Construction loan - Ex-partner does not pay his share

Actually, I don’t really want to respond to this topic anymore. In my initial post, I simply asked a question and here (out of sensationalism or who knows what?) some kind of theses were assumed, speculations made, etc., that have nothing to do with the actual matter.....

The fact is, at the time of the divorce he was the youngest at 17, the two oldest were 21 and 23. Both parents practically moved out at the same time – so who exactly abandoned whom now????
The grandmother is the mother of the ex-wife.

The children currently live with their respective partners in the mother’s apartment (4 people) and in the father’s basement granny flat (2 people). And yes, the mother wants to let the children live there with their partners free of charge..

It’s about half of 550 euros (so 275 euros for the ex-partner) that would have to be paid... and of course her outstanding debts in the five-figure range...
And yes, my partner was perhaps too good-natured; this could definitely have been addressed earlier. But he still naively believed in the signature on the notary contract and in the woman’s assurance that the children would come before everything else...

Started with a run-of-the-mill crisis, rising into the philosophical spheres of justice. I ❤️ Hausbauforum

Oh, actually I don’t want to respond to this topic anymore. In my initial post, I simply asked a question and here, (out of sensationalism or who knows what?) some theses were assumed, speculations made, etc. that have nothing to do with the actual matter...

The fact is, at the time of the divorce he was youngest 17, the two oldest 21 and 23. Both parents moved out almost simultaneously – so who exactly abandoned whom now???.
The grandmother is the mother of the ex-wife

The children currently live with their respective partners in the mother’s apartment (4 people) or in the father’s basement flat (2 people). And yes, the mother wants to let the children and their partners live there rent-free.

It concerns half of 550 euros (so 275 euros for the ex-partner) that would have to be paid... and also her outstanding debts in the five-figure range...
And yes, my partner was perhaps too kind; this could have definitely been addressed earlier. But he still naively believed in the signature on the notarized contract and in the woman’s assurances that the children meant everything…

Then the divorce can’t be that long ago if the child was already 17?!
How can five-figure arrears accumulate in such a short time on a 275€ share?

But you wouldn't have brought "morality" as an argument in a legal dispute, would you? It is very good and right that exclusively laws, and not morality or even exaggeratedly religion, are the basis for judges' decisions.

No, I didn't. Hopefully you believe me that I didn't pay 50k € in tuition fees and only tried to avoid this with feelings. But only someone who has either never experienced anything comparable or has lost all sensitivity or empathy, or simply lacks it, can respond like this. I don't care how you see it. I think it's terrible how some comments here are made completely without empathy. I bet most of those who write so know-it-all here have never been in a comparable situation.

Then the divorce can't be that long ago if the child was already 17 then?! How can there be five-figure arrears in such a short time with a €275 share?

No, it was about a year ago. But the loan was taken out three years ago... car leasing, consumption, etc., it added up, since she didn't pay for anything despite having a relatively good income herself.

But only someone can respond like this who either has never experienced anything comparable or has lost all sensitivity or even any empathy, or simply does not possess any.

You are right, I have never experienced anything like this myself and hopefully never will. It may also be that my empathy is shaped differently than yours. Of course, as an outsider, I am a bit more matter-of-fact than people personally affected.

Nevertheless, your defense statement really annoyed me, that you feel justified even though the rule of law has ruled against you. And then you add morality on top of that. This is absolutely nothing personal against you, but generally a reflection of the spirit of the times, that facts (judgment) no longer matter, but only vague feelings and whoever claims some dirt the most often.