Low-income groups’ right of residence is guaranteed in accordance with the law

2022-05-10 0 By

In recent years, with the rapid development of economy and society, people’s living standards have been improved, but there are still some divorced women, lonely elderly and other groups of housing needs can not be satisfied, how to settle down has become a practical problem these groups are facing.The civil Code defines the right of habitation as a legal usufructuary right, which provides a solid legal guarantee for the realization of low-income groups’ “housing” and “old-age shelter”.The rule of law journal reporter comb hainan court since 2021, three typical cases involved residency dispute, fully explain the actively promote socialist core values in our country, in accordance with the law, safeguard the basic housing needs of the masses, dissolve the marriage family conflicts effectively, let the masses “home ownership”, realize the political effect, the unity of legal effect and social effect.After divorce, a woman in Haikou moved back to her parents’ home because she had no place to live.However, the woman was sued by her mother and brother to move out of the house.Haikou Intermediate People’s Court recently upheld the original verdict and rejected the lawsuit filed by his mother and brother.Liu mou and Zhou mou are husband and wife, two people have a son Zhou mou a after marriage, daughter Zhou Mou b.In 1982, Liu and Zhou jointly built a house in a district of Haikou City, where their daughter Zhou b has been living since she was born.On March 24, 2008, Zhou Mou b divorced with her ex-husband. The house before the divorce belonged to her ex-husband. Zhou Mou B applied for a low-rent house in a community in Haikou.After zhou mou b has no income, no money to pay rent, after divorce has been living on the second floor of the house involved, and during the illness of his father Zhou Mou care.Zhou, who passed away in 2012, told her she could live on the second floor of her house if she didn’t have a place to live.In 2017, Liu and Zhou b in the notary office to give up the inheritance of Zhou’s heritage notarization.On April 3, 2018, the case involved housing real estate owners change to Liu and Zhou a.Liu, Zhou a that zhou b’s living behavior encroachment on their ownership and use of the house, so to the Qiongshan District Court of Haikou city filed a lawsuit, requesting zhou b to stop encroachment and immediately moved from Liu, Zhou a jointly owned real estate.During the trial, Zhou provided a recording of him and Liu, in which Zhou asked: “Does my father admit that the case involved the second floor of the house to us?”Yoo replied, I told you that if you don t have a place to live, I ll give you the second floor.At the same time, Zhou a also recognized his father’s deathbed had dictated, Zhou b no room to live, can live on the second floor of the house involved.Qiongshan District court after the trial found that Liu and Zhou a case related to the right of real estate, Zhou b in 2017 to the notary office to give up its share should be inherited.When Zhou b gave up the inheritance, there was a precondition, that is, he should live and use the second floor of the house, but this content was omitted in the notarization.Zhou mou b’s father’s last words should be regarded as an oral will.And Zhou mou b from birth, marriage to divorce has been living in the house involved, when his father was seriously ill also did the main care obligations.Although Zhou mou b applied for a low-rent house, he failed to live because he could not afford the rent.In summary, qiongshan court found that Although Zhou Mou b gave up the right of inheritance of the house involved in the case, but should enjoy the second floor of the house involved in the case.Liu mou and Zhou mou a to its enjoy the real right to ask Zhou Mou b to move away, do not support, according to law, the judgment rejected Liu Mou and Zhou Mou a lawsuit request.After the first instance of sentencing, Liu, Zhou a to the Middle court of Haikou appeal.The facts found out by the second instance court are consistent with the first instance, liu mou, Zhou Mou a’s appeal request can not be established.Accordingly, Haikou Intermediate People’s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.The former husband’s house and the former wife’s residence should be protected even though they are not registered.The First Intermediate People’s Court of Hainan province recently concluded the first dispute case involving the right of residence in Hainan province since the implementation of the Civil Code.Chen (70) and Fu divorced in 1990 after having five children together.In 1991, Fu and Chen (his current wife) got married. After marriage, they jointly funded the construction of a building in a town of Wenchang City. The owner of the building was registered as Fu.Chen mou and Fu so-and-so after divorce so far do not belong to their own house, since 2005 has been living in the name of Fu so-and-so building on the fifth floor.Fu mou a, fu mou b department Chen mou and fu xx’s daughter, two people and Chen mou live together.In January 2020, Fu and Chen filed a lawsuit to the court on the grounds that Chen had no right to live in the house, requesting the exclusion of the nuisance, that is, requiring the three people to move out of the house immediately.The first-instance court confirmed after trial that the house involved in the case was the joint property of Fu xx and Chen after marriage. Chen XX, Fu XX and Fu XX neither have the right of ownership nor set up the right of habitation for the house involved in the case. Therefore, the court ordered Chen XX, Fu XX and Fu XX to move out of the house involved in the case.After the verdict of the first instance, Chen, Fu a, Fu B appealed to the First Intermediate People’s Court of Hainan Province.The judge made a special drive to the location of the house involved in the case to check the scene and ask the specific situation of the parties to further grasp the relevant facts.As the case was a family dispute, the presiding judge did a lot of mediation work, but failed to reach a settlement agreement.Subsequently, hainan a court hearing that Chen mou began in 2005 involved in housing, fu mou a, Fu MOU B also subsequently moved in, the situation has lasted for 15 years.Chen mou, Fu MOU A and FU MOU B have formed a relatively fixed living place in the related house, which proves that Fu XX and Chen agreed to the housing related to the 3 people living case during this period.This case happened before the promulgation of the Civil Code, at that time, China had not established the residence right system, and it was objectively impossible to register the residence right.Fu xx and Chen have not raised any objection to the fact that Chen mou lives in the house, and have performed the contractual obligation of delivering the house involved in the case to Chen Mou to live in, and the behavior of Chen mou and other 3 people to move in is regarded as acceptance.The fact that Chen is Fu x’s ex-wife is consistent with the contractual characteristics of marriage, relatives and other identity relations. Therefore, it