88必发老虎机,88必发线上老虎机,88必发在线老虎机

在线提交 | 加入收藏[ 88必发老虎机-专业的论文学习平台 ]
您当前的位置:88必发老虎机 > 毕业论文 > 在职硕士论文 > 专业硕士论文 > 法律硕士论文

夫妻房产约定的立法缺陷探讨

时间:2017-07-07 来源:88必发老虎机 所属分类: 法律硕士论文 本文字数:4008字
  摘要:中国经济的快速发展,居民收入水平的提高,一方面带来的是日益复杂、多样化的夫妻财产关系,另一方面是人们对夫妻双方各自作为独立的民事主体的认识日益提高。在此背景下,法定的夫妻财产制度已经不足以满足婚姻生活的需要,为充分行使“意思自治”的自由,越来越多的夫妻选择订立财产协议来调整夫妻财产关系。但由于立法上的不明确,加之夫妻间的财产协议本身所具有的身份属性和无偿性等特点,使得司法实践中处理相关案件时常出现适用法律不一,同案异判的现象,这一现象在涉及夫妻房产约定的案件中显得尤为突出,因为此间不但涉及到夫妻财产约定与夫妻间的赠与行为的区分,还涉及到夫妻财产约定的法律效力与物权法中的公示原则的冲突,故对这一问题的研究具有深刻的理论和现实意义。
  
  2011 年颁布实施的《婚姻法司法解释(三)》对夫妻间赠与房产的行为作出了明确的规定,即夫妻一方将其个人所有的房产赠与另一方的,适用《合同法》第一百八十六条关于赠与人任意撤销权的规定。但该司法解释的出台后,理论界出现较大争议,争议焦点主要有两个方面,一是该条规定是否明确了夫妻一方将个人所有房产转移给另一方的行为系赠与行为,二是该行为的法律效力如何。国内与之相关的理论研究主要涉及我国约定夫妻财产制度的立法模式、夫妻财产约定的性质及法律适用规则、夫妻财产约定的法律效力与物权公示原则的冲突等,但均尚未形成统一认识。
  
  另外,《婚姻法司法解释(三)》的出台对于解决司法实践中同案异判的现象也没有起到帮助作用。在笔者所搜集的相关案例中,对各类夫妻房产约定,均出现了赠与合同和夫妻财产约定两种不同的性质认定,且司法文书中适用《婚姻法司法解释(三)》第六条的比例不到一半。通过对大量案例进行实证研究,笔者总结出导致司法实践中对夫妻房产约定的性质认定不同的三个原因:对于赠与合同的标的和内容认识不统一、对于《婚姻法》第十九条规定的夫妻财产约定的类型认识不统一、对于夫妻间财产协议的法律适用规则认识不统一。
  
  针对实务中出现的这三个问题,笔者对夫妻财产约定和赠与合同的相关理论进行了有针对性的研究,明确了夫妻财产约定和赠与合同的关键特征,提出了区分夫妻财产约定和赠与合同时需要考虑的三个问题:约定的财产所有权变动形式、当事人间是否有经济利益的交换,以及约定是否以财产所有权或财产性利益的完全转移为目的。
  
  在此基础之上,笔者依物权法的规定,将夫妻房产约定分为两类,并分别对其的法律适用进行了具体论述。本文认为,夫妻房产约定将一方所有房产或房产份额约定为另一方所有的,应当认定为赠与合同,根据《婚姻法司法解释(三)》第六条的规定,可以适用《合同法》第一百八十六条,允许赠与方在房产变更登记前撤销赠与。夫妻将房产或房产份额在一方所有和双方共同共有之间变动的,应当认定为夫妻财产约定,适用《婚姻法》第十九条的规定,直接在夫妻间发生权利变动的法律效力,原权利人不享有单方解除权。
  
  关键词:夫妻房产约定 夫妻财产约定 赠与合同 法律适用 物权法。
  
  Abstract:With the rapid development of Chinese economy, and the improvement of theresident income, the marital property relationship become increasingly complicated,and couples are becoming more and more self-aware. Under this background, to bettermeets the various needs of the marriage life, couples become more intent to makeproperty agreement. However, because of the absence of definite regulation, as wellas the features of couple's property agreement which make its legal nature seemsmore obscure, different judgements on the same cases appears frequently in juridicalpractice,the problem is specially obvious in the cases involving the variation of realestate's ownership between husband and wife. The research on this problem is of bothprofound realistic and theoretical meaning, for that the law application of theinterspousal property agreement on the ownership variation of real estates involvestwo legal issues: the distinction between promissory spouse property agreement andthe interspousal grant act, and the conflict between the legal force of promissoryspouse property agreement and the demonstrative principle of real right.
  
  The interpretations of the Supreme People's Court about Several IssuesConcerning the Application of the Marriage Law (III) has clearly provide theinterspousal grant acts about real estates. However, the interpretation hasn't settle thedisagreements in juridical practice and academic circles on the issue of the lawapplication of Interspousal Property Agreement, and the different jugements on thesame cases still exist. To be specific, the disagreements are about two issues: whetherthe regulation has clarified that the variation of the real estates between husband andwife is a grant act, and the legal force of the act. The domestic relevant theoreticalresearch involving the Legislation pattern of Chinese promissory spouse propertysystem, the legal nature and legal application of the interspousal property agreement,and the conflict between its legal force and the demonstrative principle of real right.
  
  To specify the factors which lead to the different judgements on the same cases,this thesis makes a statistical analysis on a certain amount of relevant cases, and findsout that on the legal nature of all kinds of interspousal property agreement about thevariation of real estate's ownership, there exists two different viewpoints--grant actand promissory spouse property agreement, and that less than half of the judgementsapplicate the interpretation above-mentioned. Through empirical study, this thesisconcludes three factors which lead to the different judgements on the same cases:different viewpoint on the subject matter of the grant contract, the 19th clause of theMarriage Law, and the law application rules on the interspousal property agreement.
  
  In order to figure out the three different viewpoints above-mentioned, this thesismakes a theoretical research on the relevant issues, and put forward a viewpoint thatthere are three factors need to be considered when identifying the legal nature of theinterspousal property agreement: the way of variation of the property ownership,whether there is exchange of economic interests, and whether the agreement involvescontent about a complete variation of property ownership.
  
  On the basis of the researches above, this thesis specify the law application of theinterspousal property agreement about the variation of real estate's ownership as twodifferent kinds. For the interspousal property agreement that alters the propertyownership or part of which from husband to wife, it shall be regarded as gift contract,and subject to the 186th clause of the Contract Law, meanwhile, the verdict shall alsoconsider the Specificity of the interspousal grant, and applicate relevant regulation ofthe Contract law. For the interspousal property agreement that alters the propertyownership or part of which from individual to joint possession, it shall be regarded as promissory spouse property agreement, and subject to the 19th clause of the MarriageLaw.
  
相近论文:
  • 上海网络警察报警平台
  • 公共信息安全网络监察
  • 经营性网站备案信息
  • 不良信息举报中心
  • 中国文明网传播文明
  • 88必发老虎机_诚信网站
返回顶部