Loan agreement for only one person: advantages / disadvantages

Yes, what does your wife do during the marriage? She sits at home, has air fanned on her by the eunuch you pay with a palm leaf, and then tells you what to buy and cook when you are at home? You live together in the house, maintain it together, and form both an economic and (hopefully) social unit. So why the hell shouldn't she be entitled to her share of the gains?

I am not well-versed in divorce law, but using common sense, I see it like this...

If you bring a house into the marriage that you pay off alone, then your wife has no claim to the house in the event of a divorce, unless you were kind enough to have her entered into the land register *cough*

It only gets tricky if, for example, you receive a house from your parents with a lifelong right of residence for your parents. Then a loan of 250k€ is taken out with the wife to extend the house, and at the same time, you want to tell her that she won't be entered into the land register. In the event of a divorce, the wife would have the right to have the former parental house sold, because the husband cannot pay her out.

There are all kinds of constellations and no, this is not my story

So financially my wife doesn't contribute anything at all, I pay every cent whether it's repayment, additional costs, insurance, purchases, etc.

I just don't understand the accrued gains, maybe I'm too stupid for it.

My wife works normally, shopping and cooking are mostly her tasks, but she wants it that way. I do the household, garden, cars, etc. That's fairly divided especially because we both work full-time.

How it will shift with a child remains to be seen, but since I have the higher income, of course I will pay more, I fully understand that and that's not the issue. As far as I'm concerned, she can keep her parental allowance or however it's called completely for herself and spend it as she wishes.
Now that we're not married, I don't take rent or anything like that from her.

I’m repeating myself but I just don’t understand the accrued gains. But it seems like it's often the case at my work with the explanation "IS SO".

Is that supposed to be shared fairly? No one here can tell me that.

Of course it is fair. If you have a fully paid-off house, it belongs to you and you bring it as property into the marriage. It then remains yours, you would have to pay out 50% of the increase in value as accrued gains, but this usually doesn’t make much of a difference with most real estate. It’s different if you bring a house worth €500k into the marriage, but there’s still a loan of €400k on it. Then you don’t really have a house, but only 1/5 of the house. From then on, you repay together, because, as you yourself have noticed, there is no longer “mine” and “yours.” What’s unfair about that? You both pay the repayments! Marriage simply means: both equal, no matter who earns how much.

On the subject of fairness:
- Do you both then also have tax class 4 afterwards?
- Do you make sure that household expenses are also exactly split 50/50?
- Do you pay her lost wages into her account if you have children and she temporarily stays at home?
- During the non-working time she also has pension entitlements towards you.

Many roads lead to Rome or marital happiness. Everyone should shape their partnership as they see fit. When you get married, there are certain legal claims and they simply look like this:
From the day of marriage, there is only one joint pool of assets. Whatever is paid from that during the marriage belongs to both equally, no matter who is on the land register, who paid the bill from which account, and who used the paid service more often. That is quite fair and good, and our whole state is based on a similar solidarity principle (health insurance, unemployment insurance, etc.). The (higher-earning) person does not have to like that, but they are free to emigrate to another country or not get married. A marriage contract allows deviation within certain limits, but you can never fully get out of the community of accrued gains. How else should you calculate it afterwards.

My wife and I are both employed. I earn a bit more than she does, so I have tax class 3. We both have our own accounts and a small emergency savings account. I pay interest, repayments, most ancillary costs such as building insurance, water, electricity, property tax, etc. She takes care of all household costs instead. When we go out to eat, she usually pays. At the end of the month, we put the money that we didn’t use over the month into the savings account. If something bigger needs to be bought, it gets paid from there or there is an extra repayment, vacation, etc. If one of us is short on money, the other pays or we take something from the savings account.

That has been working great for us for almost 8 years. Everyone has their own account, but there is no real mine/yours. For bigger expenses you should talk things over anyway, no matter how the funds/accounts are split.

The reasoning why this is the case has already been described here. Without any judgment and without legal interpretations... the increase in value roughly describes the following initial situation:

Two people get married (there are supposed to be more variants than just man and woman). From that point on, every euro of assets acquired is attributed to both. Because our law views the "standard case" that way (without judgment). So if person A brings a house that we assume has a value of 500,000 EUR at that time and debts of 300,000 EUR, person A brings assets worth 200,000€ net. Person B has nothing. 20 years later divorce. House debt-free, otherwise no assets. House now worth 700,000 EUR. Means increase in value during the marriage 500,000 €. If person A wants to keep the house, they have to pay 250,000€ to person B. Because that is the amount gained during the years of marriage. Whoever doesn’t like that has to make a marriage contract or leave it be.

Guys, you are the best. Thanks for this [break reading] at work.