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.
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.
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.
well since she is saying Flat, its peobably a British apartment and US state law is moot. In Canada commonlaw is across the country. And if as a commonlaw your are contributing to the household (or even just at home running the show) you start to gain rights, like you would have in an actual marriage. I assume Europe has similar to this.
Nah I fully get that. But what I’m saying is that, hypothetically, I have a home that I’m paying a mortgage on. Just because I am intimately involved with someone that I’m not married to, that entitles her equity in my property if I charge her rent? I also mentioned in in another reply, she did not help with repairs, merely paid a reasonable rent. What exactly, in your view, is the defining line between having ownership stake or not? I’m not trying to be argumentative, just curious for your perspective.
I really don’t have a defining line. It’s very grey for me. I wouldn’t expect someone to take out a HELOC to pay out equity for their girlfriend that moved into a house, that he already owned, for six months. But on the other extreme, a couple that has been living together for five years feels like she should get something. Especially if she helped with the down payment like my GF did.
Where the line between these two extremes is? I don’t really have a catch all answer. It’d have to be case by case.
On helping with the down payment, I would absolutely agree with you, especially if y’all are in agreement that you’re buying it together. Now your other comment make more sense.
That’s a completely different story than already having your own place and inviting someone to live with you. Maybe it’s just me, but I would want my gf to pay a fair share of living expenses, even if I were managing it on my own or with a roommate (I’m married and we’re stuck renting for now, so this was all hypothetical anyway).
I fully agree. I don’t think people should be getting free rides, it just starts to feel weird when an investment is seen as an expense that someone is expected to contribute to.
Utilities and shit though? 50/50 for sure. No greyness there. Another guy said they split the interest payment which I also think is fine. It’s really only the principle where I start to feel gross.
(Well maybe not 50/50. I need my gigabit internet at any cost)
Funny how you keep repeating that like a broken record when you can’t come up with a logical and objective answer. It’s a relationship and varies on a case by case basis. If my girlfriend is living with me in my house and we’re both earning equally then I’d expect her to contribute to the expenses too. Either by taking “rent” from her or just splitting the bills.
But to be fair, I do see your side too. If I’m paying mortgage for the house then it would be weird to ask her to pay a part of it.
It seems we may just have different morals that no amount of back and forth will rectify. I apologise for sounding like a broken record but I’m responding to several people with similar arguments and memmy ain’t as good as keeping track of context as Apollo was.
I actually live this scenario and have an equity agreement that splits the sale proceeds proportional to what each person put in. I find the idea of land lording over a partner to be disgusting.
If you want your girlfriend to live with you then what’s the alternative? She move out and buy a second house? If you want her to live with you then she shouldn’t have to put her financials on hold to do so.
But I agree that it’s case by case. In several other places I’ve said that I don’t expect their recent girlfriend to get a cut of their boyfriend’s house just because her lease expired when they started dating. The longer she lives there though, the more I think the conversation should be had.
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.
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.
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.
well since she is saying Flat, its peobably a British apartment and US state law is moot. In Canada commonlaw is across the country. And if as a commonlaw your are contributing to the household (or even just at home running the show) you start to gain rights, like you would have in an actual marriage. I assume Europe has similar to this.
This is a relationship not a roommate nor a tenant. It’s slightly concerning how many people think these are the same thing
Nah I fully get that. But what I’m saying is that, hypothetically, I have a home that I’m paying a mortgage on. Just because I am intimately involved with someone that I’m not married to, that entitles her equity in my property if I charge her rent? I also mentioned in in another reply, she did not help with repairs, merely paid a reasonable rent. What exactly, in your view, is the defining line between having ownership stake or not? I’m not trying to be argumentative, just curious for your perspective.
I really don’t have a defining line. It’s very grey for me. I wouldn’t expect someone to take out a HELOC to pay out equity for their girlfriend that moved into a house, that he already owned, for six months. But on the other extreme, a couple that has been living together for five years feels like she should get something. Especially if she helped with the down payment like my GF did.
Where the line between these two extremes is? I don’t really have a catch all answer. It’d have to be case by case.
On helping with the down payment, I would absolutely agree with you, especially if y’all are in agreement that you’re buying it together. Now your other comment make more sense.
That’s a completely different story than already having your own place and inviting someone to live with you. Maybe it’s just me, but I would want my gf to pay a fair share of living expenses, even if I were managing it on my own or with a roommate (I’m married and we’re stuck renting for now, so this was all hypothetical anyway).
I fully agree. I don’t think people should be getting free rides, it just starts to feel weird when an investment is seen as an expense that someone is expected to contribute to.
Utilities and shit though? 50/50 for sure. No greyness there. Another guy said they split the interest payment which I also think is fine. It’s really only the principle where I start to feel gross.
(Well maybe not 50/50. I need my gigabit internet at any cost)
Funny how you keep repeating that like a broken record when you can’t come up with a logical and objective answer. It’s a relationship and varies on a case by case basis. If my girlfriend is living with me in my house and we’re both earning equally then I’d expect her to contribute to the expenses too. Either by taking “rent” from her or just splitting the bills. But to be fair, I do see your side too. If I’m paying mortgage for the house then it would be weird to ask her to pay a part of it.
It seems we may just have different morals that no amount of back and forth will rectify. I apologise for sounding like a broken record but I’m responding to several people with similar arguments and memmy ain’t as good as keeping track of context as Apollo was.
I actually live this scenario and have an equity agreement that splits the sale proceeds proportional to what each person put in. I find the idea of land lording over a partner to be disgusting.
If you want your girlfriend to live with you then what’s the alternative? She move out and buy a second house? If you want her to live with you then she shouldn’t have to put her financials on hold to do so.
But I agree that it’s case by case. In several other places I’ve said that I don’t expect their recent girlfriend to get a cut of their boyfriend’s house just because her lease expired when they started dating. The longer she lives there though, the more I think the conversation should be had.