Property dispute appeal

The following is a model essay on real estate disputes that I collected for all my classmates. I hope it will help your study and writing!

Civil appeal 1

Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Jia, born on, Han nationality, a city resident, now living.

Tel: XXXX

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): Beijing Vanke Property Service Co., Ltd., living in Beijing Vanke City Garden, Zone B, Tianzhu Industrial Development Zone, Shunyi District, Beijing.

Legal Representative: Xie Wei, general manager.

Tel: XXXX

The case of property service dispute between the Appellant and the Appellee, because the Appellant refuses to accept the Beijing Shunyi District People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the court of first instance) (20 10) Shunminchuzi No.3223 (hereinafter referred to as the judgment of first instance), hereby appeals to your hospital.

Appeal request:

First, cancel the judgment of first instance;

2. Send it back for retrial or change the sentence according to law, and reject the appellee's prosecution or all the claims made by the appellee in the first instance.

Facts and reasons:

First, the appellee does not have the subject qualification to sue the appellant, and his prosecution should be rejected according to law.

The main body of the Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement signed with the appellant in 200 1 year is Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd., not the appellee in this case.

The appellee did not provide any evidence to prove that it was the same company as Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. ..

Article 60 of the Contract Law stipulates that the parties shall fully perform their obligations as agreed.

The parties shall abide by the principle of good faith and fulfill the obligations of notification, assistance and confidentiality according to the nature, purpose and trading habits of the contract.

There are hundreds of companies in the community where the appellant lives. What is the relationship between Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. and Beijing Vanke Property Service Co., Ltd., the appellant has no obligation to investigate and understand, and Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. or Beijing Vanke Property Service Co., Ltd. has never sent any effective notice to the appellant.

As a matter of fact, Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. has long since ceased to exist, and the subject qualification can't be found.

The appellee failed to submit the relevant renaming documents to the court as evidence, which made it impossible for the appellant to cross-examine the evidence. The court of first instance regards the evidence not presented in court as the basis for determining the appellee's subject qualification in this case (see lines 2-4 on page 3 of the judgment of first instance), which directly violates the basic principle that "evidence should be presented in court and cross-examined by the parties" as stipulated in Article 66 of the Civil Procedure Law.

Therefore, the appellee in this case does not have the main qualification to sue the appellant, and his prosecution should be rejected.

Second, in order to avoid the mistake of subject qualification, the appellee sued the appellant for paying the property service fee, of which seven years' fee exceeded the limitation of action, and the appellee had lost the right to win the case.

Article 11 of the Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement signed by the Appellant and Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. clearly stipulates the payment time of property management fee and elevator fee, that is, "the first quarter fee shall be paid within the first month of each quarter".

On March 3, 20 10, the appellee sued the appellant for paying the property fee for 9 years from 200 1 year 10 to February 2009.

The appellee never urged the appellant to pay the property fee outside this lawsuit.

The so-called limitation of action refers to the legal system in which the obligee does not exercise the right to ask the people's court to protect his civil rights within a certain period of time, that is, the people's court will no longer protect his civil rights if he loses this right.

Property fees and elevator fees claimed by property companies from owners are common claims.

The claim for creditor's rights is based on property interests and does not dominate.

If the obligee is slow to exercise his rights for a long time, the legal relationship will be in an uncertain state, which is not conducive to maintaining the stability of social transaction order. Therefore, the statute of limitations applies to the right to claim creditor's rights, and its statute of limitations is two years.

Because the appellee has not claimed the property fee from the appellant for a long time, the legal relationship between the two parties has been in a stable state, and the appellee has no right to claim the property fee from the appellant for the first seven years.

The appellant has clearly put forward the defense of limitation of action in the first instance, but the court of first instance turned a blind eye, refused any explanation and explanation, and rejected the objection, which has seriously violated the provisions of civil law on limitation of action in China.

3. The judgment of first instance held that the property management service agreement voluntarily signed by the original defendant did not violate the mandatory provisions of the law and was legal and valid.

This determination is seriously contrary to the facts for the following reasons:

(1) When the Appellant signed the Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement, there was no trading condition of equal negotiation between the Appellant and Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd., and the Appellant signed the Agreement not voluntarily, but because he was forced to do so.

