原(yuan)標(biao)題：競買法拍(pai)房(fang)，拖欠的(de)物業費誰來(lai)承擔(dan)？

　　受邀嘉賓：甘(gan)肅策橫律師(shi)事務(wu)所律師(shi)阮　磊

　　主(zhu)持(chi)人(ren)：新甘肅·甘肅法治報記者(zhe)李曉云

　　本期主題(ti)：在房(fang)(fang)地(di)產市場中(zhong)，法(fa)(fa)拍(pai)房(fang)(fang)因(yin)其相對(dui)低(di)廉的價格而成(cheng)為不(bu)(bu)少購房(fang)(fang)者(zhe)的優先(xian)選(xuan)擇(ze)。然而，當競拍(pai)成(cheng)功后，一些(xie)隱藏的問題(ti)卻逐漸浮出水面，給(gei)新(xin)業主帶來不(bu)(bu)少困擾。本期“舉案說法(fa)(fa)”將(jiang)圍繞法(fa)(fa)拍(pai)房(fang)(fang)物業費糾紛展開探討(tao)，分析其中(zhong)的法(fa)(fa)律關系，以幫助購房(fang)(fang)者(zhe)理解自身(shen)責任、維護(hu)合(he)法(fa)(fa)權益。

　　典型案(an)例(li)：2023年(nian)，小(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)李(li)經(jing)司(si)法拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)競(jing)(jing)得(de)一處房(fang)(fang)產，原(yuan)房(fang)(fang)主(zhu)(zhu)為小(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)王(wang)(wang)。成為新業(ye)主(zhu)(zhu)后，物(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)向小(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)李(li)催(cui)收(shou)物(wu)(wu)業(ye)相(xiang)關(guan)欠費(fei)。小(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)李(li)拒絕支付案(an)涉房(fang)(fang)屋(wu)原(yuan)房(fang)(fang)主(zhu)(zhu)之(zhi)前所(suo)欠的(de)費(fei)用。經(jing)催(cui)要無(wu)果，物(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)將(jiang)小(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)李(li)和(he)小(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)王(wang)(wang)一并訴至人(ren)(ren)(ren)民(min)法院(yuan)。庭(ting)審中(zhong)，物(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)提(ti)交(jiao)《拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)告(gao)》，其中(zhong)第七條載(zai)明：標的(de)物(wu)(wu)過戶登記手(shou)續由買(mai)(mai)受(shou)人(ren)(ren)(ren)自行(xing)辦(ban)理，物(wu)(wu)業(ye)費(fei)、水(shui)、電等欠費(fei)以及(ji)法律法規(gui)沒(mei)有規(gui)定(ding)或者規(gui)定(ding)不明的(de)稅費(fei)均由買(mai)(mai)受(shou)人(ren)(ren)(ren)承擔(dan)，具體費(fei)用請競(jing)(jing)買(mai)(mai)人(ren)(ren)(ren)于拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)前自行(xing)到(dao)相(xiang)關(guan)單位查詢了解，與(yu)拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)人(ren)(ren)(ren)無(wu)涉。小(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)李(li)認為，法院(yuan)《拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)告(gao)》里面寫(xie)得(de)很清(qing)楚(chu)是跟拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)人(ren)(ren)(ren)無(wu)涉，而非與(yu)原(yuan)房(fang)(fang)主(zhu)(zhu)無(wu)關(guan)。小(xiao)(xiao)(xiao)王(wang)(wang)認為，自己未收(shou)到(dao)物(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)的(de)催(cui)收(shou)電話或者信息，甚至未與(yu)物(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)簽署合同(tong)，故其和(he)物(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)之(zhi)間不存在物(wu)(wu)業(ye)服務關(guan)系。

　　裁判結果：物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)公司與開發商(shang)簽訂的(de)(de)《前期物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)服(fu)務(wu)合(he)同》合(he)法有(you)效且未到(dao)期終止(zhi)，物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)公司依合(he)同約(yue)定提供了物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)管理服(fu)務(wu)，有(you)權主張(zhang)相(xiang)應(ying)(ying)物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)費用。小(xiao)李(li)在(zai)《拍賣公告》載明(ming)(ming)物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)費、水(shui)、電等(deng)欠費由買受人(ren)承(cheng)(cheng)擔(dan)的(de)(de)情(qing)況下，以參(can)與競拍的(de)(de)實際(ji)行為表明(ming)(ming)同意，構成債務(wu)加入(ru)，應(ying)(ying)對小(xiao)王(wang)就案涉(she)房屋應(ying)(ying)支(zhi)付(fu)的(de)(de)物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)管理相(xiang)關欠費承(cheng)(cheng)擔(dan)連(lian)帶清(qing)(qing)償責任(ren)。最終判決現房主小(xiao)李(li)應(ying)(ying)向物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)公司支(zhi)付(fu)相(xiang)關物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)欠費，小(xiao)王(wang)對小(xiao)李(li)應(ying)(ying)承(cheng)(cheng)擔(dan)的(de)(de)債務(wu)承(cheng)(cheng)擔(dan)連(lian)帶清(qing)(qing)償責任(ren)。

