My father bought his daughter a house for his daughter. How did the couple make a divorce?

category:Global
 My father bought his daughter a house for his daughter. How did the couple make a divorce?


7 years ago, Mr. Wu spent nearly 3 million yuan for her daughter and son-in-law to buy a villa as a marriage house. After that, he was divorced from a small couple of sentimental feelings. Wu brought five loans to the court to sue her daughter and her son-in-law. Recently, the peoples Court of Huqiu District of Suzhou city made a judgment in accordance with the law: the loan relationship is not established, and the plaintiffs claim is dismissed. The daughter has no objection to millions of arrears, and the court investigation has a secret. Uncle Wu runs a family business. In 2006, his daughter, Wu Xiaomei, fell in love with Xu Xiaodi, who was working with a company, and then registered for marriage. In 2011, Uncle Wu invested in the purchase of villas, including decoration, for the couple, and spent nearly 3 million yuan before and after the house registration. In 2016, Wu had a complaint to sue Wu and Xu Xiaodi to the court, saying that the money was borrowed by the daughter and the son-in-law to him. After that, he did not want to return it to the financial difficulties, and issued five debit notes to the court. Wu Xiaomei, the so-called unwilling repayment, has no objection to the authenticity of these IOUs. According to the court, four of the five debit items were signed on February 3, 2014, with only the signature of Wu Xiao Mei on the debit, and no signature of Xu Xiaodi. After that, Wu Xiaomei and Xu Xiaodis divorce lawsuits were also heard in court. The son-in-law said that the couples property was being split, and the loan relationship was not true. According to Xu Xiaodi at the trial, he stated that he not only did not sign a loan, but he knew nothing about it from beginning to end. After marriage, he bought a villa for the sake of improving his life for us. By the time of 2014, my wife and I were in a tight relationship, when we began to live apart. He believed that the plaintiffs borrowing relationship did not exist. The real reason for this case was the divorce between two defendants and the separation of the couples common property. My father did not give away our villa. At that time, because of the restriction policy, he already had two villas under his name and borrowed our names. Wu Xiaomei stated in the trial that the total price of the house would be more than 600 yuan, and later loans would also be partly repaid by Uncle Wu. Besides, we both worked in our fathers company. From 2007 to 2011, we earned less than 400 thousand yuan and couldnt afford to buy property. In this regard, the defendant Xu Xiaodi argued that he went to work in the family business of the plaintiff in 2005 and began to engage in sales in 2009. The sales business began in 2010 30 million and the income was about 3000000. All the salary business fees were owned by the defendant and Wu younger sister. It is not true. The house was deemed to be a gift, and the court dismissed the claim. The court found that Wu uncle did not lend money to the two defendants when he invested in the house. During the period from 2011 to 2014, the plaintiff did not agree with the defendant for the loan when it invested in the case involving the house. The reason for the ex post and the defendant Wu Xiao Mei unilaterally handled the loan procedure was the contradiction between the two defendants feelings at the beginning of 2014, and the plaintiff saw that the house should be set up by the plaintiff when the feelings were bad. The act of reissuing the loan was not approved by the defendant Xu Xiaodi. The capital contribution between the plaintiff and the two defendant did not conform to the definition of the loan contract, and the private lending relationship was not formed between the two parties. In this case, the plaintiff and the two defendant have a special relationship of identity, and the loan material of the supplement is formed when the relationship between the two defendants is disharmonious, without the consent of the defendant Xu Xiaodi. The judge pointed out that considering the social customs and existing evidence, it is difficult for the court to believe that there is a loan agreement between the two sides. Because the plaintiff claims that the evidence of the loan relationship is insufficient, the plaintiff claims that the two defendants return the loan and pay interest. The judge said: According to the interpretation of marriage law, after the marriage, the parents for both parties to purchase the housing capital, the contribution should be identified as a gift to both husband and wife, but the parents clearly express the exception of the party. In this case, the plaintiff contributed to the purchase, decoration and loan repayment of the case registered under the two defendants name, which should be regarded as a gift to both husband and wife. The judge reminded that donation is a practical contract and is completed once delivered. In this case, the case involving the housing has been registered in the name of the two defendant in 2011. The plaintiff has already completed the payment of the housing in the case of purchase, decoration and repayment. The grant has come into effect. In the case of disagreement between the two defendants, the plaintiff and the defendant, Wu Xiao Mei, unilaterally signed up five copies of debit and return on loan agreement, did not notify the defendant Xu Xiaodi to participate, and did not obtain the consent of the defendant Xu Xiaodi. Source: Jiangsu High Court editor: Wang Zheng _NN7526 According to the interpretation of marriage law, after the marriage, the parents for both parties to purchase the housing capital, the contribution should be identified as a gift to both husband and wife, but the parents clearly express the exception of the party. In this case, the plaintiff contributed to the purchase, decoration and loan repayment of the case registered under the two defendants name, which should be regarded as a gift to both husband and wife. The judge reminded that donation is a practical contract and is completed once delivered. In this case, the case involving the housing has been registered in the name of the two defendant in 2011. The plaintiff has already completed the payment of the housing in the case of purchase, decoration and repayment. The grant has come into effect. In the case of disagreement between the two defendants, the plaintiff and the defendant, Wu Xiao Mei, unilaterally signed up five copies of debit and return on loan agreement, did not notify the defendant Xu Xiaodi to participate, and did not obtain the consent of the defendant Xu Xiaodi.