Yosan
2018-12-19 23:15:03
- #1
1) they could pay it without partners anyway
2) the circumstances are very clear
3) the partners didn’t contribute anything (the property came from the siblings’ family)
Why should the siblings’ family give anything to the children’s partners?! I don’t understand.
If it bothers the partners, then they can rent an apartment and live separately. But then they pay double and have no home life.
The women don’t contribute anything in this case and want (if that’s how it is) half of the property gifted to them. Yeah, right.
If the partners want to be entered in the land register, which I absolutely understand and also find okay, then they have to pay for it. End of story, Minimaus.
If there are still people who handle it differently, that’s great for the gold diggers.
But then please don’t complain that the partner (no matter if man or woman) caused the whirlwind and everything is gone.
This then runs under the guise of “love” and “romance.”
Funny how this always seems to have to come from one side only.
If the partners love the siblings, why aren’t they romantic once and prove their love by paying for the house alone?
That would be a proof of love and really very romantic.
Really funny to see how the women and white knights get upset here about a logical division...
I don’t know where you read that the partners want to enjoy the benefits without contribution or where anyone here suggested that.
But the brothers’ salary probably won’t be enough for the necessary loan, so the partners have to be involved.
If children come into play, it will be problematic anyway, if one has to stay at home or work less.
Honestly, I don’t think much of saying that the house belongs only to the brothers, even if they alone pay the loan until then. With children, the calculation no longer adds up if the woman ensures “for free” that the man can continue paying for his (!) house undisturbed.