Desire for joint property - currently separated

I really think that’s a cool approach, each paying just enough into the joint account so that both have the same amount of their own money. I would never have thought of that.

I really think that’s a cool approach, each paying just enough into the joint account so that both have the same amount of their own money. I would never have thought of that.

A very polarizing topic. I myself was once able to move into an existing house with a partner. It was renovated and expanded, so there was also a (manageable) loan involved. Before that, we lived together renting an apartment. At first, I actually paid him the same amount as before for rent in the apartment. Then the first child came, part-time work, loss of income on my part, and I reduced my payment to half the incidental costs. But one must also say, I did 90% of the work around the house, child care, garden, and for example restored the overgrown garden in many, many hours. Depending on working hours, my contribution adjusted, in the meantime full-time again I paid, after the second child then for a while nothing as I could only work 50%. Then it ended, and the financial result of the relationship was: he had paid off the renovated, expanded house, thereby at least doubled its value (and in our small city we are not talking about peanuts here), I could furnish my rented apartment on a lower level from my savings. Since we were not married, there was no compensation. Was it fair now? Did I freeload by living rent-free? I gave up large amounts of income to take care of the children, household, garden, keep his back free. Our assets diverged massively. In the end, I somehow had the feeling I was the fool. (To be fair, I want to mention that a high five-figure amount also went into my hobby, money I would surely have saved otherwise.)

So we have a marriage contract that clearly regulates who brought how much equity into our house. Then everyone is listed equally in the land register. We also have a joint account and each has their own. Everyone pays so much into the joint account that after deducting their own insurances, each still has about 400-500 euros per month for personal use. While my wife was on parental leave, we both had little for personal use for some time, but it wasn’t just her, it was also me because I then paid more into the joint account. Now that she is working part-time again, she pays in a bit more and again has her 400-500 euros available, and I pay in a bit less and also have my 400-500 euros available. This way, all three accounts build up quite well and the child receives all the child benefits into their account, which also steadily increases. I think it’s fair because it can be adjusted according to the situation. Although I pay almost 1000 euros more than my wife into the joint account, I don’t have as much stress with childcare. If my wife were to go back to full-time work at some point, I would pay less again and she more, so that we each have the same amount for free disposal again. However, it’s not calculated down to the last cent, sometimes one pays for a meal when they want to treat the other or buys something for everyone without settling it because they just feel like it.

@TE: In your case, I would probably also make a marriage contract with what each has/brings into the marriage and then build together again so that everyone is listed in the land register. Then apply our three-account model and that’s that. Then you would probably have to sell your house, but you would hardly need any external capital anyway and with your great income, you can each save well for your retirement provision. In case of separation, your wife would definitely have to compensate you for the higher share if she wants to keep the house and you would have to pay out her corresponding share if you want to keep it.

yes, and your wife's pension?! She is clearly disadvantaged with this model because she worked part-time! Normally you should add something for her

My toenails are already curling a bit here: the woman as a parasite, living for free. At the latest with the birth of the child they have together, it’s no longer so black and white. One (her?) gives up income, enabling the other to maintain their usual earnings. Isn’t that a contribution?

I think every couple has to negotiate what is considered fair when the house belongs to only one partner. Maybe she pays half the interest and incidental costs, the repayment goes to him, since that’s how he builds his assets? Or should she pay half the incidental costs plus a reasonable cold rent for a single-family home? Or, or,...

yes, and your wife's AV?! She is clearly disadvantaged by the model because she worked part-time! Normally, you should butter her up a bit more