Owners sue each other, can the property company provide evidence?

When there is a dispute with the property management company, if the owner thinks that the property management company has violated the law, then the owner has the obligation to collect evidence by himself. If the property company thinks that the owner is in breach of contract, then the property company needs to provide relevant evidence of the owner's breach of contract.

According to the general principles of civil law, the party who advocates positive facts has the burden of proof to prove the existence of facts, and requires the owners to actively prove the facts of property breach, that is, to assign the burden of proof of property company breach to the owners in property disputes. However, as a contract dispute, according to Article 5 of Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings promulgated by the Supreme Court, the burden of proof is more clear. In case of any dispute over the performance of the contract, the party who has the obligation to perform shall bear the burden of proof. In case of any dispute over the performance of the contract, the party who has the obligation to perform shall bear the burden of proof. Therefore, if the owners provide preliminary evidence of defects in property services, the property service enterprises need to prove that they have fulfilled their contractual obligations, otherwise they will bear the burden of proof.

On the issue of proof, property management disputes are special, and it is difficult to prove after problems arise, and it is difficult to define the responsibilities of both parties. At the same time, because most property management disputes are caused by the owners' long-term failure to pay management fees, the litigation involves a long time span of facts, and the evidential party can often only prove the present situation, and it is difficult to prove the past facts. Therefore, the distribution of the burden of proof of the facts of breach of contract has become the focus of controversy.

In civil litigation, the burden of proof is not always borne by one party. On the contrary, the burden of proof can be changed, and it is difficult and technical to obtain evidence for property disputes. As the owner is a vulnerable group relative to the property management enterprise, as the protection of the vulnerable group, the burden of proof should be properly assigned to the property owner, especially to prove that he has fulfilled his property management obligations in order to balance the legal interests. In civil litigation cases, the original defendant's evidence-giving behavior is almost simultaneous, and both the original defendant and the defendant are actively giving evidence, and repeated rounds of evidence contests. In this process, the burden of proof will change. As long as one party's claim is "justified", the other party has the obligation to present new rebuttal evidence to prevent the establishment of the claim.

(a) the burden of proof on the quality of property services raised by the owners.

In reality, one of the main defense reasons for the owner's arrears is that the property service enterprises have not fulfilled their property management service obligations. In the actual trial, the court treats different situations differently. If the owner claims that one or several obligations of the realty service enterprise have not been fulfilled, according to the provisions of judicial interpretation, the realty service enterprise shall bear the burden of proof for its performance. If the owner claims that the realty service enterprise has defects when performing a certain service obligation, because the owner has admitted that the realty service enterprise has fulfilled its service obligation, in this case, the owner can bear the burden of proof for the defects. Of course, when trying such cases, the court should flexibly grasp the distribution of burden of proof according to the specific circumstances of the case to balance the interests of both parties.

(2) The burden of proof of the limitation of action.

1, the burden of proof about the limitation of action for property companies to recover property fees.

After the owner puts forward the defense of limitation of action, the property company needs to put forward the opposite evidence to refute it. In practice, it is difficult for property companies to provide evidence. The evidence submitted by the property company to the court is usually a collection notice, but the collection notice often only has the official seal of the property company and the signature of the collection personnel of the property company, but there is no signature of the owner. Legally speaking, only the above-mentioned evidence unilaterally recognized by the property company has relatively low probative power. In this regard, the court should consider comprehensively, such as the situation in the community. For example, the owners who advocate the defense of limitation of action have already hated the property company, so they are more likely to refuse to submit a collection notice to the property company. Therefore, if the owner only claims that he has not received the collection notice and provided no other evidence, then the court should take the probability that the facts are proved as the basis for sharing the burden of proof, and determine that the litigation request of the property enterprise has not been statute of limitations. That is to say, in the case that the truth of expropriation is unknown, according to people's life experience, the probability of facts is large, and the property company that advocates the facts does not bear the burden of proof, while the owner bears the burden of proof for the facts that have not happened, and will bear adverse consequences when the owner cannot prove.

2. The problem of proof for the property company to recover the property fee after several changes of hands.

If the owner raises a limitation defense against the property fee of the original property company, the current property company shall bear the burden of proof that the limitation has not expired. If the owner refuses to pay the property fee on the grounds that the service of the original property company is defective and submits sufficient evidence, then the defense reason should be supported. On the other hand, if the owner has no evidence to prove that the service of the original property company is defective, and the property company can prove that the original enterprise has fulfilled legal procedures such as publicity before handover and has continued to perform corresponding obligations, then its claim for the property fee of the original enterprise should be supported.

(C) the inversion of the burden of proof under special types

According to the specific provisions of the judicial interpretation of the High Court, in special cases involving a large number of property management piano music litigation, such as building infringement, property construction infringement, property environmental public interest infringement, etc., part of the burden of proof is transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant, which is called "inversion of burden of proof".

Disputes between owners and property management companies belong to civil disputes, and civil disputes belong to those who sue and give evidence. If neither side can provide evidence, then the court can't make a judgment. But if one party has a clear reason to prove that the other party has violated the law, then the court will make a judgment based on the facts.