　　主持人(ren)：原房主是否應當對房屋競拍前拖(tuo)欠的物業費承(cheng)擔責任？

　　阮　磊：本(ben)案中(zhong)，原房(fang)主(zhu)小(xiao)王主(zhu)張(zhang)其未與物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)簽訂(ding)物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)服務(wu)(wu)合(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)，且未收(shou)到物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)的(de)催收(shou)通知(zhi)，因(yin)此不(bu)應(ying)承擔物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)費。這(zhe)一主(zhu)張(zhang)是沒有法律依(yi)據的(de)。物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)與開發商簽訂(ding)的(de)《前(qian)期物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)服務(wu)(wu)合(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)》合(he)(he)法有效且未到期終止，物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)依(yi)合(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)約定提供了物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)管理(li)(li)服務(wu)(wu)，就(jiu)有權(quan)主(zhu)張(zhang)相應(ying)物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)費用。此外，依(yi)據《中(zhong)華人民共和國物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)管理(li)(li)條(tiao)例》第四十一條(tiao)之(zhi)規定，業(ye)主(zhu)是物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)費的(de)繳納(na)義務(wu)(wu)主(zhu)體，即使房(fang)屋處于(yu)空置(zhi)狀態(tai)，業(ye)主(zhu)仍(reng)需(xu)繳納(na)物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)費。即使房(fang)產被司(si)(si)法拍(pai)賣，原房(fang)主(zhu)與物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)公(gong)(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)間的(de)物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)服務(wu)(wu)合(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)效力不(bu)受影響，原房(fang)主(zhu)仍(reng)需(xu)履行(xing)合(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)義務(wu)(wu)。本(ben)案中(zhong)，小(xiao)王作為(wei)原房(fang)主(zhu)應(ying)當繳納(na)房(fang)屋競(jing)拍(pai)前(qian)拖欠的(de)物(wu)(wu)(wu)業(ye)管理(li)(li)費用。

　　主(zhu)持(chi)人：為何買受人與原(yuan)房主(zhu)需(xu)承擔連帶(dai)清償責任？

　　阮　磊：法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)拍房的買受人(ren)，是否應(ying)(ying)當(dang)承擔(dan)原房主的物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)欠費(fei)(fei)(fei)(fei)，取(qu)決于(yu)《拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)公告》的約定及其法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)律(lv)效力(li)(li)。本案中，《拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)公告》明確載明：“物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)費(fei)(fei)(fei)(fei)、水(shui)、電等(deng)欠費(fei)(fei)(fei)(fei)以及法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)律(lv)法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)規沒有規定或者規定不明的稅費(fei)(fei)(fei)(fei)均由買受人(ren)承擔(dan)。”這一條(tiao)款具有公開性和明確性，小(xiao)李在參與競(jing)拍時應(ying)(ying)當(dang)知曉并接(jie)受該(gai)條(tiao)款。根據《最高人(ren)民法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)關于(yu)人(ren)民法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)院(yuan)網絡司法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)若(ruo)干問(wen)題(ti)的規定》，拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)公告中的權利負擔(dan)和瑕疵情況對買受人(ren)具有法(fa)(fa)(fa)(fa)律(lv)約束力(li)(li)。因(yin)此(ci)，小(xiao)李作為(wei)買受人(ren)，應(ying)(ying)當(dang)承擔(dan)原房主拖欠的物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)費(fei)(fei)(fei)(fei)。此(ci)外，依據《物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)管理條(tiao)例》第四十一條(tiao)之規定，物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)費(fei)(fei)(fei)(fei)的繳(jiao)納(na)義務(wu)主體是業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)主，而小(xiao)李在取(qu)得(de)房屋(wu)產權后成為(wei)新業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)主，應(ying)(ying)當(dang)承擔(dan)物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)費(fei)(fei)(fei)(fei)的繳(jiao)納(na)義務(wu)。雖然小(xiao)李與物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)公司之間(jian)未直接(jie)簽訂物(wu)業(ye)(ye)(ye)(ye)服(fu)務(wu)合同，但(dan)其通(tong)過競(jing)拍行為(wei)接(jie)受了《拍賣(mai)(mai)(mai)公告》中的條(tiao)款，構成對原債務(wu)的加入，因(yin)此(ci)應(ying)(ying)當(dang)承擔(dan)連帶清償責任。

　　主(zhu)持人：《拍賣公告》中(zhong)的條款是否屬于(yu)“格式條款”？

　　阮　磊：《拍(pai)(pai)賣公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)告(gao)(gao)》中的(de)(de)條款屬于格(ge)式條款，但(dan)其(qi)具(ju)有(you)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)開性和明(ming)確性，買(mai)(mai)受人在參與(yu)競拍(pai)(pai)時應當(dang)知曉并接(jie)受該(gai)條款。本案中，《拍(pai)(pai)賣公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)告(gao)(gao)》明(ming)確載明(ming)物業費(fei)等(deng)欠(qian)費(fei)由買(mai)(mai)受人承擔，這一條款并未違反公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)平原則，且買(mai)(mai)受人小(xiao)李(li)通(tong)(tong)過(guo)參與(yu)競拍(pai)(pai)的(de)(de)行為表明(ming)其(qi)接(jie)受了(le)該(gai)條款。因(yin)此，該(gai)條款對小(xiao)李(li)具(ju)有(you)法律(lv)約(yue)束(shu)力，其(qi)應當(dang)承擔查詢房屋(wu)欠(qian)費(fei)的(de)(de)義務，并支(zhi)付原房主拖(tuo)欠(qian)的(de)(de)物業費(fei)。此外，根據(ju)《中華人民(min)共和國民(min)法典(dian)》第(di)四百(bai)九十六條，格(ge)式條款的(de)(de)提供方應當(dang)采取合理(li)的(de)(de)方式提示(shi)(shi)對方注意相關條款。在本案中，《拍(pai)(pai)賣公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)告(gao)(gao)》通(tong)(tong)過(guo)公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)開公(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)示(shi)(shi)的(de)(de)方式明(ming)確了(le)物業費(fei)等(deng)欠(qian)費(fei)由買(mai)(mai)受人承擔，已(yi)經履行了(le)提示(shi)(shi)義務。因(yin)此，法院判決小(xiao)李(li)承擔物業費(fei)欠(qian)費(fei)合法有(you)據(ju)。