父母处分未成年子女名下不动产的适法性研究外文翻译资料

Guardian and Ward: Agreement to Convey Wards Real Estate

原文作者Michigan Law Review 单位Michigan Law Review

摘要：在没有法院命令的情况下订立买卖合同处分未成年人的不动产，是由于违反公共政策而无效，还是仅仅因为没有得到授权而无效，一直是一项争议的焦点。文章通过分析各种同类型案例，最终得出法院在类似案件上的处理方式。

关键词：监护人； 被监护人； 不动产； 合同效力

监护人与被监护人——同意转让被监护人的不动产

考虑到原告将132英亩的土地转让给B的四个孩子，被告称其代表自己、其无行为能力的姐姐以及两个未成年弟弟，在没有取得法院任何授权的情况下，与原告签订了转让520英亩牧场的合同。有人认为，这种协议是无效的，因为其违反了公共政策。（博伊德诉博伊德案，俄勒冈州，1924年）

许多法院认为，监护人有权在没有法院命令的情况下出售被监护人的个人财产，但几乎所有人都认可，这种房地产的出售对个人或被监护人的财产没有约束力。一些法院认为该交易是无效的。更好的观点认为这种交易绝对无效。不动产和动产的所有权仍在监护范围内，任何出售都是合法的；这形成了一种理论，即法院进行买卖，而监护人只是法律的代理人或“手臂”。法律规定必须得到严格执行。在没有法院命令的情况下订立买卖合同是由于违反公共政策而无效，还是仅仅因为没有得到授权而无效，这之中存在相当大的权力冲突。在海特诉安德森一案中，法院认为，在申请出售其受监护人的房地产之前，以适当的价格吸引有意购买者并不违反公共政策，也不存在欺诈行为。在斯图尔特诉艾伦一案中，法院认为，要使此类契约无效，就必须证明其违背了某些已宣布的权利或积极义务，这是违反公共政策的必然效果。法院采取另一种观点的理由是，在唐宁诉皮博迪一案中，违反法律，违反了公共政策。“法律规定，除因特殊需要外不得出售未成年人财产，同时还要经过一系列为了保护未成年人而精心设计的诉讼程序进行，以获得最高价格。我们倾向于认为，监护人与他人订立的有关其被监护人的不动产的合同是违法的，违反了公共政策。”

外文文献出处：Guardian and Ward: Agreement to Convey Wards Real Estate[J]. Michigan Law Review, 1925, 23(5):541-542.

附外文文献原文

GUARDIAN AND WARD - AGREEMENT TO CONVEY WARDrsquo;S REAL ESTATE.

In consideration of the plaintiff conveying 132 acres to the four children of B., the defedant, claiming to represent himself, his incompetent sister, and two minor brothers, contracted to convey to the plaintiff 520 acres of pasture land without having obtained any authority from the court for that purpose. It was held, that such agreement was void as against public policy. Boyd v. Boyd, (Ore.1924) 230 Pac. 541.

Many courts hold that the guardian has the power to sell the wardrsquo;s personal property without a court order, but practically all agree that such a sale of the real estate is not binding on either the person or the estate of the ward. A few courts consider the sale as only voidable. The better view is that it is absolutely void. The title to both real and personal property remains in the ward, and any sale is judicial; it being the theory that the court makes the sale, and that the guardian acts only as the agent or arm of the law. Statutory provisions must be strictly pursued. There is considerable conflict of authority as to whether a contract to sell without a court order is void as against public policy, or simply void as being without authority. The court in Hyatt v. Anderson, 69 Neb. 702, held that it was not contrary to public policy, or fraudulent, for a guardian, before applying to sell the real estate of his ward, to procure an intending purchaser for an adequate price at the sale. Stuart v. Allen, 16 Cal. 474, held that to make such a contract void as against public policy the necessary effect must be to contravene some declared right or positive duty. The reasoning of the courts taking the other view is that it is contrary to public policy because the law was violated, Downing v. Peabody, 56 Ga. 40, or, as it was well expressed in Doughty v. Cottraux, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 125, “The law contemplates that sales of a minorrsquo;s property should not be made except when necessary for special purposes, through proceedings carefully devised for their protection, and so as to bring the largest price; and we incline to view as illegal and contrary to public policy the contract of the [guardian] with reference to his [wardrsquo;s] estate.”

