[Case] Zhang signed a letter of commitment with his daughter Qin, agreeing that Zhang would give the house in his name to Qin for free, but reserved the right to live permanently in the house in his lifetime; Qin promised that after accepting the gift, he would assume the obligation to support Zhang, and Zhang would live permanently in this house... After a period of time, Zhang signed a gift contract with Qin, stipulating that Zhang would donate the house involved in the case to Qin, and transfer the house involved in the case to Qin on the same day, but did not register the right of residence.

Shortly after the transfer, Mr. Qin signed a house sales contract with Mr. Zhu, an outsider, agreeing to sell the house involved in the case to Mr. Zhu. Later, due to the property right dispute involved in the case, the house involved in the case was preserved and sealed by the court, and it was unable to handle online signing and subsequent real estate transfer registration procedures. Zhu sued Qin to terminate the contract with the dispute over the house sales contract. The court decided to terminate the contract, and Qin returned Zhu's deposit, liquidated damages and intermediary service fee losses. The judgment has come into effect.

Zhang claimed that the case was a gift with obligations, but Qin failed to perform his maintenance obligations and sold the house involved in the case, demanding to revoke the gift. The court supported Zhang's claim after the trial.

[Statement] According to the Civil Code of China, if the donee has one of the following circumstances, the donor can revoke the gift: (1) seriously infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of the donor or the donor's close relatives; （2） Failing to perform his duty of maintenance to the donor; （3） Failing to perform the obligations agreed in the gift contract.

The Second Intermediate People's Court of Beijing held that the letter of commitment signed by Mr. Zhang and Mr. Qin to retain the residence rights and interests was the true intention of both parties and should be legal and valid. The gift contract separately signed by Mr. Qin and Mr. Zhang is a standard contract in form. Combined with the signing time, it should be a legal act to cooperate with the house transfer, and the content of the letter of commitment cannot be denied by this. The true meaning, rights and obligations of the house gift between the two people in the case should still be subject to the agreement of the letter of commitment.

The court held that Zhang's gift of the house involved in the case should be a gift attached with obligations. According to the agreement in the letter of commitment, the attached obligations are Qin's obligation to support Zhang and ensure his residential rights and interests in the house involved in the case. However, shortly after Qin accepted the gift of the house involved in the case and handled the transfer of ownership, he signed a house sales contract with an outsider and sold the house involved in the case, which constituted a violation of the obligations attached to the gift contract. Therefore, Zhang's claim for revocation of the gift has factual and legal basis and should be supported.

At present, in the context of "providing for the aged with housing" as an important way of providing for the aged, the number of cases involving the transfer of housing and the entrustment of elderly care is increasing, especially the dispute over the gift contract in which parents retain the right of housing residence for their children. The case was determined by the Judicial Committee of Beijing Higher People's Court as the thirtieth batch of reference cases of Beijing courts.

(Source of case: Wei Zhezhe, reporter of the Supreme People's Court)

People's Daily (May 23, 2024, version 19)

Share to let more people see