I. Case Summary:

In this case, the tenant had already died at the time of demolition, and the tenant's spouse's household registration was not included in the household registration of the demolished house. The key point of contention in this case is whether the spouse with non-local household registration enjoys the benefits of house expropriation after the tenant's death.

II. Summary of the Judgment:

Monetary compensation received by public housing tenants shall be jointly owned by public housing tenants and their co-residents. Public housing serves as a means of residential security. Before public housing is expropriated, tenants and their co-residents do not own the public housing itself, but only enjoy the right to use and live in the house. Therefore, expropriation compensation benefits are also compensation for such residential and usage rights, and also need to reflect the function of housing security. In this case, Dong was the spouse of the late tenant Du of the disputed house, and it is generally reasonable and consistent with the statements of all parties that Du lived together with Du for a long time during his lifetime.

As Du's spouse, the judgment of whether Dong Moumou has residential rights in the disputed house and whether he is a co-occupant cannot be differentiated by whether Du Moumou has passed away. During Du's lifetime, Dong Moumou and Du Moumou's marriage lasted about 10 years. Therefore, although Dong Moumou does not have permanent household registration in this city, he should still be recognized as a cohabitant of the disputed house and enjoy the residential security provided by the disputed house. After Du's death, Dong's co-resident rights were not lost.

3. Lawyer's Commentary:

The right to lease public rental housing cannot be inherited as an inheritance, so disputes often arise during demolition when the tenant dies.

There are two special aspects of this case:

  1. The tenant has already passed away at the time of demolition;
  2. The tenant's spouse is a migrant daughter-in-law, and the household registration has never been transferred to the disputed property.

In this case, can the tenant's spouse be recognized as a co-resident?

The "Shanghai High Court's Response to Several Issues Concerning Civil Cases Concerning the Division of Housing Demolition Compensation Funds" (Hu Gao Fa Min Yi [2004] No. 3) clarifies: "Generally, if one does not have permanent household registration in the city but has lived for five years in the demolition public housing due to marriage until the demolition permit is issued, they are also considered co-residents and may receive compensation from demolition." In other words, as long as someone has lived in the demolished public housing for five years due to marriage, even without local household registration, they can still be considered cohabitants during demolition and receive compensation benefits.

In this case, although the tenant had already passed away at the time of demolition, the spouse met the condition of "living in the demolished public housing for five years due to marriage," and according to the aforementioned judicial interpretation, they could be regarded as co-residents and receive compensation.

4. Judgment Document

Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court

Civil judgment

(2021) Hu 02 Min Zhong 2867

Appellant (Original Defendant): Du Mou1, male, born February 18, 1952, Han ethnicity, registered residence in Huangpu District, Shanghai.

Appellant (Defendant in the original trial): Du 2, male, born November 8, 1983, Han ethnicity, registered in Huangpu District, Shanghai.

Appellant (Defendant in the original trial): Du Mou3, male, born December 31, 2011, Han ethnicity, registered in Huangpu District, Shanghai.

Legal representative: Du 2 (father of Du 3), male, born November 8, 1983, Han ethnicity, registered residence at ****, Guangqi South Road, Huangpu District, Shanghai.

Appellant (Defendant in the original trial): Du Mou4, male, born January 15, 1986, Han ethnicity, registered in Huangpu District, Shanghai.

Appellant (Defendant in the original trial): Du Mou5, male, born October 24, 2011, Han ethnicity, registered in Huangpu District, Shanghai.

Legal representative: Du 4 (father of Du 5), male, born January 15, 1986, Han ethnicity, registered address at ****, Guangqi South Road, Huangpu District, Shanghai.

The litigation agents jointly appointed by the two appellants above: Gong Jian, lawyer at Shanghai Hengyang Law Firm.

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): Dong XX, female, born March 14, 1965, Han ethnicity, registered residence in Haimen, Jiangsu Province, Haimen City, Jiangsu Province.

Authorized litigation agent: Di Yanru, lawyer at Shanghai Quanhui Law Firm.

Appellants Du 1, Du 2, Du 3, and Appellants Du 4 and Du 5, all dissatisfied with the civil judgment (2019) Hu 0101 Minchu No. 25550 of the Shanghai Huangpu District People's Court regarding a joint dispute with the appellee Dong Moumou, have each filed appeals with this court. After filing the case on March 9, 2021, this court lawfully formed a collegiate panel to conduct the trial. The trial of this case has now concluded.

