Introduction
Recently, we received a judgment from the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court.
This is a judgment that was changed in the second instance, and the legitimate rights and interests of Grandma Zhang, who is over 90 years old, as a lessee, are finally protected by law!
If public housing is expropriated, how should the compensation benefits from the expropriation be distributed?
The house involved in this case is located in Huangpu District, is a public house, with a living area of 16 square meters, and the tenant is Grandma Zhang. In addition to Grandma Zhang, there are also Grandma Zhang's grandson Xiaowei and son Sun Moumou, who are registered in the household register. Grandma Zhang is over 90 years old, but she is in good health and has a clear mind. The relationship between Grandma Zhang and her grandson Xiaowei and her son Sun is relatively tense, and Grandma Zhang and her grandson Xiaowei also had a lawsuit in the early years.
In April 2021, the house involved in the case was included in the scope of expropriation, and then Grandma Zhang's family signed an expropriation compensation agreement with the relocation team, and obtained a total of 3.75 million yuan in expropriation compensation, of which 1.55 million yuan was used to purchase a set of relocation and resettlement houses, and after applying for resettlement houses, there was still 2.2 million yuan in cash left.
Because the three members of the household could not reach an agreement on the distribution of the expropriation benefits, Xiaowei, as the plaintiff, sued his grandmother Grandma Zhang and his uncle Sun to the court, demanding that the expropriation interests of the household be divided in accordance with the law.
The facts of the case are clear: there is no dispute about the house**, household registration, residence, and welfare subdivision
The basic facts of this case are as follows:
Housing**】The house was exchanged for gold bars by Grandma Zhang's aunt, and the nature of the house was changed to public housing and rented by Grandma Zhang.
Household registration] Grandma Zhang's household registration moved in in the 60s of the 20th century, and then moved out of the household registration around 1991, and then moved back to the house involved in the case in 2013, but Grandma Zhang has always been the tenant of the house involved in the case and has never changed. His grandson, Xiaowei, moved into the house in question in 1991 to study, then moved out for military service, and then moved back in 2000. His son, Sun, moved into the house in 2015 from another address.
Residence] The house has always been lived in by Grandma Zhang from beginning to end, or rented out to the outside world and collected rent. His grandson Xiaowei and son Sun have never lived in it and have never collected rent. There is no objection to the residency of the parties.
Welfare Housing] Xiaowei once allocated a public housing with his mother and family in 1986, when Xiaowei was still a minor. Sun had enjoyed the demolition of public housing in 2011 and was assigned to a complete set of relocation and resettlement housing, and in the 80s of the 20th century, Sun also enjoyed the unit welfare housing, but gave the welfare housing to his ex-wife when he divorced.
Other circumstances] Grandma Zhang has two daughters and a son, the eldest daughter is the mother of her grandson Xiaowei, and the other son is Sun in this case, and Grandma Zhang's life in the past two years has been taken care of by the younger daughter. In 2012, Grandma Zhang sued her grandson Xiaowei for not having the right to live in the house in question, and the court held that Xiaowei had the right to live in accordance with the policy at the time, so the case rejected Grandma Zhang's claim, and the judgment has taken effect. In addition, Sun once accompanied Grandma Zhang to the relocation group to receive 500,000 yuan, which was taken away by Sun.
In the first instance, it was found that Sun was not a cohabitant, but "awarded him a share of 700,000 expropriation benefits on the grounds of considering family affection", which was an error in the judgment
During the trial of this case, the court organized mediation, and we, as Grandma Zhang's lawyer, hoped that this case could be closed as soon as possible because of the fact that Grandma Zhang was old and had been renting a house, and Grandma Zhang would go to the relocation team as soon as possible to receive the resettlement house for decoration and occupancy, so we agreed to make concessions for mediation. The mediation plan is to give 750,000 yuan to his grandson Xiaowei, and Xiaowei also agrees to the mediation planBecause her son Sun had already taken 500,000 yuan, and Sun had enjoyed two welfare subdivisions, Grandma Zhang did not agree to give Sun again, but Sun insisted on getting a share of 1 3 levies, so the mediation in this case was not successful.
Based on the above facts, the court of first instance made the following determinations and judgments:
As to whether Xiaowei should receive a share of the expropriation benefits, the court held that although Xiaowei had never actually lived in the house in question, Xiaowei had the right of residence according to the 2012 judgment that had come into effect. Although Xiaowei enjoyed a welfare house with his mother in 1986, he was still an underage at that time. Therefore, it was decided that Xiaowei would receive a share of 750,000 yuan in expropriation benefits.
