回複:請教懂法律的朋友,老貓等朋友

來源: siuc 2005-07-31 20:30:12 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (479 bytes)
Based on the fact you stated in above, all of the sons of the parents are entitled to the 300,000 dollars.

First of all, he gave his parents the money as a gift. After the transaction, the money belongs to the parents. Then, the parents asked him as an agent to buy a house for them, so the money is not a gift to him.

But because there is no written agreement, he might be able to argue that the $200,000 is a gift from his parents, even though it is not the fact.
請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”