签了合同，交了房款，房子却因房产公司债务纠纷要被法院强制执行，消费者该怎么办？日前，最高人 民法院发布《关于审理执行异议之诉案件适用法律问题的解释》（以下简称《解释》）对商品房消费者 权益保护进行了细化，更具可操作性，将更好保护买房人的合法权益。《解释》已于2025年7月24日起 施行。 执行异议之诉，是针对强制执行中发生的财产争议提起的诉讼。此类诉讼发生，主要因为被执行财产权 利"名实不符"，即被执行财产的实际权利人与名义权利人分离。在这种情形下，案外人的合法财产就可 能被作为被执行人的财产进行处置。 最高人民法院民一庭负责人表示，对于所购商品房是用于满足家庭居住生活需要的商品房消费者，《解 释》对保障房屋交付请求权和价款返还请求权予以规范。其中明确"所购商品房系用于满足家庭居住生 活需要"，"家庭"一般是指夫妻和未成年子女，以家庭为单位考察房屋的持有状况。"居住生活需要"则 应不再限于家庭唯一住房，并可涵盖改善性住房。 这在另一起典型案例——韩某与河南某农村商业银行、某房地产开发公司申请执行人执行异议之诉一案 中有所实践。该案中，虽然韩某在农村另有住宅，但其在市区购买房屋，是为了满足韩某及其家人工 作、生 ...

开发商预售的房屋烂尾后，或者房子虽已交付但业主还没有办下房产证，房屋往往成为强制执行中财产 争议的一大焦点，买房人、抵押权人、享有建设工程价款优先受偿权的承包人，优先保护谁？ 在这起案件中，司法裁判需要回应的是，在衡量买房人的生存居住权与债权人的财产债权之间，谁的权 益更需要优先保护？在城乡融合发展中，韩某遇到的房屋纠纷案并非个例。 对韩某这类案件和烂尾楼有关的执行异议之诉中棘手的司法问题，最高法院最近作出明确回应。 2025年7月23日，最高人民法院（下称"最高法院"）发布《关于审理执行异议之诉案件适用法律问题的 解释》（下称"执行异议之诉司法解释"），对于期房预售中的交易监管、预售资金监管、不动产登记等 环节存在的问题，着手细化落实稳定预期、化解风险工作。其中对于商品房消费者权益保护进行细化， 进一步拓宽保护范围，更大力度守护买房人的合法权益。 一、买房人的居住权能否对抗金钱债权 在韩某房屋的执行异议案件中，因韩某名下在农村另有住房，这成为这类案件以往的一个争议焦点。根 据以往的规定和司法实践，在民事执行领域，如果被执行的房产是买房人的唯一住房，可排除强制执 行。但如果还有其他房产，则不能排除强制执行。如 ...

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court has implemented an interpretation regarding the legal issues related to the execution of objections in lawsuits, providing stronger legal protection for homebuyers affected by unfinished buildings [1][3] - The interpretation addresses the common issue of "difficulty in refunding" for homebuyers when contracts are terminated due to non-delivery of properties, allowing courts to support requests for the return of payments from the property sale proceeds [3] Summary by Sections Legal Framework - The interpretation consists of 23 articles that clarify specific rules for protecting the rights of homebuyers, including handling of paid amounts after contract termination and property registration requests [3] - It particularly targets the issue of unfinished buildings, offering a solution for homeowners whose contracts have been terminated [3] Financial Implications - Article 12 of the interpretation allows homeowners of unfinished buildings to file an objection lawsuit if the court has frozen the developer's pre-sale funds, enabling the potential release of these funds for refunds to homebuyers [3] - This change means that previously frozen pre-sale funds can be utilized under certain conditions, enhancing the financial recourse available to affected buyers [3] Impact on Homebuyers - The interpretation expands the protection for homebuyers from "housing needs" to "living needs," removing the restriction on "only housing" and easing the recognition of property types [3] - Legal experts believe this development is significant for homeowners of unfinished buildings, providing much-needed support in resolving refund disputes with developers and courts [3]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has issued an interpretation aimed at addressing practical challenges in the adjudication of execution objection lawsuits, particularly focusing on protecting the legitimate rights of property consumers and punishing fraudulent litigation practices [1][2][3] Group 1: Legal Interpretation and Its Implications - The interpretation consists of 23 articles and will take effect on July 24, 2025, addressing jurisdictional issues and the resolution of related claims in execution objection lawsuits [1][2] - It aims to clarify adjudication rules, enhance the efficiency of trial execution, and improve the substantive resolution of conflicts and disputes [3][7] Group 2: Consumer Rights Protection - The interpretation emphasizes the protection of property consumers' rights, particularly in cases where the actual rights of property owners differ from nominal rights [2][5] - It supports the right to request the return of purchase funds for properties that cannot be delivered, and it broadens the definition of "residential needs" to include improved housing [6][5] Group 3: Addressing Practical Challenges - The interpretation provides clear guidelines for filing execution objection lawsuits, particularly in complex situations involving multiple seizures of the same property [7][8] - It allows for the consolidation of related claims in execution objection lawsuits, addressing the long-standing issue of resolving interconnected disputes [8][9] Group 4: Prevention of Fraudulent Practices - The interpretation includes measures to prevent fraudulent litigation aimed at evading debt obligations, requiring courts to scrutinize the authenticity of contracts and payments [9] - It establishes legal responsibilities for parties involved in malicious collusion or fabrication of evidence to obstruct execution [9]

