Because when they break up she has nothing and he has her money in the form of equity. Splitting consumption bills is obviously good, but splitting a mortgage where one party gets it all is far less cut and dry.
The person renting (man or woman, if the situation was reversed on gender) has no responsibility for maintenance or liability to the house. If the renter is paying rent, they should also have no responsibility to pay for any house maintenance. Roof needs replacing? Homeowner pays, renter pays nothing. Fridge goes out? Homeowner pays, renter pays nothing. Mail carrier slips on ice and sues? Homeowner need to defend themselves, renter pays nothing. If the renter wants to break up and move to Alaska, renter can do exactly that with 30 days or less notice. Homeowner would need to go through all the trouble of evicting and selling the property to do the same.
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.
The person renting (man or woman, if the situation was reversed on gender) has no responsibility for maintenance or liability to the house. If the renter is paying rent, they should also have no responsibility to pay for any house maintenance. Roof needs replacing? Homeowner pays, renter pays nothing. Fridge goes out? Homeowner pays, renter pays nothing. Mail carrier slips on ice and sues? Homeowner need to defend themselves, renter pays nothing. If the renter wants to break up and move to Alaska, renter can do exactly that with 30 days or less notice. Homeowner would need to go through all the trouble of evicting and selling the property to do the same.
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.
deleted by creator