Du 1, Du 2, and Du 3 appeal request: to overturn the first-instance judgment and change the judgment to Du 1, Du 2, and Du 3 to receive compensation of RMB 2,050,000 (all currencies below) for public housing at No. XXX Lane, Guangqi South Road, Shanghai, No. XXX (hereinafter referred to as the disputed house). Facts and reasons: Dong does not have Shanghai household registration. Although he and Du have been married for a long time, their relationship is poor and they have not lived in the disputed house for long. The first-instance neighborhood committee's certificate has been overturned, and the witness testimony provided by Dong cannot prove that he has lived in the disputed house long-term. In fact, Dong was previously Du's nanny, and his marriage was entirely purposeful and motivated. After marriage, the two relied entirely on Du's meager retirement pension. Dong Moumou has completely failed to fulfill his duties and responsibilities as a wife, living improperly and often not coming home at night. In 2008, Du filed for divorce; Du 1, Du 2, and Du 3 meet the conditions for co-residents of the disputed house. Du 1's unit allocated Room XXX at No. XXX Lane XXX, Yaohua Road, Shanghai (hereinafter referred to as the Yaohua Road house) to Du 1 based on policy. However, the residential area of the house is only 20.79 square meters. After Du 2 got married, there were actually five people living there, with an average living area of just 4.15 square meters per person. This can be determined that Du is "a person who has other housing but faces living difficulties." Du, at age 26, lived with his father in the disputed house. In 1995, he transferred his household registration to Yaohua Road to attend middle school. The household registration was moved to Yaohua Road, and he requested to move back to the disputed house. After 2007, to facilitate caring for the sick Du with his father, he lived in the disputed house for a long time. Moreover, although Du 2's name was listed on the Yaohua Road housing allocation form, he was only 9 years old at the time and was assigned to the house with his parents as a minor, so it should not be recognized that he had ever enjoyed welfare housing. The disputed house is a relic left by his ancestors, serving as a place where Du 1, Du 2, and their family members gather, live, and care for each other. As the expropriated party, Du 1 signed an expropriation compensation agreement with the expropriating unit. All procedures and matters related to the house expropriation were handled and confirmed by Du 1. Dong had no connection to the disputed house and only used it as a tool for amassing wealth. After marriage, he failed to fulfill his duties as a wife and attempted to reap the benefits of a marriage alone, sharing huge compensation benefits from the huge compensation, seriously violating objective facts and moral bottom lines.

Du 4 and Du 5 appeal requests: To revoke the first-instance judgment and reject all of the appellee's first-instance claims. Facts and reasons: The disputed house expropriation compensation agreement does not specify that Dong is the expropriated party. The first-instance judgment supporting Dong's claim is equivalent to a civil judgment denying the content of the administrative expropriation agreement, which is clearly erroneous; The compensation for the expropriation of the disputed house is still with the relocation department, but Du Mou1 has not received it. The first-instance court froze the relevant funds in the relocation department's account, not Du Mou1's account; The disputed house was allocated and not newly allocated; Du 1, Yao 1, and Du 4 never resettled or acquired houses on Pudian Road; Dong XX does not have the qualification to be a co-resident of the disputed house and has no right to receive the compensation for expropriation of the disputed house.

Dong argued that Dong married Du, the original tenant of the disputed property, in 2004, and it has been nearly 20 years. The state of their relationship is not for outsiders to judge, nor is it related to this case. The first-instance judgment clearly established the facts and correctly applied the law, and should be upheld according to law.

Dong XX filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting that the compensation benefits for expropriation from the disputed house totaling 4,101,889.38 yuan be divided according to law, with Dong XX receiving 3,200,000 yuan in compensation benefits.

The first-instance court established the following facts:

I. Basic Information of the Expropriated House and Parties

The disputed house is public housing. The tenant and head of household are Du XX, who died on October 19, 2014. Dong XX is Du XX's spouse. The two registered their marriage on September 20, 2004. On June 3, 2019, the Huangpu District People's Government issued the "Housing Expropriation Decision," placing the disputed house plot within the scope of expropriation. At that time, there were five registered persons: On March 23, 2009, parents and children sought refuge with each other, moving into Room XXX, Lane XXX, Yaohua Road), Du 2 (nephew of the head of household; on August 3, 2004, others, Room XXX at No. XXX, Lane XXX, Yaohua Road), and Du 3 (son of Du 2, January 7, 2012, supplementary birth in previous years), Du 4 (head of household's nephew, November 7, 2008, others, moved in at No. XXX South Station Road), Du 5 (son of Du 4, born November 4, 2011). During the first-instance trial, Dong stated that he could have registered his household with the marriage certificate, but since Du Mou1 and others did not agree, he did not transfer the registration. He also provided "Du Moumou's statement" and the 2017 interrogation record. During the trial, Du Moumou 1 had no objection to the authenticity of the interrogation record but believed the content was Dong Moumou's unilateral statement and did not recognize the authenticity of the "declaration."

