• irmoz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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?

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

          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.

    • cheesemonk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      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.