• irmoz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a written lease. Its still very much a rental arrangement.

    That’s sorta the issue. You shouldn’t treat your SO as a tenant.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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?

      • irmoz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        How is losing their equity fair on the leaving partner?

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • irmoz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

          • irmoz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Lol ok, pay into a mortgage without equity…