Urgent need for legal help!! In terms of real estate transactions! Thank you prawns!

You go to the Housing Authority to see if the property is tradable. If the transaction cannot be made, the contract of sale is invalid. Even if the contract is signed. Once the other party repents, it will be very disadvantageous to you.

You can go to the notary office to sign a notary power of attorney (valid for 2 years, and can be renewed after the time has passed).

Legally, the house belongs to him and has nothing to do with you. You need to enter into a private transaction agreement, which must first be issued by a professional law firm, and secondly, after both parties sign it, go to the local notary office for notarization. Finally, it's best to ask him to write you an IOU when you pay.

It is advisable to find a lawyer immediately and consult with you in detail.

First of all, the house is yours and you can rest assured. Transaction house, no matter how good the relationship is, there are always transaction receipts and contracts, right? Is it okay to have witnesses? Find these strong evidence, greet relevant witnesses in advance, and breathe (no way, the Chinese are too affectionate).

If the evidence has been destroyed and cannot be verified. Ask your neighbor to prove that you have lived there for many years and that you actually own the house. Also, show the original title deed to the court and have your lawyer defend you for de facto possession.

If the other party delivers the property title certificate, it constitutes a de facto gift of the subject matter in law, and the other party has no right to take it back. (That's the next step.) ）

Good luck. If it is not critical, do not take the route of litigation, it is best to negotiate with the other party to settle it, and know the reason. Finally, next time, remember to be cautious in everything, there are no loopholes in the law, and abiding by the law is the premise of being guaranteed. Change the head of the household as soon as the case is won.

Legally, your purchase contract has come into effect, but it has not been actually performed. You can ask the other party's heirs to continue to perform the purchase contract.

You've lost a lot!

Property rights are subject to a registration system, and whoever is registered is who's, and it has nothing to do with any agreement, just like a marriage certificate, without that book, the two are not protected couples even if they give birth to 10 babies. So if the seller doesn't let go, under normal circumstances, you're doomed to lose.

What can be done now is to try to put pressure on the seller from a reasonable point of view, or take the initiative to bear a part of the cost, and try to get the seller to continue to fulfill the original agreement.

This is very difficult to do, the house is real estate, the sale and purchase transaction is to the housing management department to transfer, now there is no transfer, the owner is still your friend, he should have his heirs to inherit after his death. Unless you have proof that you bought the house in the first place, and you want to transfer the property before the demolition.

For other matters, please call the lawyer** indicated in the username below.

Given this situation, I find it really tricky and impersonal in front of the law.

If you just get the owner's real estate certificate, but do not go through the transfer procedures, their family can still get the house back through legal means, and you don't have any proof that the house was sold to you, the real estate certificate in your hands does not mean anything, so if you want to get the house or transfer procedures through legal means, it will not work, only take the road of favors, explain the matter to the relatives of your deceased friend, and it is best to persuade them to go through the transfer procedures. Otherwise, the house may not really become your property in the future.

You will also have to provide other evidence, such as insider testimony, payment receipts, etc.

1. There should be evidence to prove that there is a house sale contract (oral agreement) with the deceased and that the house has been actually delivered, and you have also paid for the house, but the transfer registration has not been completed. Otherwise, the property ownership certificate alone is not enough to prove that you have acquired the property, and the transfer registration must be registered according to the property law to have the effect of real rights.

2. If the first clause can be proven, the other party's request will be rejected. You can also sue their heirs (including children) in court for confirmation of ownership and transfer to your name.

3. If you can't prove what you say, you are in a disadvantageous position in terms of proof.

Then you're out of luck. Do you still have your receipt?

1. First of all, the notarization is valid, and the house is yours. The father has no right to take it back. The father no longer has any rights to the house, so he cannot interfere.

2. Secondly, the ** agreement you signed with your brother is valid. You can't unilaterally ask for the termination of the agreement. So now you can only ask your brother to pay the rest of the money.

Whose name is registered on the title deed now? If it's the names of your husband and wife, it's easy to ask your wife to sue and confirm that you have no right to dispose of the contract with your brother, and your wife, as the owner of the property, asks for confirmation that your direct sales contract is invalid.

If it's only registered in your name, the problem is a bit complicated. The contract is valid, therefore, he can pay the house in full and ask you to hand over the house to him. I can't help you.

Also, your father has no right to intervene in this matter now, it has been notarized, and the ownership has been transferred, this house belongs to you, there is no problem with this.

You're really complicated! Why don't you go to the news section of Kunshan Real Estate Network?

As long as the house is not registered, the house is still yours, so it doesn't matter, whoever is registered in the house is who's owned, but the sales contract between you and your brother is still valid, and if you don't perform, he has the right to sue you for breach of contract, so it's still a bit troublesome.

1. If the copy is signed before you get the marriage certificate

The contract or the real estate certificate is completed, and the name is in your name: this house is your personal property before marriage, and you alone have the right to dispose of it, and she has no right to forcibly ask for her name to be added. The decision is yours to add her name or not.

