Theoretically, if one person hasn't worked in 5 years and spends every dime the other person

[kedrys]

brings in, do they have any right to get involved in the choice of a major real estate purchase, or should they shut the $^#% up because they don't have lines in this play?

Just wonderin'.

[Generic Brad]

1. If they are not theoretically married or living together - sure

Otherwise, I have nothing to say that you want to hear.
:hide:

[kedrys]

2. They are theoretically married

Although from the point of view of the person bringing in the money, that may be up in the air as well sometime in the not-immediately-near-future-but-right-after-that.

[nolabear]

3. If the other person in this theoretical marriage doesn't want to be married

he/she ought to just admit it rather than seek backup from people who have no real knowledge of the particulars from both points of view. In my opinion.

[pacalo]

7. Perfect answer. This theoretical marriage doesn't sound as strong as a paperdoll chain.

[Incitatus]

4. If this purchase is a home this couple will live in, the other person's input should be considered.

If this real estate purchase is an investment. Since this person is the one responsible for making money, maybe not so much.

[petronius]

5. Hypothetically, I'd think that de-imagining the theoretical marriage would best be done

before complicating the illusory landscape with a notional large purchase.

But then, I'm just a figment on a computer screen, so my lines can be edited out as well if it suits the narrative...

[SOteric]

6. Assuming that the theoretical spendthrift isn't

spending all those dimes on shared subsistance, housing and basic needs and/or the rearing of children; and assuming that both are adults of full mental capacity, then yes, - Mr. or Ms. Spend-a-buck can shut his/her theoretical pie-hole. On the other hand, if you're contemplating some sort of legal division, check first whether you're in a community property state. Cuz Spendy-Spouse could theoretically end up with half or even all of the real estate regardless...and you could end up in deep theoretical kim chee.

[Recovered Repug]

8. If every dime brought in is spent,

how is there enough money for a major real estate purchase?

[Bake]

9. Theoretically, if the theoretical marriage is theoretically shaky

Don't buy the real estate until you theoretically split. The partner with the "lines in the game" will likely lose HALF -- and that's NOT theoretical.

Just sayin'

Bake

[Orrex]

10. This is like that riddle about the fox, the duck, and the sack of grain

Theoretically.

[blueamy66]

11. No lines in the play.

Sometimes people are just scorned and evil.

[Deep13]

12. If it's a married couple, the insistance by one for the other...

...to shut the fuck up will probably end the marriage.

[raccoon]

13. Are you Canadian? If you're male, and are going to be single in

the not too distant future, please PM me with your personal email. Maybe we can work something out. National health care---mmmmmm....

:silly:

[Lex]

14. Did the person "not working" actually cook, clean, manage the household,

write the checks for the monthly bills, shop for food/clothes, chauffeur the kids around?

Just wonderin'.

[MorningGlow]

15. My thought exactly

I have been a SAHM and freelance writer and editor for the past four years. I bring in a pittance with whatever freelancing I have time to do, but I do spend the money my husband brings in...on groceries, utilities, things for the household, and things our son needs. I am constantly run off my pins with all the work I do every day, and if anyone dared say I was sponging off my husband and/or I wasn't entitled to an opinion because I don't collect a paycheck from a "real" job (:puke:), thems'd be fighting words.

[kedrys]

20. Cook and clean, yes

No kids to chauffeur around. Shopping for groceries, yes. Buying $250 bucks' worth of makeup and hair potions from the $500 I had to borrow from my mom so we could eat at the end of last year, also yes. Buying clothes, no, we don't have money for that - and going to American Apparel and paying $300 bucks for three pieces of extremely impractical clothing, also yes.

I make all the money and pay all the bills.

[Iggo]

16. Theoretically...

...if these two are life partners, both should be involved in this decision.

Shut the fuck up? Really?

[Kali]

17. therapy, not real estate

buying property in "partnership" with the animosity displayed in this post is probably not a good idea

[Moondog]

18. Sounds like it is time for you to move on. Theoretically. n/t

[Bunny]

19. If I'm recalling this correctly, there have been issues in

this relationship since the couple involved moved to Canada a few years ago. I don't think this is the first time that these problems have been mentioned. My question would be why is this couple still together? And if the hard feelings being alluded to in the OP are real, and not theoretical, why on earth would one party even consider purchasing real estate while still involved with the other party?

[kedrys]

21. There are other factors at work

The biggest of which is the fact that by sponsoring my spouse with Immigration, I'm responsible for their financial well-being - and if said spouse collects a dime in government help, like unemployment and such, I have to reimburse all of it. Living together is unfortunately the cheapest way to go, and K. is blissfully unaware of how pissed off I am, evidently. That doesn't keep K. from whining incessantly that it's not fair that K. has to suffer. Suffer how?

It's not like I haven't tried to make this work, but dammit, I deserve better. I live in a great city, in an ostensibly sane country, I have a great job and make good money - I just don't see us being together when all is said and done.

The condo would explicitly be mine and mine alone under the law. That much I can make stick. It's the place where we've been living for the past 27 months, and I love it and the price is right for me. I'd like to at least live where I like - is that too much to ask?

Sorry, end of rant.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. sorry, but - theoretically, yes. The pattern has been established.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

23. Is the other person running the household?

Are they raising children?
If the answer is yes to the first or both, then they do have lines in this play.