is regarded that Fu X, Chen and Chen have reached an oral residence right contract, and it should be considered that the residence right is not registered, but should also be protected by law.In addition, Chen is more than 70 years old, Fu A and Fu B as daughters, living together is convenient to take care of Chen’s life, so Fu A and Fu B should also have the right to live in the house involved in the case, Fu so-and-so should help his ex-wife and children.Accordingly, Hainan No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court changed its judgment on fu and Chen’s request for Chen, Fu A and Fu B to move out of the house involved in the case.In April 2021, the court of Ding ‘an County in Hainan province accepted a case of inheritance dispute, in which a grandson sued his 80-year-old grandmother for her cooperation in handling the formalities of house and land transfer.The court found out that the defendant fu Mou Ying in more than 50 years old and the plaintiff Wang Mou Hua’s grandfather became a husband and wife, since then, the two sides of the original defendant lived together for more than 20 years, although there is no blood relationship between grandparents and grandchildren, but the feelings of harmony.After the death of Wang mou Hua’s grandfather, Wang Mou Hua and Fu Mou Ying signed the inheritance division agreement.After worrying about his future residence, fu Mou Ying has not cooperated with Wang Mou Hua to perform the inheritance division agreement, both sides from this involved in litigation.After receiving the complaint, the presiding judge sent it by mail because he had not contacted Fu mou Ying.Although the mailing list shows that it has been received, in order to ensure that Fu mou Ying, who is over 80 years old, successfully received the copy of the statement of complaint and evidence materials and other documents, the handling judge, judge assistant, clerk and other staff visited to confirm the situation for many times, but fu Mou Ying was not found.After many inquiries from neighbors, we learned that Fu mou Ying is not at home most of the weekdays, only 4 or 5 PM at home more likely.When the court staff came to the door for the seventh time to find fu Mou Ying, when facing its service documents, and patiently explain the meaning of the documents.After communication, Fu mou Ying said he was not reluctant to transfer the ownership of the house, but worried that wang Mou Hua will sell the house, he had no fixed abode.After handling the judge to understand the situation, that the case is not complex, both sides of the contradiction is not irreconcilable, to let the elderly put down heart with transfer, must solve the problem of residence right.In order to let the operator a British time implementation, abetted, also in order to better carry out mediation work, undertake the judge to ding an real estate right registration center, ding an letter to housing and property services center, business enquiry for residency is belong to the unit, how to deal with, but the two units are reply says it has not been dealt with residency business license.On the day of the trial, Fu, who was “lost” again after being served, came to the court on time. Considering fu’s old age and mobility difficulties, the presiding judge decided to mediate first, but the mediation failed.In the trial, after undertaking the judge for many interpretation of the resolution, Wang Mou Hua said willing to mediate, also committed to housing by a British live.After the trial, the handling judge will report the case to the court’s women’s committee, said that he would like to find Fu Mou Ying to do mediation work.On June 11, 2021, the judge came to Fu mou Ying’s home again, and let the original and the defendant open their hearts and draw closer to each other.After the judge patient persuasion, Wang Mou Hua promised in fu Mou Ying lifetime, do not sell, do not rent the house, even if it is to meet the demolition expropriation, will pay fu Mou Ying rent to live.Fu mou Ying finally put down the psychological burden, agreed to cooperate with the plaintiff transfer, the case has been successfully resolved.Relevant Provisions of the Civil Code Article 366 A person with the right of residence shall, in accordance with the contract, enjoy the usufructuary right of possession or use of another person’s residence to meet the needs of living and living.Article 367 In establishing the right of habitation, the parties shall conclude a contract for the right of habitation in writing.(1) the name and domicile of the parties;(2) the location of the residence;(3) living conditions and requirements;(4) the duration of the right of residence;(5) Methods of dispute settlement.Article 368 Establishment of residence right without compensation, except otherwise agreed by the parties.Whoever establishes the right of residence shall apply to the registration organ for registration of the right of residence.The right of residence shall be established at the time of registration.Article 369 Right of habitation may not be transferred or inherited.A house with the right of habitation shall not be rented, except as otherwise agreed by the parties concerned.Article 371 Where the right of residence is established by will, the relevant provisions of this Chapter shall be applied with reference.Khufu review established residency in the civil law system in our country, in order to better meet the masses of the people “home ownership” of the most basic requirements of the people’s livelihood, embodies the party and the country about we will accelerate the establishment of a multi-agent supply, the requirement of the system of affordable housing through various channels, also reflects our country “by the people as the center” in the process of legislation value orientation.With the continuous development of China’s economy and society, people’s living conditions have been constantly improved, but there are still some low-income groups, especially the elderly, the disabled and other people who have lost the ability to work because of illness can not buy, rent and other ways to get their own housing.As a new usufructuary right, the right of habitation has laid a solid foundation to meet the needs of these groups for housing.The act of law is not enough.To that stipulated in the civil code of the content of the right to life, become a safeguard people living needs talisman, also need to people’s courts at various levels accurately apply the civil code in the relevant cases, incorporated in the referee, the residency requirements in a timely manner to protect people’s rights and interests of the people’s livelihood, let the people in each of the perception of fairness and justice, judicial casesThe warmth and goodwill of justice.At the same time, relevant departments should further carry out publicity activities of the Civil Code based on cases, so that the provisions of the civil Code, including the right to residence, will be more deeply rooted in people’s hearts, so that people’s sense of security and happiness will be more guaranteed, and the society will be more harmonious and stable.Sources: Rule of Law Daily, Justice Network