Who is letting "one house, two sales" go unchecked?, Working and repaying loans for 10 years, house inexplicably occupied by the court | house | one bedroom
Recently, a bizarre property dispute in Hegang City, Heilongjiang Province has attracted public attention. Ms. Liu, a resident of Hegang, bought a house in the local area more than 10 years ago and completed the mortgage procedures. After working in another city for 10 years, she fully repaid the loan. However, upon returning to her own house, she found that a stranger named Wang's family was already living there, and the other party had also issued a court certificate.
Multiple media outlets followed up on interviews and sorted out the general process of the house being "legally" resold: the real estate developer who built this house, due to a contract dispute, was the defendant. After mediation by the court, the house was delivered to Zhang, who then sold it to Wang. The real estate developer is suspected of violating the law by offsetting the already owned house, but the problem is, why can this seemingly low-level "one house, two sales" error still be confirmed by the court?
Ms. Liu bought a house with real money and silver, not through private transactions, but through bank loans. She has also made records in the pre-sale permit management of commercial housing and the current sale record management system of commercial housing projects. As long as the court conducts basic verification, such a bizarre event cannot occur. This dispute, which should not have occurred, proves that the court handling the case had serious negligence in its work.
And this kind of oversight has happened more than once. A media investigation found that this real estate developer had previously mortgaged a sealed house to Zhang in the same way, and it was also confirmed by the aforementioned court. If there is no court intervention, the evidence of real estate developers selling two houses without authorization is conclusive, and Ms. Liu's rights protection may still be relatively easy. The current court certification has made "one house, two sales" legal, which is the most bizarre aspect of this incident.
"One house, two sales" was a common illegal behavior in the real estate market in the past. Some real estate developers, out of personal gain, engaged in illegal operations to defraud multiple homebuyers of their money. But the reason why these scams can work is often because they are selling properties that have not yet reached the stage of obtaining property certificates and cannot be queried in the commercial housing project filing management system, which has allowed some illegal real estate developers to take advantage of loopholes. A house like Ms. Liu, which has been mortgaged for 10 years and has been registered in the system, has been resold, which can only be attributed to the court's negligence in not strictly following the verification procedure.
The court, which represents fairness, surprisingly opens up the door for illegal behavior, which is surprising. This incident has harmed not only Ms. Liu, but also the credibility that the court should have. If mistakes are inevitable in work, the most important thing to do is to actively correct them after discovering them, compensate the victims, and hold accountable those responsible. Only in this way can it have the necessary deterrent effect. For properties that have clear ownership, as long as the procedures are strictly followed, it is impossible to have a situation of "one house, two sales". Behind this is more of a human rather than a system issue, and it is someone who is allowing the "one house, two sales" situation to occur.
To avoid similar situations from happening again, it is necessary to sound the alarm for relevant personnel. As for this incident, the competent authorities of the local court may need to step forward as soon as possible to investigate the reasons behind such low-level errors and see if there are any hidden activities such as interest transfer. Whether it is negligence or corruption in work, it is important to hold accountable as soon as possible. This is not only to ensure the fairness of individual cases, but also to reaffirm the seriousness of the system and be responsible to more people.