She’s not renting though as there’s no rental agreement. She’s just throwing money into the equity. This is a relationship, not a landlord tenant arrangement.
It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a written lease. Its still very much a rental arrangement. No law enforcement will hold her liable for being a homeowner. No law will compel her to pay for a new roof for his house, should it need it. In fact, if she’s been there more than 30 days she’ll likely have many legal protections a renter has, such as protection from being thrown out without formal eviction.
I would hope you treat your SO as an equal partner, but that also means healthy boundaries equal to where the relationship is at the time. If one doesn’t pay rent, but pays toward the mortgage, and you break up instead of getting married, do you expect the home owner partner to cut the other partner a check to cash them out of their “equity”? How is that fair to the homeowner?
I’m arguing non-homeowner had zero risk and should have zero equity.
The non-homeowner put zero money down for the purchase, they put none of their credit at risk, they took on no liability for the property, and so far there’s no mention of their obligation to pay for upkeep and repairs. Doing those things are the requirements of home ownership while the benefit is the equity. The non-homeowner simply hasn’t done the things to be a home owner. If the did, then they’d be a home owner.
They have no equity to lose. You’re proposing they have it, then you say they have risk because they could lose what they don’t have that you’re proposing they should.
Then please complete your argument. One person is contributing money into the equity of the house without ownership, and I believe you’re arguing that is unfair, because the homeowner its benefiting.
What actions are you proposing is fair to the non-homeowner that doesn’t make it unfair to the homeowner?
You and I are conversing and you want me to chase your other conversations with other people? I think you’ve overestimated my interest in what I believe is your flawed argument. I guess we’re done then. Have a nice day!
Sorry, I’m not following everyone else’s conversations. I can’t speak to what others are saying. You seem to be comfortable aggregating the conversations and expecting others to do the same, so I can see why you have that response. Clearly we’re at the end of productive conversation. You’re welcome to continue replying if you like, but I won’t be reading your responses.
She’s not renting though as there’s no rental agreement. She’s just throwing money into the equity. This is a relationship, not a landlord tenant arrangement.
It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a written lease. Its still very much a rental arrangement. No law enforcement will hold her liable for being a homeowner. No law will compel her to pay for a new roof for his house, should it need it. In fact, if she’s been there more than 30 days she’ll likely have many legal protections a renter has, such as protection from being thrown out without formal eviction.
That’s sorta the issue. You shouldn’t treat your SO as a tenant.
I would hope you treat your SO as an equal partner, but that also means healthy boundaries equal to where the relationship is at the time. If one doesn’t pay rent, but pays toward the mortgage, and you break up instead of getting married, do you expect the home owner partner to cut the other partner a check to cash them out of their “equity”? How is that fair to the homeowner?
How is losing their equity fair on the leaving partner?
They don’t have equity to lose.
I’m arguing non-homeowner had zero risk and should have zero equity.
The non-homeowner put zero money down for the purchase, they put none of their credit at risk, they took on no liability for the property, and so far there’s no mention of their obligation to pay for upkeep and repairs. Doing those things are the requirements of home ownership while the benefit is the equity. The non-homeowner simply hasn’t done the things to be a home owner. If the did, then they’d be a home owner.
Zero risk? Lol, had to stop reading there
How about the risk of losing all their equity and their home if their partner decides to kick them out
They have no equity to lose. You’re proposing they have it, then you say they have risk because they could lose what they don’t have that you’re proposing they should.
Thats circular reasoning.
deleted by creator
I’m arguing morals. Legally there’s nothing wrong here
Then please complete your argument. One person is contributing money into the equity of the house without ownership, and I believe you’re arguing that is unfair, because the homeowner its benefiting.
What actions are you proposing is fair to the non-homeowner that doesn’t make it unfair to the homeowner?
My argument is complete. Feel free to read the other ten replies where I address the same comment
You and I are conversing and you want me to chase your other conversations with other people? I think you’ve overestimated my interest in what I believe is your flawed argument. I guess we’re done then. Have a nice day!
Yet here you are, replying with the same arguments as everyone else
Sorry, I’m not following everyone else’s conversations. I can’t speak to what others are saying. You seem to be comfortable aggregating the conversations and expecting others to do the same, so I can see why you have that response. Clearly we’re at the end of productive conversation. You’re welcome to continue replying if you like, but I won’t be reading your responses.
I’m responding to ten people, sorry I can’t hold your hand and carefully caress your condescending replies.