Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
I think the idea is the person moving in is giving up their opportunity to live in and gain from appreciation of a principal residence. Typically the other person would not own a house other than the one they are living in and certainly don't get to own two principals. So in that sense it's fair. The details of who pays what and how much one person is entitled to I'm sure varies and is likely negotiable.
As an example my friend in Toronto moved in with a woman in 2005. He's paid essentially rent and the house is by all accounts her's. But he should be able to gain from some of the huge appreciation...in the millions, they've gained from living there. You can't arbitrarily say oh no, your contribution was just rent, not a part of the ownership expenses...unless you state as much in a pre nup. And I'm also pretty sure any settlement takes into account the one person's capital output in buying the house and the appraised value at the time of the move in.
|
No that still doesn’t seem right. Not unless the other person sold their residence to move in and gave up an opportunity. Even that doesn’t make sense. If property values tank can the woman in your example demand her partner cover her losses when she sells?
Unless the other partner was in a position to buy a home on their own and didn’t. But even still, they’re not responsible for the mortgage. They have no ownership of the property. Why would they get to benefit from an asset that The other person saved for and paid for years earlier?
I guess if your friend wanted to take advantage of the real estate market he should have invested in a property. Or put his name on title and the mortgage.
Benefiting from appreciation isn’t some inherent human right. It involves capital, timing, buying in the right area. All things this woman did on her own before she ever knew your friend. Why would he get to benefit from this?