Study On The Legal Issues Of Buying A House In The Name Of Others

In recent years,the rapid development of the economy has promoted the prosperity and development of the real estate market.In order to control housing prices and prevent the real estate market from heating up too fast,the state has introduced a series of purchase restriction policies designed to control people’s desire to buy houses effectively,and help the real estate market order return to stability gradually,each region will consider whether to adopt relevant policies in accordance with local actual conditions.Meanwhile,the state pays more and more attention to social welfare and the groups with low income and housing difficulties,solves housing difficulties for them,and promotes policies of guaranteed housing.In this context,some people are driven by interests or other various factors,resulting in endless phenomenon of borrowing other’s name to buy a house.Buying a house in the name of another person means that the person who borrows the name agrees with the person who lends the name,buys the house in the name of the person who lends the name,and registers it under the name,according to the agreement,the actual owner of the house is the person who borrows the name.The validity of the contract for buying a house in the name of others is quite controversial in the academic circles,and there are different opinions about who should own the property right of the house.The theoretical significance of studying the issue of buying a house in the name of another person is analyzing and comparing the effectiveness of different types of contracts theoretically,and judging the ownership of the house on the premise of determining the effectiveness.Currently,under the circumstances that our country’s laws do not regulate the purchase of houses in the name of others explicitly,we can do our best to weigh the interests of all parties,reach fair and just results,avoid the phenomenon of different judgments in similar cases,and be able to make a beneficial effect on judicial practice.These are the implications of this study.The content of this article is mainly divided into four parts:The first part of the thesis aims to ask questions.Firstly,three groups of cases are introduced and each group of cases contains two similar cases with different decisions.The two cases are compared and analyzed.Meanwhile,the trial situation in the past five years is analyzed,and the key elements of the trial of the case of buying a house in other’s name are summarized through the retrieval of cases and statistical data.The first is whether there is a real agreement between the person who borrows the name and the person who lends the name.The second is whether the person who borrowed the name paid the entire amount of the house actually,including the loan.Other factors,such as the need to borrow names,who owns the property ownership certificate,and the actual use of the house,can be used as reference elements to provide space for judges’ value judgments.In addition,the main reasons for the existence of different judgments in such cases are:different courts attach different degrees of policy,different standards of evidence in similar cases,and individual cases may ignore fairness and justice.The second part of the thesis is the definition of the relationship of buying a house in the name of others.First of all,the main reasons for buying a house in the name of another person are analyzed,and then summarized:a complete contract to buy a house in the name of another person is a composite contract,involving three subjects and two consents.It consists of the agreement between the person who borrows the name and the person who lends the name,and the agreement between the person who lends the name and the seller.The former is internal and motivation,the latter is external form and carrier.A contract to buy a house in the name of another person is valid if the two agreements are both valid.The third part of the thesis explores the effectiveness of the contract to buy a house in the name of another person.It is pointed out that there are two different attitudes in the academic field:"effectiveness theory" and "invalidity theory".The former believes that China has not explicitly denied the validity of such contracts and should respect and protect the true meaning of the parties fully.The latter believes it’s a kind of deceptive,false,and dishonest behavior,and should not be recognized.The author’s opinion is that it cannot be generalized,and the problem should not be viewed from a single perspective.First of all,conduct a typed analysis of the behavior,and then analyze the effectiveness of the contract in accordance with the relevant provisions of the General Principles of the Civil Law.After analysis,there are no illegal,false,malicious collusion,or damage to the national interests of such contracts that circumvent the"purchase restriction order."In terms of whether the public interests are harmed,it’s necessary to measure whether the private interests sought by the agreement exceed the boundaries of public interests.The motivation of the agreement can be used as a value judgment factor against the public interest.Agreements for purchasing affordable housing should be invalid due to damage to the public interest,resulting in invalid contracts,but there are a large number of cases in which invalid contracts are converted into valid "waiting periods",making such contracts not invalid absolutely.The fourth part of the thesis is the ownership of housing property rights in the case of buying a house in the name of another person.First of all,the disputes on the validity of the attribution agreement in academic circles are firstly divided into"theory of real right" and "theory of debt".The former focuses on protecting actual rights holders who borrow names,and the latter focuses on protecting legal presumed rights holders who lend names.The writer believes that it should be discussed separately and used comprehensively.Under the premise of a valid contract,if a third party is not involved,it tends to "theory of real right" to maintain internal stability;if a third party is involved,it tends to" theory of debt" to protect the transactions between the third party and the person who lends the name,but the third party must be in good faith.When the contract is invalid,the house should not be simply awarded to the person who lends the name,because he is suspected of dishonesty,which may result in injustice to the borrower.At this time,it is more appropriate to return the house to the seller,restore it to its original state,or recover the house by relevant government departments based on invalidity.