this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
475 points (87.1% liked)

Memes

45535 readers
364 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How is losing their equity fair on the leaving partner?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

They don't have equity to lose.

[–] partial_accumen 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year 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.