this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
522 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45689 readers
1340 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
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.
If that's all up front and she agrees then whatever but the scenario in the meme is pretty scummy
Replies filled with people that will hopefully never live with their girlfriends because they seem very satisfied with the idea of lording over a romantic partner.
She got a place to live.
And all the equity went to her boyfriend
But I assume he would have had some up front investment that she didn't participate in.
I'm not saying she gets 50%, but if she put in $10k and the home price held or went up then she should get some proportional pay out
If we're splitting hairs, why not wait to move in until you can fully buy half? Why move in together at all?
Why have a relationship
Motherfucker that's called rent.
Yeah but charging a partner rent is kinda shitty. It's supposed to be an equitable partnership that benefits both parties. Otherwise why have a partner?
if 2 people live in a place, 2 people should pay the rent. that is equality. you're advocating for the woman to not pay the rent because she's a woman in the meme.
We're talking mortgage. If we're talking rent then yeah she should absolutely pay. It just gets muddier when equity is involved and there should be some agreement up front.
Equity? You do realize loads of rental properties are under a mortgage right?
I'm not dating the landlord
Yes, yes you are.
Shit now we're in porn
dude, if you date someone who owns a house, then live in that house, you are dating the landlord and they are allowed to charge you rent.
He paid 700k for an apartment, so naturally she can live in for free, because he doesn't pay rent. Very smart
No one said that. That's a whole new position
Why would I have someone live for free in my house who doesn't contribute to the expense of upkeep? Ie, a freeloader. That's what rent is. Sorry, a partner doesn't expect their SO to pay their way for them just because they pay a mortgage payment instead of a rent payment. Add to that, now since it is a mortgage payment, any repairs and other incidentals are paid for by the owner as well. Does this person get to just break things and expect the partner to pay for it? That's another thing rent covers. Why have a partner that is more expensive than being alone? Why have a partner at all?
Not to say that the deception is shitty, but she'd be in the same situation as if she rented a place. It's a little out there to expect equity when all you did was cohabitate for a period, it's the exact same thing as renting a room or something.
The difference is a rental agreement and generally people in relationships aren't expected to be in a landlord tenant situation. If this was just your friend then sure
Well hang on, here's a scenario for you: Say I own a 2 bedroom condo, and have a roommate that I charge rent. One day, I meet a girl and we start dating. At some point, said roommate moves out, and it just happens that my gf and I are at the point where she moves in, and said 2nd room gets turned into a office or guest room, because obviously we're going to share the master. She pays me rent for living with me (might even be a lower amount for whatever reason). After two years, we decide to break it off since it isn't working between us and she moves out. Do you think I should be expected to pay her out a slice of equity? How is that any different than a roommate renting a room from a financial standpoint?
And in response to your other reply, what if she didn't contribute to repairs? I think my point here is where do we draw the line? I can understand if a partner makes a significant investment contribution to the property, but I don't know if I necessarily agree even with a certain length of time outside of marriage without a prenup, considering if y'all were renting somewhere you would have no claim to the property whatsoever. Just because someone is in a relationship with someone, in my mind, does not entitle them to another person's assets just because they were together.
There are laws for this reason, because renting to a rando is different than commonlaw intimate relationship.
You still didn't answer the question. In terms of property ownership equity rights, what is the difference? Bear in mind common law marriage in its implied form only exists in a small handful of states as well as DC (in the US). Otherwise you'd have a domestic partnership, which does include contractual rights and privileges to financial assets. Further, I could be renting to my best friend without a written agreement for all intents and purposes.
Not the OP, but in Canada at least, I think you would legally be expected to because common law is (as far as I'm aware) very nearly marriage and is entirely implied by time living together in a conjugal relationship. It might be provincial to determine the actual property laws, though.
I don't have a firm opinion here, but I think the key difference in your case is that a conjugal relationship has some expectation of... Oh I don't know, mutuality? A landlord tenant relationship is a lease agreement. If your roommate didn't sign any kind of lease agreement, they might have a legal case to just not pay you and suffer no consequences (I don't know), but they're not in a conjugal relationship, so there's also no implication of shared ownership.
Without signing lease agreement and being in a conjugal relationship, I think there is a pretty fair case that expecting shared ownership is a fair assumption.
That all said, it's also really up to the individuals to figure that out early, and the deception in the meme suggests that the agency to have that discussion wasn't available, and that's really the part I find problematic here.
This is a relationship not a roommate nor a tenant. It's slightly concerning how many people think these are the same thing
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.
I'm arguing morals. Legally there's nothing wrong here
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?
My argument is complete. Feel free to read the other ten replies where I address the same comment
My gf pays half the mortgage. She lives here. She uses everything. She helps with bills. This is a lot less expensive than if she were paying rent elsewhere.
She also didn't contribute to: new fridge, new kitchen floor (damage from old fridge), new bathroom ceiling (mold damage), new driveway, new garage, tree removal and trimming, new door (that broke when she failed to latch it in high wind), and all other house stuff.
asking half the mortgage when the burden of all the rest is on you is not asking a lot.
Sounds more like a landlord tenant relationship then. Maybe if it's a girl you met six months ago then sure, but if your girlfriend helps with your mortgage for a few years and ends up with zero equity then you scumbagged her.
We specifically split the interest portion of my mortgage. It changes every payment obviously, so we just rounded it and adjusted it every year or so.
5 years later we’re getting married, so it’s all moot.
Oh that's totally different. Interest splitting is fine imo because that's basically just bank rent