A more accurate analogy would be if the lawnmower, which happened to be stored in your shed, was jointly owned by the entire neighborhood. Your piece of it was a fraction of the whole, clearly a majority one. You decide to move out of the neighborhood and you demanded that sole ownership of the lawnmower be turned over to you regardless of the wishes of the rest of the owners. And oh, by the way, you weren't going to compensate them for their investment. Now you tell me what is fair or legal or just about that?
But of course I use common sense. You would use something other than common sense and I would attack you. Then you would whine about how we had an agreement — unless you were dead.
Common sense says that jointly owned property does not become yours merely because you want it. Common sense says that everyone who paid for it must be compensated for their investment. Common sense says that to do otherwise is clearly stealing.
“A more accurate analogy would be if the lawnmower, which happened to be stored in your shed, was jointly owned by the entire neighborhood.”
No. A more accurate analogy would if I provided the lawnmower for the neighborhood to use. When the neighbors starting spitting on me and my kids for some strange reason I wanted to discontinue that arrangement.
“Common sense says that jointly owned property does not become yours merely because you want it.”
Correct, but that conclusion is based on your false analogy so I, as usual, am correct and you are wrong.