其实也没啥，我也想把我表弟和表妹弄过来呢。一直处心积虑的。
很羡慕那些家里好几口子都在国外的，几家人可以照应。
我觉得大家都忽视了一个本质性的问题， 就是贷款买的房，其实是银行的，只有你还清贷款后才能变成你的资产，哪怕你还了银行99%的贷款，最后那1%没还，房子也不是你的。
所以我觉得还有贷款没还清的时候，应该是不可以转给别人的。你可以低价卖给别人，不过贷款那部分，你还是要先还清的吧。
亲兄弟，明算账。
钱还是分清楚的好
你没永居估计不好贷款哦，而且要把deposit先打到你账户上，反正你贷款房子是你的名字，万一你表格不还贷款，你还有个房子，我是觉得没问题啦，问题是你表格愿意吗？
这个我以前咨询过律师
依稀记得是你可以赠予但是只属于你已经付了mortgage的部分
就好像万一还不起款了银行要收楼了，法律上银行还是大头债权人的
然后银行把房子卖掉拿回贷款和利息以后有多的是要给回贷款人的
然后如果贷款人和别人有协议就再各自处理
捉住，娃子好么
成龙大哥，如果房子是两夫妻在婚后一起买的，不过只是一方在供，那么离婚后没有贡献的人法律上没得分吗？还是必须一人一半？
么么
娃还行，长牙，很闹！
我三周感冒了两次，感觉很累{:5_145:}
你呢？还好吗？
都长牙了！
我们都很好
有长的痕迹但是还没看到牙头
我两周后回国俩月，送我妈回去呢
这问题没什么好问的。个人对待亲属的态度都不同。有些人特别自私，有些人就不是。
阿姨要走了呀，保重保重
离婚的法律问题很messy，财产的分割的基本原则是contrbution以及need。就算老公没有在账面上付mortgage，但他付家庭日常开销那也是有contribution，但不是50%和50%分配，而是看contribution的大小。比如说一个男人结婚以后开公司赚了大钱，老婆不工作在家带孩子那老婆对老公的财产有间接的contribution，如果老婆除了在家带孩子外还参加很多公司的social function那老婆就有直接contribution。具体了解还得去找专长的律师，就算专长的律师也不一定就certain，因为都是case by case的base。
长知识了，谢谢大哥。
嗯 很合理的方案。要不然银行真是亏大了
一般都是50，50，如果是有孩子要抚养那还有赡养费用。英国婚姻没有过错方这么一说，所以基本上都很‘公平’的一人一半
The law requires that the assets and debts of the marriage are to be divided “equitably”. That technically means that it will be done fairly, but not necessarily equally.
Dart v Dart
The family law case of the 1990s adjudicated by the court was Dart v Dart (1996). The Dart family originated from Kentucky, USA, but was living in England when the husband began divorce proceedings. She pursued every avenue to avoid the relatively derisory settlement that would be forthcoming at the hands of the English courts. The couple was spectacularly wealthy – the husband’s fortune was calculated at about £400 million – and had enjoyed a spectacular standard of living during the marriage. The wife sought in the region of £100 million for her settlement. However her legal team suffered a pasting at the High Court and subsequently the Court of Appeal. The wife was awarded £8.5 million and was ordered to pay her husband’s costs.
White v White
The decision of the House of Lords, delivered in 2000. This was when the concept of equal sharing became the accepted starting point (and usually the finishing point) for financial settlements between a wealthy divorcing couple, irrespective of one party’s role as the bread winner and the other party’s role as the homemaker. Gone was the entitlement of the breadwinner (usually the husband) to retain the lion’s share of the family wealth. The court made it clear that no distinction was to be made.
Charman v Charman
This was the argument opposed by Mr Charman, when Charman v Charman came to court in 2007. The couple had started married life with very little, had two children and were married for the best part of 30 years. By the time they divorced, Mr Charman had secured a place on The Sunday Times Rich List and the couple’s assets were assessed at £131 million. Mr Charman insisted that his wife should be satisfied with his proposed settlement of £20 million. He described her as “a housewife” and contended that his contribution to the couple’s wealth entitled him to the larger share.
The court rejected his argument. In the full glare of publicity Mr Charman was ordered to pay his wife some £48 million, with a discount on a 50:50 split only achieved because the court accepted that he had made a “stellar” contribution to the family fortune.
not neccessary equally, but in quite a lot of ‘normal’ cases, equally.
LZ，我真羡慕你有一个这么好的大家庭。
唉，我们现在想买房子，钱全是我娘家亲戚朋友借的。
我老公他家人，一听到我们要买房子了，从此全都避着我们，电话不接人也找不到，大半年了连句问候也没有。。。好悲凉。
我自己家里亲戚倒是挺好的，我觉得能帮就帮了，饮水思源。你家里亲戚凑钱送你出国上学，虽然你以后买房有first buyer的优惠，但是这个优惠就当是回报家里亲戚了。
楼主家庭成员关系好，很幸运！
楼主老公好那就更好了，英国离婚如果有孩子的话，女方至少能得到大多部分的家产！还是法律朝向妇女和孩子方倾斜的！这个可以放心！