• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

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

            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?

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • cheesemonk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If only one of you owns the house then that’s what they are. It’s obviously going to vary case by case but one person has a mortgage, and all the responsibilities that come with it, and the other can cut and run any time. It would be pretty unfair to the homeowner if the SO got all the benefits of renting and buying.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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?