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.
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.