【作者】 张军建；

【导师】 漆多俊；

【作者基本信息】 中南大学 ， 管理科学与工程， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 住宅专项维修资金俗称住宅建筑物的“保命钱”,它关系到建筑物以及社区共用部分设施设备在若干年后的维修,是牵涉到社稷民生的大事。为规范房地产开发商的行为、维护房屋买受人的权益,我国政府根据房地产发展过程中存在的问题就此单独立法,由财政部建设部1997年联合制定、1998年颁布实施了《住宅共用部分共用设备设施维修资金管理办法》,历时九年之余。该办法对住宅专项维修资金的交存、管理和使用虽起到了一定的规范作用,但也存在着制度上的不完善和不健全的地方。为此,2008年2月1日《住宅专项维修资金管理办法》在旧办法的基础上进行了大幅度的修正与完善,并公布实施,但修改后的新办法仍存一些值得探究和商榷之处。新办法并没有从根本上排除旧办法中关于开发商可以从房屋买受人处代收住宅维修资金的规定。当法律赋予了房地产开发商有从房屋买受人手中代收代交的权利时,将会造成大笔的维修资金长期滞留在开发商手中,以至于酿成许多开发商或物业服务企业侵吞或挪用住宅维修资金的触目惊心的事例。而房屋产权证书的不能按时办理和领取,建筑物无法及时维修,都与此有着密切的联系;其次,售后公有住房,既已售出,其权利归属便发生了转移,而业主按规定所交之住宅专项维修资金,其权利归属亦乃不言自喻之事。但新办法却沿袭旧办法,导致权利归属不明;业主委员会在售后公房的住宅维修资金的使用上需行政主管部门审批,不能享有完全的自主权;建筑质量的瑕疵给还不满质量保修期的住宅建筑带来过早维修的厄运;为了自身的权益不受损害,业主委员会奋起诉讼以维权,但由于法律主体地位或诉讼资格的争议,甚至被拒之庭外。针对以上等问题,怎样寻找适当的法律救济途径来维护房屋所有权人的合法权益,怎样完善该制度并杜绝以上问题的出现,本文首次创新地提出了从信托法的视觉透视住宅专项维修资金的法律性质并阐明了住宅专项维修资金当事人之间的信托关系和权利义务;在信托法基础理论研究上完善了限制性权利转移学说,厘清了受托人于信托中为什么忠实义务的实施对象应是委托人的理论根据和历史原因;根据住宅专项维修资金的几次易手的特点,除阐明了其在不同时段上各当事人之间的信托关系外,还根据住宅维修资金管理的特性和业主委员会以及物业服务企业的特点,提出二次再信托的观点,并围绕维修资金的管理运用构建了二次信托下的住宅专项维修资金的信托关系;从信托行为的外延的视角提出了住宅专项维修资金适用民事信托的观点,从而丰富了我国诸如此类的法律关系应纳入信托法调整的理论,由此也给司法界如何解释业主委员会的法律地位和承担法律责任找到了理论上的依据;另外,根据信托的特性,主张信托存续期间以信托财产的独立性来有效维护住宅专项维修资金的安全;还根据住宅维修资金社会性的特点,提出政府适度行政干预的适当性和开启在住宅专项维修资金制度下设立信托监察人的思路,建议在行政主管部门的协调下设立房地产委员会的第三人事业机构,从而避开行政过多干预的弊端。并通过与其他国家和地区的制度比较,建议取他山之石,给业主委员会以管理法人的地位。此外还就住宅专项维修资金现行法律制度的缺失与不完善之处提出了具体的修改建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Residential maintaining fund, commonly known as the life insurance of residential buildings, is related to the maintaining of buildings and social common sharing facilities for years. According to the problems occurred during the development period of domestic real estate, Chinese government realized the importance of establishment of residential maintaining fund. In order to standardize the behavior of real estate developers and safeguard the rights and interests of the buyers, Chinese Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Construction jointly enacted ’Administration Regulation of Residential Common Sharing Facilities and Equipment Maintaining Fund’ in 1997 and implemented this regulation in 1998 which has been over 9 years so far. Even though this regulation provides criterion of payment and administration of residential maintaining fund, however, there are institutional imperfection and faultiness. Therefore, ’ Administration Regulation of Residential Special Maintaining Fund’ (hereinafter referred as ’new regulation’, the original one referred as ’old regulation’) promulgated in Feb, 2008 has extensively been revamped and perfected on the basis of old regulation, however, there is still something worthy of being explored because of incomplete revision.Focusing on the system of residential maintaining fund, it can be summed up the following issues: the new regulation has not stipulated that ’the buyers should pay 2% of the whole price for the maintaining fund to the seller’, which has not fundamentally excluded from the old regulation that developers may collect the residential maintaining fund from the estate owners. As the regulation endows the real estate developers have the collection right of paying in replace of the buyers, it would result in that the huge maintaining fund substantially remains in the hands of developers, and even lead to many shocking cases that many developers and estate management enterprises misappropriate and peculate the residential maintaining fund. Housing ownership certification can not be received and processed on time and building can not be maintained timely, which is inextricably linked to it. Moreover, since public housing has already been sold, the owner right should be transferred. the residential maintaining fund submitted by the owners in accordance with the regulation, the ownership of its right is self-evident, but new regulation follows old regulation which leading to the unknown of its right ownership, or even the estate owners committee can not own the complete self-determination on the use of the residential maintaining fund of after-sale public housing, and still need the approval of executive governing department. The defects of construction quality also bring the pathetic result of repair in advance during quality guarantee period. In order that its own rights will not be harmed, the estate owners committee rouses the litigation to safeguard their rights. Because of the controversy of their legal status or litigation qualification, however, some of them are refused from the court.To all the issues that how to find an appropriate legal way to protect the rights of owners and improve the system of residential maintaining fund, this article innovatively puts forward the legal nature of maintaining fund and the trust legal relationship- rights and liabilities of each party from the vision of Trust Law at the first time, and analyzes the different trust legal relationship according to the characteristics of maintaining fund in different time, and exerts the independent feature of trust property to maintain security of residential maintaining fund. In virtue of trust legal characteristics of residential maintaining, it applies to civil trust to solve the theoretic problem that such legal relationship is stipulated by Trust Law, whereas, it provides the theoretic basis on the legal status and liability of owners committee. According to the features of residential maintaining fund, the owners committee and estate management enterprise, this essay brings forward the view of dual trust. By its social trait, it illustrates the propriety of appropriate administrative intervention of government and opens the idea of setting up the trust supervisor in the residential maintaining fund system with trust principle; and suggests establishing the third utilities service party to avoid excessive administration intervention. Comparing with related system of other countries, it proposes to provide the management corporation status to estate owners commit and raises the detailed proposal to the imperfectionof current related legal system.更多还原