1) If you don't add her name: In case you divorce in the future, this house will be all yours, and she will not have her share.

2) If her name is added: the house becomes your joint property, and it is deemed that you have given her half of the property rights, and if she divorces in the future, she will take half of the house.

2. If there is no name on the real estate certificate: the house has no right to you and her, and she has no right to forcibly ask for her name to be added.

3. If the real estate certificate is shared by you and others: add her name, even if you agree, you still need to get the consent of other co-owners.

It is advisable to be cautious when adding her name, it is best to negotiate with your family, and also to see if the demolition agreement stipulates that you will also have a property in the future.

Start by identifying your home.

The problem of property is that the replacement is not based on the nature of the allocation of housing according to the head of the bai, so it has nothing to do with the relocation of the hukou, and the real estate right is still in the name of the original owner, and there should be no other ideas. As for your wife's desire for a house of property, that is the problem of the original owner's transfer, you have no right to agree at all, but only the right to make suggestions, even if the real estate certificate is written in your wife's name, it should belong to your wife's personal property before eight years after marriage, and generally do not do property notarization, and it is the joint property of your husband and wife after eight years.

If you get divorced, the house must legally belong to your wife, and if she insists on writing her name, it means that she is not the one who loves you but the house that loves you.

You can write her name, and if you write her name, it will belong to your parents or your family, and if you get divorced, it will be divided equally.

You can find a lawyer to do the prenuptial property characterization.

Hello, the court enforcement is to ask you to vacate the house. However, you need to be provided with temporary accommodation.

If it is indeed someone else's, then you have to move or buy it in the end, and if the judgment does not involve the matter of building your own house, then the relatives have no right to demolish your house.

If you believe that the court's decision is inconsistent with the facts, you can file an appeal or retrial.

It can help you protect your rights.

Hello! If you really don't have a place to live, the court will ask you to vacate your house and provide you with temporary accommodation.

Hello, if you don't have a temporary home, the court won't force you to move out.

Let me come to your question, both of your questions should belong to the issue of creditor's rights preservation in the general theory of creditor's rights.

The first question: A can exercise the creditor's right of avoidance to revoke the due claim that B has waived against C.

The condition for the creditor to exercise the right of avoidance is that the debtor may exercise certain acts to the detriment of the interests of the creditor, and the creditor exercises the right of avoidance against the debtor by way of litigation.

The right of revocation, by its nature, is a right of formation and is subject to a one-year exclusion period; The creditor's exercise of the right of revocation can only be exercised by way of litigation, and no other means are allowed. The specific exercise process is that the creditor (A) takes the debtor (B) as the defendant, and the court adds the third party (C) as the third party ex officio.

The legal consequence is that the litigation costs shall be borne by the debtor (B), and if the third party is at fault, it shall be appropriately shared. After the creditor exercises the right of avoidance, the debtor's previous acts are null and void, but the creditor may not directly claim the claim against the third party on the basis of the right of avoidance, but still claim the claim against the debtor. Specifically, in this case, A cannot directly claim the claim against C, but still claims against B.

Now comes to your second question: A can exercise the creditor's right of subrogation to D, and the position of the creditor in the subrogation here refers to the creditor's substitution of the debtor's position and the exercise of subrogation to the secondary debtor.

The conditions for exercising the right of subrogation are: the creditor's claim against the debtor has reached the repayment period, and the debtor's claim against the secondary debtor has also expired, but the debtor is negligent in exercising its due claim against the secondary debtor and the creditor's claim against the debtor may be frustrated. In such a case, the creditor may exercise its right of subrogation by way of litigation.

The nature of subrogation is a claim, subject to the statute of limitations. The creditor's exercise of subrogation can only be carried out by way of litigation, and no other means are allowed. When the creditor exercises the right of subrogation, the secondary debtor shall be the defendant, and the court shall add the debtor as a third party ex officio.

The legal consequence is that the litigation costs shall be borne by the secondary debtor (D), and the maintenance costs shall be borne by the debtor (B). After creditor (A) exercises the right of subrogation, it can directly enforce the creditor's claim against the secondary debtor (D), but the creditor-debtor relationship between it and the debtor (B) is extinguished.

PS: I am a graduate student in law school, and I hope the above can answer your doubts, hehe.

In response to B's waiver of C's due claim, A may exercise the right of avoidance in the name of harming its due claim. With B as the defendant, he asked the court to revoke the revocation.

A may exercise the right of subrogation against B's due claim against D. With Ding as the defendant, the people's court where Ding is located will be sued.

1. A can exercise the creditor's right of revocation and sue the court to request that B give up its 1 million due claims against C.

Condition: B's waiver of the due claim infringes on the realization of A's claim, and the process: B is the defendant and C is the third party.

2. A can exercise the right of substitution, exercise the right on behalf of B, sue D, and demand repayment of 800,000 yuan.