Just a question really...in light of my current situation (see other thread re DP caught with a colleague if interested).
Those that have bought with partners not yet married, what was your rationale?
For me, I did it because it was a worthwhile investment, the only way i'd be able to get on the property ladder in London at the time, and because I thought i'd be with my partner forever (marriage etc).
I guess my question is, indirectly, why do people make such long term/big commitments with people that they do not intend on being with in the long long term?
Maybe they want to live in a house they own while they figure out whether they want to marry?
I'm pretty sure most people expect that they willl stay together with their partners. People who enter a relationship with the intent to eventually end it are usually considered somewhat weird. (And assholes, if they didn't tell their partner about those intentions)
Even teenage relationships are usually started with the hope that they will stay happy forever, not with the plan to end it when turning 21.
Buying a house with a partner is not so much of a risk if you have legally defined shares and a plan for what would happen if you split up from the start.
Yes. When I did it, we had legally binding agreements on all that. It wasn't hard, just added a small amount to legal fees.
It's never too late to do it, by the way. More chance of the negotiations over terms getting messy - but that's one way of finding out whether your partner has your interests at heart!
In your case, petal, you can prove your equal or greater contributions so your worst case would be ending up in a fight that cost more than you stood to gain. The man would have to be utterly vindictive to force that, as he'd lose in the end - but you really never can tell how someone's going to behave at the end of a relationship. Which is the reason it's insane not to get it all tied up as early as possible.
Sorry, of course you don't need to answer any of that.
I do get rather worried about women being too laid back about money, especially if they interrupt their careers for children.
I got fucked over by both ex-husbands, and that's with all the built-in protections of marriage! XH1 was actually less successful in this because he's the one I bought with before marriage - his solicitor said our intent regarding property division had been clear from the start.
No problem. I replied to the OP because it's a subject in interested in since my (married) friend separated and all she has gone through with her divorce.
I don't think my and my partner will ever separate (obviously, I would t be with him if I thought this was on the cards right?!) but, being a realist, somehow NOT being married seems like an easier option.
"why do people make such long term/big commitments with people that they do not intend on being with in the long long term?"
Why do you assume that unmarried DP and I don't I tend on being together long-term?
We've had DC, that's a bigger commitment!
The simple answer for us is that we needed somewhere to live. We didn't need to be married (few of our friendship group are, but lots are in long term relationships). We may get married eventually but there's no pressing need right now.
Not everyone is a bastard Sometimes people buy together, split up and sell the house and split the proceeds fairly according to who invested what. Wrangling about assets after a split is not a given. Plenty of people divorce without solicitors because they agree between themselves. Personally, I don't want to be married again so if I ever bought property with someone id make sure it was legally drawn up about what to do in event of a split. I don't see that as a huge risk.
I think marriage is a legal and financial contract. It speaks nothing at all of your long term commitment to a relationship it simply speaks to your commitment to financially and legally being tied to a partner.
I married xh because I was a single parent with small DC and on benefits and he is a high earner. It was about financial protection. I was not prepared to be vulnerable being a SAHM and have another baby with him without marriage.
I'm always deeply committed to a partner. Marriage or not. I left my relationship with h but haven't divorced because the reasons for the financial commitment still stand. He became a stepfather with rights to my two DC, I got financial protection.
Similarly when he had the deposit for a house I insisted it be put in his name only because it was not fair for me to have legal rights and I've left the house and won't establish a beneficial interest unless he reneges on our separation agreement.
Marriage is a practical thing, it's not about romance or love or commitment really IMO.
I would be wary of making decisions that disadvantage me, whatever they were, without protection if things went wrong. Marriage is a way of protecting yourself from certain disadvantages.
I own a house with DP. We are not married. I have no intention of getting married because I own 70% of the house and he owns 30% and my pension is 2x his. Why would I want to lose that by getting married and becoming subject to 50/50? We have no intention of splitting up but why risk my financial stability?
Our investments are protected as we are tenants in common. We both have life insurance to fully cover the full (joint) mortgage and our wills leave our estates to our son with the provision that the other partner can live in our home as long as they chose or until they re-marry/move another partner in.
Otherwise how would I know (if I were to die tomorrow) that DP wouldn't change my wishes and leave my house to a cats home/new woman/gamble it away at online bingo instead of our son?