Husband transferred property to lover’s name, wife sued, court ruled
Oneself and husband Liu sheng common housing was actually by the husband in order to “pay loan” name, privately transferred to its “lover” Summer under the name of madam liu, wife Liu anger and prosecution, request the court to confirm by the transfer of property is she and Mr Liu jointly all, and by Ms Summer return this set of housing.Recently, the Liuyang People’s Court in Hunan province concluded the case in accordance with the law. The court found that Mr. Liu covered up the fact that he donated the house to Ms. Xia in a disguised way in a legal form, and decided to support all of Ms. Liu’s claims.Neither of the defendants appealed after the first-instance ruling, which has now come into effect, the court said.Liu, 42, a businessman, registered his marriage with his wife in 2006. Liu was the breadwinner while Liu worked at home and had a child with her.However, in 2019, Liu not only found out about her husband’s infidelity, but also learned that a commercial apartment they bought together during their marriage had been transferred to another woman without her knowledge.Later, Mr. Liu admitted his marital infidelity, and to Ms. Liu repentance, but also showed his and “lover” Ms. Xia signed a “break up agreement,” to ensure that the future will no longer have contact with Ms. Xia.As for the reason of transferring the real estate to Ms. Xia, Mr. Liu explained that it was because he borrowed 120,000 yuan from Ms. Xia for turnover and could not repay it when it was due, so he offset the loan with the house.”The house is worth a lot more than 120,000 yuan.”Liu fire emit three zhangs, ask Ms. Xia return property, after negotiations failed many times, will file a complaint against Mr. Liu and Ms. Xia, request the court to confirm Mr. Liu and Ms. Xia signed loan agreement, the sale and purchase contract is invalid, confirmed that the transfer property is she all together with Mr. Liu, and by the summer lady returned to the houses.The court:Disgraceful consideration donative behavior violation, infringement of right of common court, liu said the case involved property is a common property of husband and wife, liu by concealing facts, fictitious debt, rewrite the sale and purchase contract, without its consent, to transfer ownership to the building of “third party”, it is illegal transfer of common property of husband and wife,Seriously damaged their legitimate rights and interests, and against public order and good customs.In the face of Ms. Liu’s appeal, the defendant Mr. Liu admitted that his behavior of borrowing money from Ms. Xia and disposing of the house was his own behavior without Ms. Liu’s consent, but he himself had a 50% share of the house, and Ms. Liu could only get back her half.At the same time, Mr. Liu and Ms. Xia said that the real estate transfer behavior is the performance of the loan with the property to pay the loan after the ordinary loan relationship.”I was also a victim. I didn’t know Mr. Liu already had a family, but he tricked us into getting together, and we broke up later.”Xia said that during their time together, Liu borrowed 120,000 yuan from her and issued an IOU, which could not be repaid when it was due.After discussion, the two sides reached an agreement to use the house to pay the loan, and then dealt with the transfer procedures.Ms. Xia believes that the housing involved is its legitimate property, Ms. Liu has no right to ask for return.Think the court by further investigation, Mr. Liu and Ms. Xia lovers relationship, the two sides of loan amount is larger, but Ms. Xia only submit a copy of an iou, failed to submit bank transfer documents and records and other evidence to confirm, withdrawal and Ms. Xia my income is not stable, it also failed to submit evidence of its lending capacity;The loan time advocated by Mr. Liu and Ms. Xia was earlier than the time when both parties signed the separation agreement. The content of the separation agreement can confirm that there was no creditor’s debt relationship between the two parties before the signing of the separation agreement.The house sale contract was signed after Mr. Liu and Ms. Xia established a lover relationship. The purchase price agreed by both parties was lower than the original purchase price, which was against commercial common sense.Before Mr Liu and Madam xia sign contract of building business, Mr Liu ever had issued accredit power of attorney to the party that sell the building, the requirement registers Madam xia to be property right person, share a building by two people, also can prove both sides does not exist from this with the fact that the room credits debt.In conclusion, the case of available evidence fails to bear out between Mr. Liu and Ms. Xia real borrowing and building business relations, Mr Liu issue ious to Ms. Xia and building business contract, its purpose is to hide in legal form to ms xia liu will be involved in building disguised donative fact, behavior violated, disgraceful consideration of both sides in accordance with the law shall be deemed to be null and void.In addition, during the term of marital relationship, both husband and wife share the ownership of the joint property without any share, and also enjoy equal right to dispose of it. When the husband or wife disposes of the couple’s joint property for reasons other than daily life, they should reach an agreement through consultation, and neither party has the right to dispose of the couple’s joint property alone.Accordingly, the court thinks, of the citizens’ rights to property and other lawful rights and interests are protected by law, any organization or individual may infringe upon the civil subject in civil activities, shall not violate the law, shall not be violated, disgraceful consideration a party without authorization will be common property of husband and wife’s behavior of “third party” shall be deemed null and void and all hence judgment involved in real estate department liu and liu all together,Ms. Xia should return the house after the ruling takes effect.Neither party appealed the verdict, which has now come into effect.