Seventy-year-old people who live together with their partners and their sons who have to sell their houses are facing housing deprivation.

category:Society
 Seventy-year-old people who live together with their partners and their sons who have to sell their houses are facing housing deprivation.


Fifteen years ago, Mrs. Wang and Mr. Wu met each other. They got along well with each other. They slowly walked together and began to live together.

In November 2010, Mr. Wus son, Xiao Wu, bought a house in Qiandeng Town, Kunshan. On the day of signing the purchase contract, Mrs. Wang paid a down payment of 214,000 yuan from her bank account by swiping her card. After that, the house was registered under the name of Xiao Wu and repaid by her. Old Mrs. Wang and Mr. Wu have been living here all the time. Xiao Wu has been working and living in Beijing, but they are also at peace with each other.

The change occurred after Mr. Wus cancer. As he was suffering from illness, Mr. Wu chose to end his life. After her fathers death, Xiao Wu was ready to sell the property. Now Mrs. Wang was faced with the problem of no place to live. She took Xiao Wu to Kunshan Court and asked for a refund of 214,000 yuan in down payment and 220,000 yuan in appreciation of the house.

In court, Xiao Wu said that the money advocated by Mrs. Wang was not her personal property. She and her father live together for a long time, which belongs to the cohabitation relationship. The property and income of the two parties during the cohabitation relationship should be determined according to the general co-existence relationship. The down payment for the house purchased is a kind of gift behavior, and the disposition and gift of the property, Mrs. Wang and Mr. Wu are knowledgeable and have no objection. The aforementioned donation has been completed, and now Mrs. Wang has no right to claim withdrawal.

After the courts hearing, it held that there was no objection to the fact that Mrs. Wang paid down with the funds in her account. The nature of the money, Mrs. Wang advocated the joint purchase, but the main body of the actual contract with the developers is Xiaowu, and the property right of the house is registered under Xiaowus name. Mrs. Wang did not submit sufficient evidence to prove her point of view.

Xiao Wu believed that the 214,000 yuan was a gift, but from the process of payment, the old lady Wang and Mr. Wu were still living together at that time, and did not express the gift clearly, nor did Xiao Wu express the intention of accepting it clearly, which did not conform to the legal characteristics of the gift. According to the payment of 214,000 yuan in this case, it is the purchase money paid by the old lady Wang on behalf of Xiaowu, which the court deems as a loan and Xiaowu should return the money to the plaintiff. Regarding the value-added part of the house, Mrs. Wang is not the owner of the house. Her claim to pay the value-added part of the house is not justified. The court does not support it in accordance with the law. Finally, the Kunshan court decided that Xiao Wu should return the money to Mrs. Wang for 214,000 yuan. Source: editor of Yangzi Evening News: Zhou Xinyi, nb12002

Xiao Wu believed that the 214,000 yuan was a gift, but from the process of payment, the old lady Wang and Mr. Wu were still living together at that time, and did not express the gift clearly, nor did Xiao Wu express the intention of accepting it clearly, which did not conform to the legal characteristics of the gift.

According to the payment of 214,000 yuan in this case, it is the purchase money paid by the old lady Wang on behalf of Xiaowu, which the court deems as a loan and Xiaowu should return the money to the plaintiff. Regarding the value-added part of the house, Mrs. Wang is not the owner of the house. Her claim to pay the value-added part of the house is not justified. The court does not support it in accordance with the law.

Finally, the Kunshan court decided that Xiao Wu should return the money to Mrs. Wang for 214,000 yuan.