At that time, the background was that developers took advantage of the real dilemma that the majority of owners had no fixed address and were eager to recover their houses, forcing the majority of owners to sign the unilaterally formulated format text, otherwise they would not handle the house delivery procedures.

The majority of owners have no right to modify the contract text, but only accept all the conditions set by the other party in the contract.

Such so-called "equality" agreements, such as the treaty of nanking and the Treaty of Mourning for Ugliness that imperialism forced old China to sign, are an out-and-out "traitorous treaty" for the owner, and there is no justice in heaven!

(2) From the analysis of the contents of the agreement, the Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement completely restricts the legitimate rights of the owners and evades the obligations that the property company should undertake.

As clearly stipulated in Article 7 of the Agreement, there is no personal safety property custody or insurance relationship between Party A (the owner) and its users and the property manager in the property.

Maintaining the owner's personal and property safety is the responsibility of any legally existing service company, but the appellee evaded his responsibility through this clause.

Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Property Services clearly stipulates: In any of the following circumstances, if the owners' committee or owners request to confirm the invalidity of the contract or the relevant clauses of the contract, the people's court shall support it: ……… (2) Provisions in the property service contract that exempt the property service enterprise from liability, increase the liability of the owners' committee or owners, and exclude the main rights of the owners' committee or owners.

The realty service contract mentioned in the preceding paragraph includes the prophase realty service contract.

Therefore, the Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement is invalid.

(3) Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement is a preliminary property management agreement, not a permanent agreement.

Paradoxically, the temporary agreement was recognized as a permanent agreement by the court of first instance.

Most owners buy a house, which is a necessity for survival, only when they are in debt. After the house is delivered, they not only have to repay the bank loans they owe, but also become lifelong debt slaves of the property company.

The bank loan will eventually be paid off, and the debt of the property company will last forever.

In order to ensure the continuation of the appellee's illegal interests, the appellee maliciously obstructed the owners to set up the owners' meeting or owners' committee for many times, and refused to provide office space and related materials, resulting in the owners' committee being unable to work normally, and the' legal right' given by law to the owners' committee to select and hire property service enterprises could not be exercised.

(4) The appellee Beijing Vanke Property Management Co., Ltd. has not provided any evidence to prove that it has provided any services to the appellant, and has no right to charge the appellant the property service fee.

(5) The property fees charged by the appellee were not publicized according to law, nor were they used for community public utilities.

On June 5438+ 10, 2005, Beijing implemented the "Inspection Standard for Residential Property Services in Beijing", which clearly stipulated that the use of * * * parts and * * * facilities and equipment in residential areas to carry out paid services must be approved by the relevant owners and owners' meeting.

Since the appellee took over the residential property, he has never submitted an annual work report to the owner, nor has he publicized the basic situation of using the public parts and facilities of the owner to make profits.

The appellee did not provide any evidence to prove that "the property management service fee is the fee used by Party B (the appellee) for the daily operation of the garden". In fact, most of the expenses were absorbed by the appellant privately.

Fourth, the quality of the first-instance judgment is poor and the jurisprudence is unknown, which is a shame for the judiciary.

(A) the first-instance judgment language anomie, logic confusion.

Page 1 of the first-instance judgment reads: "The plaintiff Vanke Property Company claims that the defendant owed the property service fees from 1 to 1 in 2006 and 65438+2 and 3 1 in 2006", and the third page is changed to "Now Vanke Property Company requires Jia to pay 5430/in 2006.

"First, the time difference described in the first-instance judgment is more than three years, and the starting and ending time is different, which makes the appellant at a loss.

Secondly, does the appellee want the property service fee or the elevator fee? The judgment of the first instance has not been made clear.

The appellee only filed a lawsuit on the property service fee in the first instance, and included the elevator fee in the calculation, which obviously made a logical mistake.

According to Article 11 of the original Beijing Vanke City Garden Property Management Service Agreement, the property service fee and elevator fee are two parallel fees.

The appellee himself didn't understand how his claim was formed, and the court of first instance was obviously confused on this issue.

(2) Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates four conditions for bringing a civil lawsuit, which cannot be used as the substantive basis for determining the rights and obligations of the parties.

