Research On The Confirmation Of House Property Right In The Dispute Of Borrowing Name To Buy House

The behavior of purchase house by borrowing a name is because the borrower does not meet certain qualifications or because it is inconvenient to purchase a house in his own name,he agreed with the name-lender to borrow his name to purchase a house and register the house in the nominal owner,but still retain the possession,use and dispose the house.The property law of our country stipulates that the change of the ownership of real estate takes registration as an effective element,while in the process of purchasing a house by borrowing a name,the borrower and the name-lender agree that although the house is registered under the name of the nominal owner,the owner of the house is the borrower.This form of change does not conform to the rules of the change of the ownership of real estate,resulting in the inconsistency between the legal owner and the real owner of the house.In recent years,the number of disputes over purchasing a house by borrowing a name has been increasing,and the number of confirmation cases for housing property rights has also been rising.How to deal with such disputes,the existing law does not provide clear rules of judgment.Therefore,,judges will make different judgments in practice when handling such cases based on their understanding of existing legal rules.This article mainly sorts out the existing judicial cases of purchasing a house by borrowing a name,excluding cases that are not related to the behavior of buying a house by name,and selects 200 cases with ownership confirmation as the research object,and the judgment results of 200 sample cases are carried out.After sorting out,it is found that the court usually makes three kinds of judgments when confirming the ownership of the property rights of the house: supporting the claim of the borrower,not supporting the claim of the borrower,and not being able to confirm the power.Through the analysis of the judgment reasons of the sample cases,it is found that the court makes different judgments.After analyzing the judgments of the sample cases,it is found that the current court has a problem in the attribution of the right to buy real estate by referee: on the ground of violating the relevant national policies,the referee judges that the act of purchasing a house by borrowing a name is invalid.Resulting in the right of the borrower is not supported.Because there is no uniform judgment rule for purchasing a house by borrowing a name,the judge applies different laws when handling cases of the same situation in judicial trials and resulting in different judgment results.The lack of due certainty of the evidence rules led to the court's burden of proof the distribution requires different standards for the borrower to bear the burden of proof.If the court only emphasizes the protection of the name-lender in the trial,but does not weigh the interests of the borrower or the third person to make a judgment.It will not be beneficial to maintaining the stability of social order.To effectively resolve the property ownership disputes in purchasing a house by borrowing a name,and reduce the occurrence of different judgments in the same cases when the court judges similar cases.This article proposes to improve the judgment rules for purchasing a house by borrowing a name from the following four aspects.Firstly,accuracy apply laws and regulations to avoid making judgments directly based on national policies.Secondly,distinguish the effectiveness of registration behavior of purchasing a house by borrowing a name under different situations.Thirdly,the court should reasonably allocate the burden of proof and use the rules of evidence properly.Fourthly,reasonably weigh the interests of borrower and the third person from the perspective of social influence.