Parent and Child: Guardian and Ward: Earnings of Minor Child

原文作者H.R.F. 单位California Law Review

专业 知识产权 学生姓名 朱宇泽

指导老师姓名：金龙鑫

摘要：未成年人自己所得的财产，其所有权是属于父母、监护人还是未成年人自己？笔者基于对大量判例以及法典的引用与分析，归纳总结了亲权与监护权的不同监护方式对于未成年人所得的财产的不同处理方法。

关键词：监护人； 被监护人； 监护权；未成年人财产

父母和子女：监护人与被监护人：未成年子女的收入

关于约翰逊的监护和遗产的事实（1929年10月7日），提出但并未决定由监护人监护的未成年人的收入的所有权问题，该未成年人的监护权因其父母有违道德的行为而被剥夺。在这个案件中，上诉的根据，是制定了一名未成年人的监护人和财产监护人，而这一行为是错误的，因为没有财产。法院关于指派一名财产监护人是适当的决定，归根结底似乎是基于以下基础，即即使未成年人没有财产，指派一名财产监护人也没有违反任何法律规定，也没有造成任何损害。通过这样的裁决，法院回避了该未成年人收入所有权的问题。然而，在法院的讨论中似乎有一种暗示，即这是属于未成年人的财产。因此，上诉法院为这一指派辩护，称这样做是为了未成年子女的最大利益，而且“未成年子女的教育、教养和道德是最重要的，而孩子每个月一千多美元的收入需要被保护。”我们可以断定，这个未成年人的收入是他自己的，应该留给他。这个结果似乎既合情合理又令人满意。然而，我们无法确定法院是否会接受这种解决问题的方法，因为在总结段落中显示，为财产和被监护人指定一名监护人对父母亲权并无侵害。法院说，在这种情况下，监护人无权将财产收归己有。另一方面，作为监护人，对于被监护人的某些资金和个人财产享有管理权，至少是对未成年人的适当支持和教育所必须的。当然，这可能需要家长的支持。提到属于父母的财产似乎是在暗示，儿童在由法院监护人监护期间的收入可能属于父母，这与法院早先的建议相反。在本案所涉及的情况下，儿童收入的所有权似乎是人身法中一个未经裁决的问题，这一事实可能解释了法院愿意做出判决而不具体处理这一问题的原因。然而，令人遗憾的是，由于没有作出更明确的声明，那么进一步的诉讼似乎不可避免。

这个问题的解决并非显而易见。儿童的收入通常属于父亲，这是英国普通法的产物。（在加州，根据民法第197条，父母对孩子财产的所有权是平等的。）这种与普通观念不同的资金确实属于赚钱的人，由于作为父母正确合理的赔偿和法律责任的支持，美国法院通常认可这种已经普遍强加给父母的做法，而拒绝了英国的法律规则。然而，父母对孩子的收入的权利有时被解释为监护权，它产生了指导未成年人的活动和引导其走向勤勉的道路。父亲的抚养义务只是一种道德义务，子女不具有法律强制性，这是英国普通法早已确立的规则，很明显，后一种解释在历史上被验证为正确的。加州法典中有关未成年人收入的规定表明，父母对子女工资权利的解释是对支持理论的否定。因此，私生子的收入归母亲所有，但抚养义务归于父亲。在分居或由母亲监护的情况下，服务和收入也属于母亲，即使至少就刑事责任而言，父亲仍然负有继续资助的责任。以上所有的这些情况都符合儿童收入分配的监护理论。

然而，在本案中，尽管结果可能是合理的，但收入属于未成年人本人的观点并不完全符合这两种理论，尽管它可能更容易与监护理论相一致。这显然与支持理论相冲突，因为抚养的义务仍落在父母身上，主要是父亲身上。（法院在上面引用的判决中承认了这一事实。）

监护理论在某种程度上也与所提出的结果不一致，因为根据这一理论，未成年人的收入不属于他本人，而是属于他的监护人。当未成年人的监护人以代替了父母的身份站在孩子身边时，这以合乎逻辑的结果也在其他司法判例中得以体现。即使是纯粹的监护人与被监护人之间的关系，不涉及父母权利的因素，也一直认为监护人有权获得被监护人的家庭照顾；但多数规则无疑是相反的，因为监护人不应被允许从其与被监护人的受托关系中获益。也许诚信义务的这一因素是使在健全的理论基础上建立子女的收入归属其本人这一规则成为可能的因素。如果我们说收入是源于监护权而非抚养权，那么不合格的父母就不能要求获得未成年人的个人收入；监护人，仅仅因为他们是法院的代理人，不能从强加给他们的信任中获得个人利益，所以不能提出任何要求。因此，收入不可避免地是属于未成年人本人。或者，更好的说法是，收入取决于监护权的规定只适用于未成年人由父母之一监护的情况；当孩子由法院指派的监护人监护时，通常认为对于工资的一般规则可以适用于此，即收入属于挣来这些钱的人。

外文文献出处：H. R F. Parent and Child: Guardian and Ward: Earnings of Minor Child[J]. California Law Review, 1930, 18(2):200-202.

