01-24-2018, 09:53 AM
Quote:I never thought I'd be here forever, but I didn't know anything about being a Grimm when I bought it Now that I think about it, you were my first.Here is how the wiki describes the house
Nick and Juliette's Home was the residence of Nick Burkhardt and Juliette Silverton, and briefly Nick, Adalind Schade, and their son Kelly. Ownership of the home was not initially clear, as Juliette offered to move out, ("The Good Shepherd") and Nick did move out. ("Season of the Hexenbiest") Also, Nick was shown moving in with Juliette. ("Volcanalis") Nick later referenced purchasing the house. ("Lost Boys")
And this is why the disagreement. Each character always refereed to the house as home. They both have made overtures to move out. Not something they would do if they owned the house. You then have Nick use the singular term I, but it is in context of talking to Adalind and after he thinks Juliette is dead. Yes he does sell the house. I see this discrepancy the same as it exist in most shows. Most shows do not address the legal definition of ownership because that for the most part would cause logistical complication. Instead they use the position of possession. Basically if you are in possession of something you can do what you want with it. We all know that is not how it works in the real world. But it simplifies things in a show. The car is a good example. Since Nick was in possession of the car he could do what he wanted with it. Using the legal definition, and Juliette not being there he could not do what he did.
Example say we live together and I let you drive my car everyday. You even have you own key. That does not mean you can let your friend drive it unless you ask me specifically. If you do your friend would not be covered by the insurance. But using that kind of logic create to many complications in trying to tell the story.
And yes I could give retroactive permission. But I would have to be around to attest to the fact that I gave permission. One warning If I you that but did not tell the insurance company that others would be driving the car. The insurance could cancel the policy. I have had that happen more the nonce. The situation was my kids letting there friend drive my car. It has to do with the insurance company needed to be able to assess liability. They need to know if people driving the car are good drivers, underage drivers, or a high risk driver.
Applying that real life logic to real property. If we assume Nick owned the house. He moves out and leaves Juliette in the house. There too you could have an insurance problem. The other problem that could exist is Your moving out could give Juliette standing where you would have to go through the process of evicting her. That is something that if a person knows the rules could take more then a year by the continuously fill court cases. Which his why in real life if Nick owned the house he would have never moved out. Again that is a level of complication no show tries to deal with. So they keep it simple and use the idea of possession being the standard as opposed to ownership.
Embrace your inner Biest..... We all have one