It is ridiculous that the court of first instance ruled this case according to Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (see page 3 of the first-instance judgment).

(3) The first-instance judgment rejected the appellant's litigation costs, which was unfair to the appellant.

In the course of litigation, the appellee has given up the claim of asking the appellant to pay a penalty of 5,599.09 yuan.

In the case that the appellant partially loses the case, the legal fees payable by both parties should be shared in proportion, and the court of first instance ruled that all the legal fees should be borne by the appellant, which obviously violated the provisions of Article 29 of the Measures for the Payment of Legal Fees.

To sum up, the judgment of first instance failed to find out the appellee's subject qualification and the background of the appellant's signing of the unequal agreement, and the facts were unclear and the applicable law was wrong. The quality of this judgment is very poor and the social impact is very bad, which should be corrected.

The appellant implores the court of second instance to send it back for retrial according to law, or to change the sentence on the basis of finding out the facts!

I am here to convey

Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court

Appellant: Jia.

May 29th, Oxx.

Property service dispute case-civil appeal model essay [2]

Abstract: It is wrong for 52 yuan to bear joint and several liability with the overdue fine. Although the Property Management Regulations stipulate that the owners shall pay the property service fees on time, Article 35 also stipulates that the owners' committee shall conclude a written property service contract with the property management enterprise selected by the owners' congress. The property service contract shall cover property management matters, service quality, ...

The following legal articles are provided by for your reference, hoping to solve related problems for you. We wholeheartedly provide you with legal consulting services in economic disputes, criminal defense, corporate legal affairs, real estate disputes, intellectual property rights, marriage and family. Hotline: 1592009 1258, 13 128 80665438.

Civil appeal

Appellant 1: Huang Moumou, male, Han nationality, 36 years old, ID number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Appellant II: Deng Mou, female, Han nationality, 34 years old, ID number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, now living in xxx, Building X, xxx Village, Luohu District.

Appellant III: Xu, male, Han nationality, 29 years old, ID number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Appellee: Shenzhen xx Property Management Co., Ltd., domicile: Room xxxXXX, Shenzhen Center, XXX Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, with organization code xxxxxxXXXXX.

Legal Representative: Wu Moumou, chairman of the board.

Defendant in the original trial: Shenzhen xxx Catering Co., Ltd., whose domicile is Room xxxxxXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXX Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, and the organization code is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Defendant in the original trial: Beijing xxx Catering Co., Ltd., domiciled in Beijing xx Research Institute, xxx North Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, with organization code xxxxxxxxx.

Legal Representative: Tang Moumou, board chairman.

Cause of action: Property service contract dispute

The appellant refused to accept the civil judgment of Shenzhen Futian District People's Court (2008) Shen Fu Fa Min San Chu Zi No. XxXX lodged an appeal with your institute for disputes over property service contracts with Shenzhen XX Property Management Co., Ltd..

Appeal request:

1. Revoke the civil judgment. Shenzhen Futian District People's Court (2008)No. XXXX;

Two, according to the law to change the case, that is, to reject the appellee's claim that the appellant shall bear joint and several liability;

The legal costs of this case shall be borne by the appellee.

Facts and reasons:

First, the original judgment found that the facts were unclear and the applicable law was improper, so it should be revoked.

(1) Paying the property management fee according to the requirements of the property management company is not a statutory obligation of the owner, but a contractual obligation based on the contract.

On the grounds that the property management fee and the ontology maintenance fund are the legal obligations of the owners, the court of first instance ruled that the appellant was jointly and severally liable for the property management fee, ontology maintenance fund of * * * 226,055.52 yuan and the late payment fee of the disputed property from June 2008 to September 2008, which was wrong. Although the Property Management Regulations stipulate that the owners should pay the property service fee on time, it is stipulated in Article 35 that the owners' committee should conclude a written property service contract with the property management enterprise selected by the owners' congress. Property service contracts shall stipulate property management matters, service quality, service fees, rights and obligations of both parties, management and use of special maintenance funds, property management premises, contract term, liability for breach of contract, etc. Article 36 also stipulates that the property management enterprise shall provide corresponding services in accordance with the stipulations of the property service contract.