附外文文献原文

PARENT AND CHILD: GUARDIAN AND WARD: EARNINGS OF MINOR CHILD. - The facts of Estate and Guardianship of Johnson (Oct. 7, 1929), present but do not decide the question of the ownership of the earnings of a minor in the custody of a guar

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

Guardian and Ward: Agreement to Convey Wards Real Estate

原文作者Michigan Law Review 单位Michigan Law Review

外文文献出处：Guardian and Ward: Agreement to Convey Wards Real Estate[J]. Michigan Law Review, 1925, 23(5):541-542.

附外文文献原文

GUARDIAN AND WARD - AGREEMENT TO CONVEY WARDrsquo;S REAL ESTATE.

In consideration of the plaintiff conveying 132 acres to the four children of B., the defedant, claiming to represent himself, his incompetent sister, and two minor brothers, contracted to convey to the plaintiff 520 acres of pasture land without having obtained any authority from the court for that purpose. It was held, that such agreement was void as against public policy. Boyd v. Boyd, (Ore.1924) 230 Pac. 541.

Many courts hold that the guardian has the power to sell the wardrsquo;s personal property without a court order, but practically all agree that such a sale of the real estate is not binding on either the person or the estate of the ward. A few courts consider the sale as only voidable. The better view is that it is absolutely void. The title to both real and personal property remains in the ward, and any sale is judicial; it being the theory that the court makes the sale, and that the guardian acts only as the agent or arm of the law. Statutory provisions must be strictly pursued. There is considerable conflict of authority as to whether a contract to sell without a court order is void as against public policy, or simply void as being without authority. The court in Hyatt v. Anderson, 69 Neb. 702, held that it was not contrary to public policy, or fraudulent, for a guardian, before applying to sell the real estate of his ward, to procure an intending purchaser for an adequate price at the sale. Stuart v. Allen, 16 Cal. 474, held that to make such a contract void as against public policy the necessary effect must be to contravene some declared right or positive duty. The reasoning of the courts taking the other view is that it is contrary to public policy because the law was violated, Downing v. Peabody, 56 Ga. 40, or, as it was well expressed in Doughty v. Cottraux, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 125, “The law contemplates that sales of a minorrsquo;s property should not be made except when necessary for special purposes, through proceedings carefully devised for their protection, and so as to bring the largest price; and we incline to view as illegal and contrary to public policy the contract of the [guardian] with reference to his [wardrsquo;s] estate.”

Parent and Child: Guardian and Ward: Earnings of Minor Child

原文作者H.R.F. 单位California Law Review

专业 知识产权 学生姓名 朱宇泽

指导老师姓名：金龙鑫

外文文献出处：H. R F. Parent and Child: Guardian and Ward: Earnings of Minor Child[J]. California Law Review, 1930, 18(2):200-202.

附外文文献原文

PARENT AND CHILD: GUARDIAN AND WARD: EARNINGS OF MINOR CHILD. - The facts of Estate and Guardianship of Johnson (Oct. 7, 1929), present but do not decide the question of the ownership of the earnings of a minor in the custody of a guardian, having been removed from his parents on the grounds of their moral unfitness. In this case the appeal was based, inter alia, on the ground that a guardian of both person and estate of the minor had been appointed, and that it was error to appoint a guardian of the estate, there being no estate. The decision of the court that the appointment of a guardian of the estate was proper seems in the last analysis to rest upon the ground that, even were there no estate of the minor, the appointment of a guardian of estate violated no legal precepts and did no harm. By such a decision the court evaded the interesting question of the ownership of this minors earnings. However, there seems to be an implication in the courts discussion that they were the property of the minor. Thus the appellate court justified the appointment, saying that the best interests of the child were subserved thereby, and further that “its education, nurture, and morality were of first importance, and its income, amounting to more than a thousand dollars per month, demanded conservation.” Surely the inference is very strong here that the earnings of this child are his own, to be conserved for him; a result which seems both reasonable and desirable. We cannot be sure, however, that the court would accept this solution to the problem, for in the concluding paragraphs, in showing that the appointment of a guardian of the estate as well as of the person would not be prejudicial to parental rights, the court says, “The guardian under such circumstances can have no jurisdiction over such property as belongs to the parents. On the other hand, as guardian of the person, certain funds and personal property must come into the hands of the guardian, at least such as are necessary for the proper support and education of the minor. This, of course, the parents may be required to supply.” This reference to property belonging to the parents would seem to imply, in contradiction of the earlier suggestion of the court, that the earnings of the child even while he is in the custody of a court guardian may belong to them. The fact that the ownership of a childs earnings, under such circumstances as are involved in this case, seems to be an unadjudicated point in the law of persons probably explains the courts willingness to arrive at a decision without specifically passing upon this question. It may be regretted, however, that a more unequivocal pronouncement was not made, as further litigation seems inevitable.

The solution of the problem is by no means obvious. That the earnings of a child ordinarily belong to its father is a heritage from the English common law. (In California, by secti

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[274303]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word