Basic case

    In 2022, Feng Mou, Jiang Mou and other 14 owners jointly decided to install an elevator for the unit building, and the owners discussed jointly raising 438,004 yuan (deducting the shared costs) according to different proportions according to the floor, of which Feng Mou contributed 47,786 yuan (deducting the shared costs), accounting for 10.91% of the capital contribution. The owners have not signed a written agreement on the use, distribution and operation management of the elevator subsidy funds involved in the case.

    In 2023, the additional elevator involved in the case will be installed and delivered to use. After that, the third person Li Mou, Wu Mou bought Feng Mou in the community all the houses. The two parties did not sign a written house sale contract, nor did they agree on the funds required for the operation, use, maintenance and management of the elevator in the case. The above houses are now registered under the name of Li Mou and Wu Mou.

    In November 2023, the relevant government departments will be the case involved in the installation of the elevator subsidy of 120000 yuan to be issued, Jiang Mou as the financial staff of the elevator installation committee of the community is responsible for collecting and managing the money, excluding some reasonable expenses, the remaining elevator subsidy of 117294 yuan was not distributed. After that, most of the owners agreed to keep the above money as the cost of elevator maintenance and electricity.

    Feng believes that he invested in installing the elevator before selling the house, and the elevator has been delivered when selling the house, and he has obtained the subsidy is reasonable and legal. Jiang Mou believes that Feng Mou has sold the house involved in the case, and the corresponding amount has been calculated in the cost of the house when selling the house, and the elevator subsidy involved in the case should be enjoyed by the new owner. Li Mou, Wu Mou think that he bought the house according to the price of the elevator room, the house purchase includes the elevator installation fee, the subsidy should be enjoyed by himself.

    Various parties dispute, Feng Mou to the court, requiring Jiang Mou to pay its elevator subsidy 13,092 yuan.

Court trial

    After the trial, the court held that the owners did not sign an agreement on the distribution and use of the elevator subsidy in the process of installing the elevator, and the elevator subsidy in the case is the government's financial subsidy for the owners to raise funds to install the elevator, Feng as one of the owners involved in raising funds to install the elevator, should enjoy the right to share the elevator subsidy. Other owners in the process of installing the elevator did not form the case of the distribution and use of the elevator subsidy plan, without Feng's consent, the case of the elevator subsidy money that Feng should be allocated to remain for other purposes, there is no factual and legal basis, so to Feng put forward Jiang to pay the case of the elevator subsidy request, the court supported.

    Since each investment owner has no agreement on the share of the elevator subsidy, according to the law, the share is determined according to the amount of their respective contribution, so according to the investment proportion of Feng Mou 10.91%, Jiang Mou should pay 12,797 yuan (that is, 117294 yuan ×10.91%) from the elevator subsidy involved in the case to Feng Mou; Feng claims to pay the excess amount, there is no factual basis, the court does not support.

    Li Mou, Wu Mou in the purchase of the case after the house, the case has the right to use the elevator. Since the buyer and seller did not agree on the funds required for the operation, maintenance and management of the elevator involved in the housing sale contract, and did not reach a supplementary agreement afterwards, according to the principle of "who benefits and who contributes", the funds required for the subsequent operation, use, maintenance and management of the elevator should be borne by the new owner Li mou and Wu mou according to a certain proportion of the burden. Therefore, Jiang, Li, Wu put forward the defense opinion that Feng should not enjoy the elevator subsidy in the case, the court did not accept.

    In the end, the court ruled that the defendant Jiang Mou paid 12,797 yuan to the plaintiff Feng mou to install the elevator; Other claims of plaintiff Feng are rejected. After the judgment, all parties served the judgment and the judgment has now come into effect.

Judge's statement

    Installing elevators in old residential areas is a livelihood project to promote urban renewal and ease the travel difficulties of the elderly and the weak, which can improve the living environment of the old residential areas, and is also a good act to significantly improve the quality of life of the people. Many local governments' subsidy policies for the installation of elevators usually include certain financial subsidies to encourage and support residents of old residential areas to install elevators. This case is due to the distribution of elevator subsidies caused by the neighborhood conflict. Therefore, the judge particularly suggested that when the majority of owners signed the agreement to install the elevator, they should clarify the allocation plan of construction funds, the allocation plan of maintenance after the elevator operation and the distribution plan of financial subsidies. At the same time, the neighbors should communicate and negotiate with each other in the principle of harmony and friendliness, and correctly handle the neighborhood relationship.
    This article is transferred from the "Shandong High Law" wechat public number, thank you!