transfer and registered it in his son's name. Now nearly three years have passed, and the money has never been settled. Ms. Hong believes that this money belongs to her son and daughter-in-law and should be repaid. The son and daughter-in-law think that the house payment is given to them by their parents and should not be repaid. Ms. Hong had no choice but to take her son and daughter-in-law to court.

The court of first instance held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the purchase price was a loan or a gift. During the trial, the plaintiff, Ms. Hong, did not provide evidence that the two parties agreed to borrow money, and the sons and daughters-in-law of the two defendants did not provide corresponding evidence for the fact that they advocated giving money.

The court of first instance held that according to Article 109 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), "if the people's court is convinced that the possibility of the fact to be proved can eliminate reasonable doubt by proving the facts of fraud, coercion and malicious collusion, as well as the facts of oral will or gift, it shall determine that the fact exists", which indicates that the determination of the gift fact is higher than the general fact.

In this case, the evidence provided by the plaintiff can prove the real existence of the money, and the two defendants also recognized it. In the absence of a clear expression of intention by the plaintiff, the two defendants should bear the burden of proof that payment is a gift according to Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases.

In addition, from the perspective of public order and good customs, children should live independently as adults, and parents should be grateful for their care and help, but this kind of care and help is not a legal obligation that parents should bear. Therefore, in the absence of a clear indication from parents that the capital contribution is a gift, it should be considered that the capital contribution is a temporary loan to their children, with the purpose of helping them tide over the economic difficulties, and the children should have the obligation to repay. Therefore, the purchase price in this case should be recognized as a loan, and both defendants have the obligation to repay.

The defendant's son and daughter-in-law refused to accept the appeal. After trial, the court of second instance held that neither party had written evidence to directly prove the nature of the money. Legally speaking, since parents have no obligation to contribute to the purchase of a house for their children, it is no longer the stage for parents to fulfill their support obligations. Parents' behavior of providing housing payment is more of a temporary subsidy. There is no clear repayment time, which does not mean it is a free gift.

Comprehensive analysis of the background and family economic situation of the money, combined with the division of family property and other conditions, in the absence of evidence to prove that the money involved in the house purchase is a gift, the money involved in the house purchase should be recognized as a loan rather than a gift, so as to make a judgment to uphold the original judgment.

Parents sued their son for returning to the property. The mother sued her son for returning two properties.

88-year-old Li's father died of illness, leaving two houses, one big and one small. He didn't make a will before his death. His son Xiao Li wanted to monopolize the big house and didn't want to share the inheritance with his mother and sister. The 83-year-old mother-in-law Chen has repeatedly failed to negotiate with her son and has no choice but to sue for rights protection.

In February this year, the Hongshan District Court held a hearing to hear the case. Xiao Li argued that his father had a family meeting before his death and decided to leave him the big house. This statement was opposed by sister Xiao Li.

A few days ago, the Hongshan District Court ruled that both properties were owned by Chen, and Chen compensated his son and daughter for 400,000 yuan each.

Dad died, leaving a legacy dispute.

Dad Li, who lives in Hongshan District, Wuhan, has been married to his wife Chen for more than half a century, and they have a son and a daughter under their knees. They jointly own two properties, one with an area of about 120 square meters and the other with an area of about 60 square meters.

In 20XX, 88-year-old Li's father died of illness, leaving no will. Chen thinks that he is old, and has repeatedly proposed to his son and daughter that these two properties should be disposed of and divided in his lifetime, so as to avoid the trouble of inheritance for his children in the future.

However, this proposal was rejected by his son Xiao Li. He said that before his father died, the whole family had reached a consensus that the big house should be left to him, so he enjoyed the inheritance right of the big house and the small house was inherited by his sister. There is no need to discuss this matter again.

My mother-in-law said that my palms are full of meat.

After many unsuccessful negotiations with his son, Chen took his son to court and demanded that Li Wei's legacy be handled according to legal procedures.

In mid-February this year, the Hongshan District Court held a hearing to hear the case. In addition to the plaintiff Chen and the defendant Xiao Li, Chen's daughter also appeared in court as a third person.

"When the old man was alive, he reached a family consensus and gave my sister a big house and a small house." He said that his father had held a family meeting before his death to discuss the disposal of two houses and decided to leave him the big house.

This statement was opposed by my sister. She said that her father and mother live in a big house, her brother lives in a small house, and she rents a house outside. After her father died, she took her mother with her in case she was lonely. For her father's inheritance, she should enjoy the same inheritance right as her brother.

Chen looks a little depressed. She said: "It's really humiliating and sad to sit in court with a pair of my children today. I hope that the two houses left by my wife can be solved through legal channels as soon as possible, otherwise the contradiction between brothers and sisters because of the houses is too deep, which will greatly affect the feelings of brothers and sisters. From the bottom of my heart, my palms are full of meat. I hope they both have a good life! "

Mother-in-law gets 66% share of the inheritance.

The court held that according to the law, the property acquired by husband and wife during the marriage relationship belongs to both husband and wife. After the beginning of inheritance, it shall be handled in accordance with legal inheritance; If there is a will, it shall be inherited or bequeathed according to the will; If there is a legacy support agreement, it shall be handled in accordance with the agreement.

In this case, Li's father and Chen owned two properties during their marriage, which belonged to the joint property of husband and wife, so 50% of them should be owned by Chen.

As for Li's father's property, because he didn't make a will, it was handled according to legal inheritance, that is, Chen, his son and his daughter each enjoyed one-third of the inheritance share.

A few days ago, the Hongshan District Court ruled that Chen owns 66% of the ownership of two properties, and the rest is divided equally by his son and daughter. Because her share is obviously higher than that of the defendant and the third party, both houses belong to her. According to the average transaction price of the second-hand house where the property is located last month 1.4 million yuan/square meter, the market value of the two properties totaled more than 2.4 million yuan, and Chen paid 400,000 yuan to his son and daughter respectively.

The judge made three suggestions to avoid inheritance disputes.

In order to compete for the inheritance, it is inevitable that the family will go to court and hurt the family. How to avoid inheritance disputes? The judge of Hongshan District Court gave three suggestions.

First, make a will. The property owner left clear written instructions for his property before his death, which not only facilitated the heirs, but also avoided the waste of social resources caused by litigation.

Second, pre-marital property registration. If both parties to the marriage have pre-marital property, it is easy for the husband and wife to live together for a long time, which leads to the confusion and integration of pre-marital property and post-marital property and is difficult to distinguish. Once this part of the property enters the inheritance procedure, it is easy to cause disputes. Therefore, when the husband and wife, especially the widowed elderly, remarry, they should actively handle the notarization of pre-marital property and clarify their respective property ownership.

Third, sign a marital property agreement to clearly explain the distribution of family property.