It's ours not mine - or is it?

If Dh and I paid for a property for many years and now it was being gifted, I would insist it be gifted to both of us. Assuming we both contributed equitably and we both had been there from the start and paid for the property over the long term.

Why would it not be both of ours? I recognise it’s slightly different legally because we are married, but it was a long term joint financial commitment and we should both benefit from the security it provides.

You do not own property because you paid rent. The house is a gift to you.
You could have been living elsewhere and the house could still be gifted to you.
The house is yours only and you can still ask your partner for rent, if you wanted to.
He has no claim
Just like you wouldn’t have if his parents decided to gift a property to him.

He didn't buy because he chose to be with her and they couldn't buy because she couldn't get a mortgage

@AndyMcFlurry I'm with you on keep it in her name, but interested in this logic

"What would be relevant is if one of you has given up work to care for the other or to care for your joint children or to do major renovation on the property. None of these seem to be relevant here."

And how it's relevant given you're still dealing with adults who have chosen to live their lives as separate entities free from the rights but also the responsibilities of marriage.

They've chosen not to legally bind themselves anything that flows from that is what they've chosen. I don't see the some choices would get special protection.

If you die and you give him 50% of the house it means you’re giving away 50% of your children’s inheritance.

Your boyfriend could have bought his own house. He didn’t.

You need to get legal advice. You already lost everything in one divorce - don’t give away your financial security to a man. It isn’t worth it.

Let's look at it from the other side.
For 15 years he's been in a secure rental with a legal agreement.
Then all of a sudden there is no rental agreement and despite sticking by OP with her financial issues staying renting instead of being able to buy he now has no security whatsoever. She could turf him out tomorrow with no notice.

Has anyone asked how much this rent was? He and his two children would need a 3 bedroom house at least so how much has his half of the rent been in comparison to renting his own house? I bet its been a much lower rate.

You owe it to your children to protect their inheritance like you have been gifted. This is too much to hand over 50/50.

I would go 50/50, I've been with OH just slightly longer, also unmarried and would do the same if we were in that position.

What difference would being married make compared to years together as if married? Genuine question BTW not being sarcastic!

No. It doesn’t get to be in her boyfriend/girlfriend’s name.

The house is a gift and the OP is not married.

If your DP hadn’t have been living in this house, he would have been paying rent elsewhere and that never would have led him to owning the place he rented 🤷‍♀️

Also, if he’s never wanted to marry you, it means he’s never wanted to legally combine assets/money etc, so why should he suddenly gain half a house?

It seems he only wants you “for richer” but not “for poorer” and that’s not how marriage works.

I think I would share ownership although not necessarily 50-50 but to reflect the increase in value since OP and partner moved in. It sounds to me as though the relative was acting as a lender and viewed the rent as repayments towards the loan and so the DP has effectively bought a share.

How did you pay for the big jobs? If your credit was poor did he borrow the money? Did you jointly save? Could you have had those jobs done if you had been on your own?

If you lived in a different property with your partner and your relative was gifting you this house, you would probably view the gift as being entirely yours and wouldn't randomly give your partner half of it.

If you have kids, it's also their inheritance that you would be giving away.

Do you generally have seperate finances?

If your partner could have bought a property on his own, but didn't in order to help you rent and renovate this place, and if he was expecting you to be gifted this house, then he is (morally) entitled to something in recognition of that. How much you decide depends on the strength of your relationship and individual finances.

I would consider both of your savings and assests and income/ earning potential, now and in the future. If you gave him a 50% share of the house and he left you next year, would you and your children be able to house yourselves?

Do either of you have have savings/ investments etc? It would be madness to give him half of your house if he has signifucant savings/ pension that you aren't entitled to half of, unless you have a similar valve nest egg of your own.

Do not put it in your partner’s name!! Put it in your name only!!

Also, was your partner the one with terrible credit?

Your partner has not married you - which means they forfeit the financial advantages that being married brings.

If he wanted to marry you - he would have.

You have inherited a house from a family member. Whatever went previously is not really relevant. You are a blended family who havent actually got a child together or a marriage.

For me its black and white. You must protect yourself and your future regardless of where you see your relationship going. You get the house, he gets to stop paying rent.

If you really must feel like you are doing right by your partner, put the house 100% in your name. Calculate how much you have both invested into the house for DIY. Half this for his contribution and that will give you an amount to take out as a mortgage on your house. My guess is it wont be quite the figure you think it is once its halved. Of course he would then need to continue to pay the same rent he has previously as your tennant so essentially he will be paying his own loan. He cant have it both ways where he gets back his money and lives with you scott free.

Do not put his name on it if you are not married!

Following all your updates, I might consider 50/50. Marriage would mean 50/50 of everything you both own, all savings etc. The house would just be the house.

Seeing as you assumed from the beginning that you would one day be given the house, and that he has been there the whole time and paying 50/50 and presumably knew about your assumption (eta: he may not have agreed to put extra money and time in to doing up the house if you hadn’t discussed the house one day being given to you?), I would probably go 50/50 with it.

Although I would also advise going to see a financial advisor because they would likely have insights into the whole situation and potential outcomes in the future that I don’t.

Congratulations on becoming a home owner either way, and well done getting yourself out of debt following your divorce!

It's been gifted to you.

The rent is irrelevant as you would have paid that anyway and it is not payment for the house. You are basically getting a free house.

In reality the family member is giving the house to the OP because they are related, not because of the rent paid. They wouldn’t have handed it over to a tenant who was a stranger or even a friend.

It is his choice anyway, even without such a vast gift when he can’t reciprocate with anything of equivalent value. That’s precisely why the OP would be wise to put her own financial security first.

Equally, he might not do what you would do. If he leaves he will have to pay market rate rent.

That’s a fair idea tbh I think he should be compensated for what he paid for the renovations atleast!!

Both names, there’d be uproar on here if a man dared not add a woman!

Agreed. Family member is gifting the house BECAUSE they've paid so much rent. And the partner paid half of that! I don't see any harm in doing it 50/50 as long as it's a stable, long-term relationship. It will be mortgage free, so no worries about having to deal with that if you split up. It will literally be a decent lump sum to each of you.

It will also be his choice to leave the OP. And who could blame him.

No. They weren’t in a rent-to-buy scheme and he would have been paying rent elsewhere anyway.