Legal issues about the house... I hope I understand, thank you.。。。 5

I would like to ask about this behavior. Is it illegal?

It is generally not illegal to present the situation in a factual manner.

But if he does it for a certain purpose, he will break the law.

What to do. Judge why he did what he did and then think about what to do.

What happens if I sell my house without the buyer's knowledge... What consequences will I have.

It depends on whether you have an agreement on this.

This is not illegal ... It is only a violation of moral standards, and it does not constitute a violation of the law.

It is suggested that an agreement can be reached with him, and if he does not say, a certain form of benefit can be given and agreed. If he violates the agreement, he will be compensated as agreed.

But if he always demolishes the stage for you, he can't say that people have broken the law, because the facts when the mourning hall is set up are not false facts.

If you conceal it, it does not constitute an illegality, because it is not because of quality problems or substantive interest issues that damage the substantive rights of buyers, so it does not constitute an illegality, so you can buy and sell with confidence.

It doesn't constitute a legal violation.,It's just a little morally problematic.,Your neighbor is also an eventful person.,This kind of person should stay away.。。

First of all, you have to look at his intentions, if it is malicious and does not want you to sell the house, you can make a statement to him, and besides, many people are more concerned about the dead and the like when it comes to the problem of the house, and he says that it is a statement of facts, and it is not malicious slander, so it is not illegal. What you should do now is to explain it to the agent or the person who wants to buy a house, after all, who doesn't have a happy event, it's nothing.

The house you buy should be a fund-raising house for the unit, and the property rights are limited.

1. You notarize your agreement. After notarization, even if the owner is gone, the right can be cleared to his heir.

2. If the homeowner repents, you can recover the money you paid and ask the person who signed the agreement to compensate for the loss. Because his son-in-law signed on behalf of him constituted no right to **, the contract would be invalid if the original owner did not recognize it. The consequences are borne by his son-in-law.

3. If you can't transfer the account, you can claim the breach of contract from the other party and ask it to return the purchase price and compensate for the loss. It can be asked for from the homeowner or from his son-in-law.

Because the house must be registered with the administrative authority as the only proof of ownership, that is to say, the ownership of the house has always been yours and has not changed.

If your brother-in-law wants to take your house, he must go to court to prove that you received the money for the sale of the house at some point, and then the money was paid by him and your sister together, but because they are relatives, there is no transfer, and then the court will award the house to your brother-in-law based on the fact that you received the money (your sister's half will also be inherited by your brother-in-law). So after finding out the facts, if you go to court, you will lose the lawsuit, of course, the premise is that your brother-in-law can adduce evidence to prove that you sold the house to your sister at that time, not for them to live in temporarily, and then you also received the money for the sale of the house.

I think you should be kind, since you have sold it, you should give it to others, you can't deprive your brother-in-law of his legitimate rights and interests just because your sister died.

If he wants to leave, you have a chance to win, and if the house is sold and transferred, the transfer cannot be realized just by paying the money. If he doesn't come back, you have a chance of winning the lawsuit, as long as you cite evidence that there is no housing transaction registration.

Probably not. Whether the housing transaction is legal and valid depends on whether the property rights have been registered and transferred in accordance with the law. If your sister has paid the price and your brother-in-law has proof of payment, he can claim a refund of the price he has paid, but not the ownership of the house.

However, what you are doing is not morally worth advocating.

1. If the house is not registered and transferred, the effect of ownership transfer will not occur. The house is still your house.

2. Although there is no written agreement between you and your sister, if your brother-in-law can find evidence to prove the existence of the oral agreement, the court will still recognize the sale agreement. At this time, your brother-in-law will sue you, although you can keep the house, but you will be liable for the breach of contract.

3. If you can't find proof of the existence of the oral agreement, your brother-in-law will bear the consequences of losing the lawsuit.

Even if you have lived for seven or eight years, you can't prove the existence of the house sale agreement, and you haven't asked him to collect rent!

The property right is now yours, and there is no record of sale and transfer in the housing exchange, and there is no mortgage registration in this house, even if the neighbor proves that he has lived for seven or eight years, it is useless, and the lawsuit is basically won by you, there is no suspense, unless he can prove that the two of you have traded in this house, otherwise he will be busy in vain.

The contract of sale and purchase between you and your sister is valid, but you still have the contractual obligation to transfer the property to the buyer's rights holder [your sister's heirs and co-owners of the house (if any)] as long as the transfer has not been completed. You should have no chance of winning, your sister should have children, it is recommended that you consult a lawyer, so as not to affect the harmony of the family.