After the nominal purchase contract is invalid, you can ask the other party to give compensation for the appreciation of the house.

Case introduction: how to divide the value-added part of a house in the name of buying a house?

Yang Wu, the plaintiff, claimed that in 2004, the plaintiff borrowed the name of the defendant to purchase affordable housing located at No.2, Building 1 Lianhua Community, Changping District, Beijing. Both parties agreed that the plaintiff would pay the defendant compensation and the plaintiff would pay all the expenses of the house. The house is registered in the name of the defendant and will be transferred to the plaintiff five years later. When buying a house, the defendant gave the required documents to the plaintiff, and the house expenses were paid by the plaintiff and lived by the plaintiff. Later, the defendant refused to transfer the ownership to the plaintiff. Because the house was registered in the defendant's name, the court ruled that the house belonged to the defendant. We now appeal to the court: 1, and order the defendant to pay the plaintiff the purchase price and all the paid expenses of RMB 390,000; 2. Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's house appreciation money 1 100000 yuan according to law; The legal costs of this case shall be borne by the defendant.

Defendant Liu Yang argued that the defendant only returned the purchase price, and the two parties did not excuse the purchase contract, so they did not recognize the value-added income. The house is affordable at the time of purchase, and the value-added amount of the house identified by the plaintiff is the calculation method of the commercial house. Because the loan contract adopts the method of matching principal and interest, the defendant has paid the monthly average interest of 1 100 yuan, the remaining loan term of 120 months, and the outstanding interest of140,000 yuan. Payment should consider the above factors.

The court ruled that the purchase contract under the guise of name was invalid, and the defendant should return the purchase price and the value-added part to the plaintiff.

It was found through trial that the house was registered in the defendant's name on August 17, 2005, and the nature of the house was affordable. On June 5438+February 65438+February 9, 2004, the plaintiff purchased the house in the name of the defendant. On June 25, 2004, the defendant signed a mortgage contract with the bank in the name of the defendant, and later the defendant changed the loan deduction account number of the house. The plaintiff paid the license fee, deed tax, stamp duty, property agency fee, state-owned land use fee, mortgage agency fee, attorney fee, public maintenance fund, cable TV access fee, Netcom installation fee, comprehensive material fee, home insurance and decoration management service fee. The house has been used by the plaintiff since delivery. Both parties agree that the present value of the house is 2.6 million yuan.

Lawyer's statement: Unless you have relevant qualifications, the contract is invalid.

Affordable housing is a kind of affordable policy housing according to the relevant preferential policies of the government. There are special regulations and restrictions on the purchase of such houses, and buyers can only buy them if they have relevant qualifications. In this case, the plaintiff did not have the qualification to buy affordable housing, and borrowed the name of the defendant to buy a house. The relationship between the two parties was contractual. When buying a house, the defendant's related documents used by the plaintiff were provided to the plaintiff by the defendant's resources. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff used the defendant's name to purchase the house, but did not provide relevant evidence. There is a contract between the two parties to buy a house in the name of borrowing money, but this contract violates the provisions of China on affordable housing and is an invalid contract. After the contract is invalid, both parties shall return their respective benefits from the contract. The plaintiff did not apply for the appraisal of the present value of the decoration fee, and did not support this claim. Because of the fault of both parties, the contract was invalid, the plaintiff paid most of the house price, and the defendant refused to perform his obligations, so the defendant should bear the main responsibility. The value-added part of the house shall be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff according to the fault degree of both parties.