The Haidian Court, after trial, held that Mr. Shen and Ms. You did not provide a written contract with Aunt Lü for the purchase of the house in her name, nor did they provide other evidence sufficient to prove the existence of an oral agreement for purchasing the house in her name. The evidence submitted by Mr. Shen and Ms. You was also insufficient to determine from aspects such as the payment of the down payment, loan repayment, and use of the house that a contract for purchasing the house in someone else's name had been formed between them and Aunt Lü. The court ruled to dismiss all of the litigation claims of Mr. Shen and Ms. You.
Brief introduction to the case
The plaintiffs, Mr. Shen and Ms. You, claimed that they were husband and wife, and that Mr. Shen was the son of Aunt Lu. In 2017, the second plaintiff reached a verbal borrowing contract with Aunt Lu to buy a house, and signed a pre-sale contract for commercial housing with a real estate development company in the name of Aunt Lu, with a total price of 1.03 million yuan. The down payment of 380,000 yuan was paid by the second plaintiff, and the remaining loan of 650,000 yuan was paid in the form of a relay loan by Mr. Shen and Aunt Lu, and the monthly loan was borne by the second plaintiff. The house involved in the case was handed over and the real estate certificate was applied for in 2020, and the subsequent related expenses such as the difference in the area of the house, deed tax, and the special residential maintenance fund were paid by the second plaintiff, and they have been occupied, used, decorated and rented. The pre-sale contract of commercial housing, various bills, real estate certificates and other procedures are in the hands of the second plaintiff. In 2024, Aunt Lu asked to move into the house involved in the case, refused to return the money related to the purchase of the house, and refused to communicate further with the second plaintiff. The defendant Aunt Lu argued that she did not approve of borrowing a name to buy a house. A written contract should be signed to buy a house in a borrowed name, and a valid borrowed house relationship cannot be determined based solely on payment records, delivery and use. The defendant did not recognize the other party to pay the down payment, most of the loans and decoration money, etc., and the defendant paid the full down payment. Mr. Shen and his sisters both paid money to the defendant's bank card to help repay the loan, and part of the money Mr. Shen made was also given to him privately by his sisters. The house area difference, deed tax, and maintenance fund were paid by Mr. Shen, but in fact it was the money given by the defendant. Even if Mr. Shen paid part of the money himself, it was a manifestation of filial piety. The decoration and furniture payments were paid by the defendant with the developer's liquidated damages for delayed delivery, which was first issued to the defendant's bank account, and then transferred to her card by Ms. You using the defendant's mobile phone.
Court Trial
After trial, the court held that Aunt Lü obtained the qualification to purchase price-restricted commercial housing, signed the purchase contract for the house involved in the case in her own name, and that the house is registered under Aunt Lü's name. Mr. Shen and Ms. You claimed that they had an oral contract with Aunt Lü for buying the house under her name, which Aunt Lü denied; therefore, Mr. Shen and Ms. You should provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, Mr. Shen and Ms. You did not provide evidence that they had consulted or communicated with Aunt Lü about buying the house under her name before purchasing the house. In the post-purchase recordings of conversations with Aunt Lü, there was also no mention of the existence of an oral contract for buying the house in her name.
Mr. Shen and Ms. You claimed that they paid the down payment and repaid the loan. The court held that even if the above claims were true, they cannot override the public registration effect of the house and are still insufficient to prove that Mr. Shen and Ms. You are the owners of the house or that a purchase under someone else’s name took place with Aunt Lü. Moreover, in a conversation recording between Aunt Lü and Mr. Shen, Aunt Lü stated that she paid a down payment of 300,000 yuan, while Mr. Shen claimed that both he and Aunt Lü had paid the down payment, confirming that the down payment was not paid solely by Mr. Shen. Before the dispute between the parties in 2024, Mr. Shen had transferred an amount equivalent to the loan repayment to Aunt Lü's bank account before the repayment date, and Aunt Lü also transferred money to Mr. Shen and Ms. You. Therefore, it cannot be proven that the loan was solely borne by Mr. Shen.
As for the period when Mr. Shen and Ms. You used or rented the house, during which they paid for property management, water, electricity, and carried out renovations, these are considered normal payments and renovation activities during house occupancy, and cannot be used to recognize a relationship of buying the house under someone else's name with Aunt Lü.
In summary, Mr. Shen and Ms. You did not provide a written contract for buying the house under Aunt Lü’s name, nor did they provide other evidence sufficient to prove the existence of an oral contract for buying the house in her name. The evidence submitted is also insufficient to determine a contract relationship for buying the house under someone else’s name with Aunt Lü based on down payment, loan repayment, or use of the house. Therefore, the court does not support the lawsuit claims of Mr. Shen and Ms. You.
After the verdict, neither party filed an appeal, and the judgment is now effective.
Legal Explanation by the Judge
Article 469 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates: When parties enter into a contract, they may do so in written form, oral form, or other forms; Article 470 stipulates: The content of the contract is agreed upon by the parties and generally includes the following clauses: (1) the names and addresses of the parties; (2) the subject matter; (3) quantity; (4) quality; (5) price or remuneration; (6) performance period, location, and method; (7) liability for breach of contract; (8) methods for resolving disputes. In judicial practice, the content and validity of oral contracts are usually difficult to prove. If the other party does not acknowledge the existence of an oral contract, the party asserting the existence of the contract bears the burden of proof and needs to demonstrate to the court that a contractual relationship exists as well as the specific content of the contract, and should form as complete an evidence chain as possible, including but not limited to: 1) evidence of communication between the parties regarding the contract, such as audio or video recordings, WeChat chat records, text message records, or email correspondence; 2) evidence of actual performance of the contract, such as bank transfer records, receipts, or records of the delivery or transfer of the transaction subject matter; 3) testimony from third-party witnesses who have no stake in the matter. In this case, since the house purchase contract was signed by Aunt Lü herself and the house is also registered in her name, if Mr. Shen or Ms. You claim that there was an oral contract with Aunt Lü for purchasing the house under her name, they would bear the evidentiary burden for the outcome. Considering that, in real life, it is relatively common for children or parents to fund the purchase of a house for one another, Mr. Shen and Ms. You cannot, based solely on proof of payment of the house funds and related expenses, possession of the property title, and actual control and management of the house, automatically prove the establishment of an alleged loaned-name house purchase contract. Furthermore, Article 153 of the Civil Code stipulates that civil legal acts that violate mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations are invalid, and civil legal acts that violate public order and good morals are invalid. Therefore, even if the parties can provide evidence proving the genuine existence of a loaned-name house purchase contract, if the related loaned-name action was conducted to evade the state's purchase restriction policy or involved purchasing subsidized housing intended for specific individuals, the loaned-name contract may be deemed invalid. In conclusion, the act of purchasing a house under someone else's name carries considerable legal risk. If the person under whose name the property is registered refuses to handle the title transfer, disposes of the property without authorization, or if the court declares the loaned-name act invalid, it may ultimately result in the loaned-name party losing both the house and the money. Therefore, for such house purchases, which involve substantial amounts, long-term performance periods, and require a high level of trust between parties, the court advises that all parties should, to minimize transaction risks, clarify their respective rights and obligations through written contracts whenever possible; even if special circumstances make it difficult to fully record transaction terms in formal documents, efforts should be made to preserve evidence of key communication points and the flow of large amounts of funds, so that the relevant facts can be reconstructed during trial.