Loan agreement for only one person: advantages / disadvantages

The separation of property is about the fact that you can still acquire property separately. Thus, a car can only have one owner, a house can also be acquired during the marriage and still belong to only one partner according to the land register. Likewise, you can have separate accounts and thus assets. Nevertheless, these assets are acquired from the joint income.

Well, it is - complicated. And sometimes strange. The income primarily belongs to each individual alone, but the partner who earns less or nothing has the right to a reasonable allowance (beyond the household money). The things may belong to one person alone, but you may still not necessarily do whatever you want with your own things. The income is separate, but for tax purposes it is usually assessed jointly. Such points.

I find it really strange that people in a marriage hand each other allowances. With a prenuptial agreement, a wife is always at a disadvantage. Especially when children are involved. Unless one enters the marriage with assets themselves.

I also find it strange. I am responsible for about 80% of the household income. However, only because my wife stays at home with the children. She then goes into part-time and supports me professionally. She also does most of the housework. As a result, her pension entitlement decreases. So she has significant financial and professional disadvantages because of the family. I would never do anything to take advantage of her. I also have not contributed any large assets. So why should I exclude things by contract?

I find it very interesting how some people are already afraid before marriage that they will be taken advantage of by the woman after marriage. It is also interesting that such things come entirely from the men, even though today women are clearly more independent than 20 or 30 years ago and men have also been given a stronger position by the lawmakers as a result.

I did not bring a large fortune into the marriage and neither did my wife. We got married 3 years after I finished my studies, while she was shortly before the end of hers. At the time, I also read up and informed myself about prenuptial agreements because it was still possible that I might take over my father’s business. In the end, however, we did not do it because, on the one hand, the options there are limited and it would not have made sense in my specific case. Prenuptial agreements make sense from my point of view if self-employment is involved, older children are brought into the marriage, or if there is already a lot of wealth on one side.
If you are married for a longer period (15 years or more), it is very difficult to allocate things to only one partner. In addition, there is also the right to a reasonable standard of living. For example, if the aspiring young millionaire marries the waitress who has completed her high school diploma and she does not work during the marriage, she has a significant maintenance claim to maintain her accustomed lifestyle. It is completely irrelevant whether she could ever earn that herself. It becomes even more difficult if you marry before you have a very high income but achieve it during the marriage.

It is relatively unproblematic to get out of the marriage when no children are involved. Usually both are employed and if no joint property was acquired during the marriage, normally neither party has the interest or the possibility to exploit the other. It is usually different with children and rightfully so, because in most cases the woman has the worse cards after the divorce anyway (usually gets the children, therefore no full-time job, more "work" and lower wages due to parental leave). We are no longer in ancient Rome. I cannot get married, have a good time with my wife for a few years and then say: "So, it was nice, now you can go. The house, car, boat belong to me, you were allowed to live rent-free with me and you earn enough money yourself to buy something."

With children and the resulting part-time work of the woman, I understand all of that, but then you also pay separation maintenance or whatever it is called and later pension compensation. But children were not even mentioned in my case.

If both work full-time and you have a joint account and ALL costs are basically paid from that one account, I have to admit the whole story becomes a bit clearer to me.
You really can't differentiate anymore which income is being used monthly to pay off the house.

That is where the term "accrued gains" makes sense.

My idea about building the house alone was actually that later, in case of a separation, the house would not be lost because one person alone might not be able to afford the loan or one partner cannot buy out the other. I've experienced exactly this situation several times in recent years among acquaintances.
Honestly, I also find that positive for the woman when there is no dispute about the house. If you now take the joint account again, I actually see that the woman is worse off.
I'm not incorrigible either.
Nevertheless, I will not be deterred from a marriage contract in that direction, that is certain, and I also think you can manage it so that it becomes fair somehow.
I am already below 50% of the repayment of the house.