On June 29, 2019, Du Mou1, acting as the agent for the disputed house, signed the "Shanghai State-owned Land House Expropriation Compensation Agreement" [Expropriation No.: 90234] (hereinafter referred to as the expropriation agreement) with the expropriation unit. The expropriation agreement specifies that the disputed house is an old neighborhood, the nature of the house is public housing, and its purpose is residential; The public housing rental certificate records a residential area of 20.5000 square meters, converting to a building area of 26.1800 square meters, with a recognized building area of 26.1800 square meters; Party B (the expropriated person) does not meet the conditions for housing difficulties and chooses monetary compensation. According to the project settlement statement: the agreement includes a house value compensation amount of 2,274,643.52 yuan (including 13,090 yuan for residential decoration subsidies); Includes a reward subsidy of 1,188,900 yuan: signing bonus of 455,900 yuan, household facility relocation fee of 2,000 yuan, relocation fee of 1,000 yuan, no construction subsidy of 100,000 yuan, balanced physical placement subsidy of 600,000 yuan, temporary settlement fee of 30,000 yuan; The above total amount is 3,463,544 yuan. Additional expenses were also issued: subsidy of 180,726 yuan for stairwell corridor area in the dedicated stove, 401,180 yuan for relocation incentive, and interest on compensation fees of 56,439.38 yuan. In summary, the disputed house received a total of 4,101,889.38 yuan in various compensation and reward fees. Currently, all the above expropriation benefits have been actually transferred to Du Mou 1's account. During the first-instance trial, based on Dong Moumou's application, the court froze 2,600,000 yuan of expropriation compensation funds in Du Mou 1's account.

2. Source of the disputed house and the situation of the parties' properties elsewhere

According to the 1987 "Shanghai Housing Allocation Notice," the allocation unit: Nanshi District Subsidiary Food Company, the property recipient: Du 2, the original residence is a **** unit on Jiangyin Street (hereinafter referred to as the Jiangyin Street house), a public housing unit with an area of 12 square meters, the leased household name is Du 2 (head), and the family consists of six members: Wang Xiuying (wife), Du (son), Du 1 (son), Du 4 (grandson), and Yao (daughter-in-law), The newly allocated two rooms in Room XXX of Hongshan Road are public housing units (hereinafter referred to as Hongshan Road Houses), covering an area of 25.2 square meters. The household name and family members are the same as those on Jiangyin Street. Allocation reason: Three generations living under one roof, living in one place, but due to difficulties, the original house will be retained for use by our company. In 1988, after exchanging houses, Du's two households were separated from Du's one. Originally, the original residence was on Hongshan Road. The house account name was: Du Mou 2 households, with a property address at No. XXX, Lane XXX, Wai Ma Road (hereinafter referred to as Waima Road House), resident population: 2 elders, 1 large House, 1 household, house address "Chezhan Road XXX No.", resident, resident population 2 adults and 1 child. According to the 1990 "Shanghai Housing Allocation Notice," the allocation unit: Nanpu Bridge Relocation Office, housing beneficiary: Du Mou 2, former The original residence had one living room under the road floor outside the original house, a public housing area of 15.1 square meters, leased under the name Du 2 (head of household), family members Wang Xiuying (wife) and Du (son). Due to demolition, the new house was newly assigned to the disputed house, and the new residents lived in the same house as the outer road.

According to the 1993 "Housing Allocation Form," the allocation unit: Hunan Automobile Transport Company, the property beneficiary: Du Mou1, originally, the original residence was one room in the back building of ** on Jiangyin Street, Nanshi, a public housing area of 9.1 square meters, leased under the name Du Mou1, family members Zhang Huizhu (wife) and Du 2 (son), newly allocated house Yaohua Road with 1.5 rooms, public housing area of 20.79 square meters, head of the new house Du Mou1, family members Zhang Huizhu and Du 2. Allocation reason: This household is a particularly poor household with a per capita living area below 2.5 square meters, intended to be allocated for relief. The original housing will be reserved and used by Hunan Company, and rent during the retention period will be paid by Hunan Company. In January 2009, Du Mou1, Zhang Huizhu, and Du 2 purchased the ownership of public housing on Yaohua Road through post-sale public housing, agreeing that the three would jointly own the property, with a building area of 43.72 square meters.