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has issued an interpretation to enhance the protection of homebuyers' rights, effective from July 24, 2025 [1] - The interpretation expands the scope of consumer rights protection in real estate transactions, allowing for better safeguarding of buyers' interests in cases of developer debt disputes [4][5] - The interpretation allows for the exclusion of forced execution on properties that meet the criteria of "residential living needs," which now includes improved housing, not just the primary residence [5][6] Group 2 - The interpretation emphasizes the priority of construction project payment rights, allowing contractors to negotiate property value for debt recovery, which can exclude mortgage rights or general monetary claims from forced execution [3][4] - Courts are instructed to focus on the substantive review of whether the disputed property is essential for the normal living conditions of the family involved [6] - The interpretation aims to prevent fraudulent practices in debt recovery, emphasizing the need for courts to verify the authenticity of contracts and payment claims to combat false litigation [7][8]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court issued an interpretation to clarify the legal issues regarding the execution objection lawsuit, specifically expanding the protection of consumer rights in the real estate sector, effective from July 24, 2025 [1] Group 1: Definition and Context - Execution objection lawsuit refers to litigation initiated against property disputes arising during court-enforced execution, emphasizing efficiency in ensuring creditors' rights while protecting the actual rights of third parties [2] - The conflict arises when the actual rights of the property differ from the nominal rights, leading to potential legal risks, especially in real estate transactions where consumers have paid for properties but have not received ownership certificates [2] Group 2: Expanded Protection for Consumers - The interpretation allows for the exclusion of forced execution not only for a family's sole residence but also for properties that meet living needs, thus broadening the scope of consumer protection [3][4] - The criteria for consumers to request exclusion from forced execution include having a valid purchase contract, having paid the full or part of the price, and the property being for family living needs [4] Group 3: Judicial Precedents - The Supreme Court has supported cases where consumers seeking to improve living conditions or purchasing additional properties for work relocation can successfully file execution objections [5] - A specific case highlighted involved a couple who purchased a property in a desirable school district, which was deemed to meet their living needs and thus protected from forced execution despite owning another property [6][7]

7月23日，最高人民法院发布《关于审理执行异议之诉案件适用法律问题的解释》（以下简称《解 释》），强调依法惩治通过虚假执行异议之诉规避执行，从而实现逃废债务目的的行为。《解释》自 2025年7月24日起施行。 新规：以执行异议之诉妨碍执行的，罚款、拘留或移送公安机关 执行异议之诉是针对法院强制执行中发生的财产争议提起的诉讼。最高法执行局负责人介绍，执行工作 强调效率，为确保债权人的债权及时、全面实现，一般根据财产登记、占有情况采取查封措施，但是该 财产实际上可能不属于被执行人可用来清偿债务的财产，继续执行将损害案外人实体权利。 "执行异议之诉旨在为真实权利人提供执行救济。现实中，个别被执行人试图'钻制度的空子'，为了规 避执行、拖延执行，与案外人恶意串通、提供虚假证据，捏造事实向法院提出执行异议及执行异议之 诉，此类情形应严厉打击，确保执行救济制度不被滥用。"最高法民一庭负责人表示。 对此，《解释》第二十一条明确：案外人与被执行人、申请执行人之间恶意串通，通过伪造证据，或者 单方捏造案件基本事实，以执行异议之诉妨碍依法执行的，人民法院应当驳回其诉讼请求，并根据情节 轻重予以罚款、拘留；涉嫌刑事犯罪的，人民法院 ...