Parents have debt and can a house register under the name of a minor child to exclude forced execution?

Parents register the houses purchased under the name of minor children. Does a minor child must enjoy the ownership of the house? If the parent's creditor applies for the enforcement of a house registered under the name of a minor child, can the minor child lift the law of objections to be supported?

Referee

Although the house involved in the house is registered under the name of a minor child, the court can determine that the house should be the household’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family’s family. There are property, and minor children do not enjoy the ownership of the house. Based on this, it was determined that the child's right to involve the house was not enough to exclude the enforcement.

Case number

(2020) Supreme Law Civil Shen Shen No. 6800

Introduction to the case

Li Mou 1, Xue Mou bought a house for his underage daughter Li Mou 2 and registered under his name. However, the house is not actually possessing by Li Mou 2, but is used as Lirand Group, Shipping Corporation, and Wirand Logistics Company, which is used as Li Mou. Give the bank.

Li Mou 3 provides a 50 million yuan loan for Wirand Logistics Company. After the debt expired, the debt was not settled. After Li Mou 3 sued the court, he requested the seizure of Li Mou in accordance with the court's judgment application for compulsory enforcement. Li Mou 2 thought he was the owner of the house and raised objections to the enforcement.

Court referee

The court was reviewed that the case was an objection to the applied executive. According to Li Mou 2's retrial application, the focus of the review of this case is whether the outsider Li Mou 2 enjoys civil rights and interests to exclude compulsory execution. Article 24 of the "Supreme People's Court on Several Issues of the People's Court's Cases and Reconsideration Cases" stipulates: "The people's court shall review the following content by the exclusion objection proposed by the outsiders of the case: (1) Whether the outsiders are rights for rights rights are rights. People; (2) the legitimacy and authenticity of this right; (3) Whether the right can be excluded. "

According to the basic facts found in the first and second trial judgments, Li Mou 1. Xue Mou in December 2004 on behalf of his daughter Li Mou 2 as a buyer signed a commodity house trading contract. The purchase case was involved in the house. The ownership of the house was registered under 2 Li, when Li Mou 2 was less than 7 years old (born in May 1998); The business department handles the mortgage registration; Li Mou 1, Xue Mou, Werland Group and Li Ruiquan signed a guarantee contract in 2014, agreed to Li Mou, Xue and Wirand Group for Li Ruiquan's borrowing of 50 million loans from Li Ruiquan Logistics Company to Wirand Logistics Company The meta -debt provides guarantee guarantee. At this time, Li Mou 1. Xue Mou has not divorced (the two were divorced in March 2014), Li Mou 2 was less than 16 years old; The operating houses of Werland Group, Shipping Corporation, and Wirand Logistics Company are not actually used by Li Mou 2. The first and second trial courts of comprehensive analysis of houses involved in the purchase time, property rights registration time, payment of house purchase payment and the use of purchase, and the house involved in the house should be Li Mou 1. Xue's family has a common property, and there is no improper. Li Mou 2 claimed that the house was leased from the public since 2009, but according to the four "Lease Contracts" it provided, the lessee of the house was also the shipping company that Li Mou and Xue actually controlled. The relationship occurred between the family members and the company they controlled, and Li Mou 2 was still the ability to restrict civil behavior at the time. The above -mentioned mortgages and leases of the house involved in the house have obviously exceeded Li Mou 2 as the daily life of Li Mou 2 as minors; This can be determined that the house involved in the house is still operated as a common property of the family. The court of first and second instance determined that the house involved in the house should be included within the scope of Li Mou 1. Xue's as a guarantor as a guarantor, and it was not improper. Li Mou 2 applied for a retrial saying that he had a civil rights and interests to eliminate the enforcement of the house involved in the case. The lack of basis was not supported.

In summary, the application for retrial of Li Mou 2 does not comply with the situation stipulated in Article 6 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. In accordance with Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the "Explanation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" The ruling is as follows: Rejected Li Mou 2's retrial application.

Source: Xiaojun Family affairs, referee documents, legal houses, Shandong Gao Law

- END -