For this amount, we can accept the amount of distribution to Xiaowei because we take into account the content of the previous judgment in 2012 and the fact that Xiaowei has indeed been registered for decades, and although he has a welfare subdivision, he was a minor at the time of the subdivision.
As to whether Sun should share the expropriation benefits, the court held that:
and accordingly awarded Sun 700,000 expropriation benefits. As a lessee, we are completely unacceptable to such a judgment!Even if you have enjoyed welfare housing and are also recognized as non-public housing co-residents, why can you still share the benefits of expropriation?I can't figure it out!
The judgment of the second instance was changed: Sun's non-public housing co-residents have no right to participate in the distribution of expropriation benefits
We decisively appealed the first-instance judgment and conducted the second-instance phase in a full-risk** manner, because we were confident that the second-instance judgment would be reversed. Because such a judgment in the first instance completely violates the legal provisions and judicial judgment on the division of interests in public housing expropriation, and also breaks through the scope of our litigation experience and cognition as a lawyer in a large number of similar cases!Our grounds for appeal are mainly based on the following three points:
First, Sun had enjoyed two welfare subdivisions, and he himself had made it clear at the trial that he had enjoyed welfare subdivisions, and the court also found in the judgment that he was not the co-occupant of the housing involved in the case. Why can people who are not living with them still get a share of the expropriation benefits?Isn't that a paradox?If such a judgment takes effect, what is the significance of the criteria for determining "cohabitants" as stipulated in our law?
Second, considering the "unnecessary contradictions between family affection", I would like to ask which parties in a case of division of interests in housing expropriation are not kinship?Isn't it all the division of benefits between parents and children, brothers and sisters, aunts, nephews, and nephews?The verdict should be based on the facts and the law, and if a serious court judgment is based on "taking into account family affection and not being impossible", then there is really nothing that is "unavoidable".
Third, the old man Grandma Zhang, as an old man over 90 years old, deducted the 1.55 million yuan for subscribing to the resettlement house, and left 2.2 million, and then subtracted the 750,000 yuan allocated to his grandson Xiaowei, and the 500,000 yuan that had been taken away by Sun, only 950,000 yuan remained, if the first-instance judgment gave 700,000 yuan to Sun Mou, who did not live with him, the old man only had 250,000 left, and the old man still had to renovate the house and provide for the elderly, which was completely insufficient, which also seriously damaged the rights and interests of Grandma Zhang as an elderly person.
Based on the above three points, we appealed the case to the court of second instance.
When the court of second instance **, the presiding judge listened carefully to the opinions of both sides, and also raised his own questions about the verdict of the first instance, and thought it was incredible
Therefore, the court of second instance revoked the judgment of the court of first instance and ruled that Sun did not enjoy any expropriation benefits.
So far, this case has gone through the first and second trials, which lasted for a year and a half, and after twists and turns, and suffering, it finally came to a good result. Although the second-instance error correction changed the erroneous judgment of the first instance, the elderly Grandma Zhang has been renting a house for more than a year after passively moving out, and she has been looking forward to moving into the new house as soon as possible, but because the plaintiff did property preservation when suing, Grandma Zhang has not been able to get the resettlement house during this period, and now that she has received the second-instance judgment, Grandma Zhang should be able to get the new house soon, and she is excited to think about it.
Perception of case handling
As a lawyer, I often lament that the cost of protecting people's rights is really too high, which is not only reflected in the economic account, but also the cost of time. If the first instance can directly and correctly apply the law to make a judgment, the case will end in the first instance stage, and Grandma Zhang can also live in a new house as soon as possible, but the first instance is such a verdict, Grandma Zhang has to file a second-instance appeal, and the second-instance trial is delayed for more than half a year, in case there is an unexpected ...... during the second-instance trialIsn't this case getting more complicated?In fact, we have encountered several cases in which the elderly left in the course of litigation, and it is also sad.
In the past few years of practice, the High Court has found that the final judgment has erroneously designated a retrial in two cases, and the Intermediate People's Court has directly changed the judgment or remanded for retrial in seven or eight cases, the number is not too much (in fact, there should actually be more). For the parties, although it is too late, they can still strengthen their faith in the law and their confidence in the rule of law.
Thank you to these judges who have the courage to correct their mistakes in upholding the fairness and justice of the law, it really takes a lot of courage to correct other people's mistakes, thank you for taking these appeals and appeals seriously, thank you for not "closing your eyes to uphold the original verdict", and thank you for your efforts to make the people feel fairness and justice in every case.
End of full text).