Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
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?
|
From what I understand the judge isn't there to determine if the person was in a position to own or not. They move in...they own. But definitely they take into account contributions to the home both monetary and otherwise...like care taking, maintenance work etc. Judges aren't about to say Sorry...it looks like you were a bum in 2005. No equity for you.