It's ours not mine - or is it?

Good choice OP. Gifting him half the house in your lifetime has no possible advantage to you. All it does is gives him a right to half your asset if you split. Why would you willingly disadvantage yourself like that? He benefits regardless by you as a couple having no housing costs in the future.

Wherever your DP lived he would have had to pay rent - whether it be with you or on his own. Does not entitle him to a share in the house.

Men do not make these big, stupid, emotional gestures that cost them dearly.
Only women do it.

That's one of the most stupid things I've ever read.

Kindly meant OP, signing half a house over to a man with savings, who didn't want to marry, where you split things 50/50, would IMO, be yet another SHIT financial decision.

You have no business giving him anything.
He has had the benefit of 15 years cheap rent.
No one forced him to stay with you.

He's had a great deal.
Your children deserve good financial decisions from you.

It's a tough world out there.
Let YOUR children benefit from you learning from your mistakes.

Your financial mistakes cost you dearly.
Don't let this be ANOTHER stupid mistake.

Don't allow this to be ANOTHER huge regret.
Don't act in haste, and repent at leisure.

Men do not make these big, stupid, emotional gestures that cost them dearly.

Only women do it.

Your family, your inheritance, your house, your childrens inheritance.

I would break up with someone rather than ever put my childrens housing security at risk.

He has savings due to cheaper rent.
Really wishing you well.

Good choice OP

Smart decision, OP.
I think thinking about the house as his rent-free home for as long as you're together (and potentially if he outlives you - easily arranged with a Will) is the right way to approach it. Making half if it 'his asset' irrespective of your future relationship is not necessary.

All the more reason.

They don't want to get married.
They each have children. .
They have no shared children.
They have separate finances.
He has more money.
He has benefited from low rent.
He will now benefit from no housing costs.

He's got a great deal and she would be out of her mind to sign over half her house to him.

This is also true from her posts, yes.

still doesn’t give him a right to half her house!

She also doesn't want to marry him.

We keep our finances separate and split everything down the middle bills wise. I am happy with this arrangement, I don't need to justify what i spend my money on and not does he. He has more in the bank

@ohthiscouldgetmessy do you see yourself as having equal dibs on what he has in the bank???

Fwiw I am in a similar position to you (I own the house my partner and I live in). We are not going to marry and I am not putting his name on the deeds, however I have written my will in such a way that he will always have somewhere to live should I predecease him.

Going on this OP, that you have completely separate finances, he has more money than you, and neither of you has an intention of getting married, I think the only logical thing is to keep it in your name to protect yourself and your children.

He will have security and a rent free home while you are together, and if he pushes for anything more I would be questioning why, as long as you have a will which looks after him if anything happens to you, owning half the house in name will ONLY benefit him if you split.. that isn't a reason to do it IMO.

I do think you have to think about what would happen if you split.. could you afford to buy him out of his half, or would the house have to be sold? Could you afford to buy somewhere with your half? Or would you end up renting again?

No one ever intends to separate, but when you aren't married and can walk away from each other at any time, there is absolutely no reason to financially tie yourselves together in this way.

I feel because we have put the same into the house thinking we would end up owning it I feel I need to do 50/50.

But surely if "we" were going to own it then perhaps best that "we" had married?

He has taken a risk that you would still be together when (just) you were gifted the house & that you would give him some ownership!

I think your plan is a good one & tbh I'm pretty sure if I were you'd I'd be keeping the house for me & my kids.

I would keep the house in my name only. I would view the fact you’ve rented and done some bits to the house as irrelevant to going forward. It’s really the same as if you had rented another house and then be given this one, in that scenario it would just be in your name. Personally I would want to protect the house for my children and if asked I would lie and say the relative has insisted it’s in my name and stays that way. Its actually better you aren’t married, makes it much easier.

Agreed

Smart decision OP, there is no way in hell I’d give half a house to a man who doesn’t want to marry me!

They have no legal connection. They are essentially housemates

This. .Maybe morally wrong not to put in both names, but legally safer.

For all legal and financial purposes, they are housemates.

The reason people mention marriage is because the house would become a marital asset, it wouldn't matter who's name it was in, so it is relevant to the conversation, of course marriages break up but there are legal protections in place for those eventualities, there is no protection whatsoever for partners.

IMO it would be foolish to put the house 50/50 at this point as it doesn't need to be, he can live there rent free for as long as they are together and she can make provisions for him in a will for his half if anything happens to her, so as long as they are together he will always be guaranteed his half of the house that he has helped pay for.

The ONLY reason to put it as 50/50 names is a fall back for him for if they split up, but if they split up would she want him taking half the house? So it makes absolutely no sense to sign half of it over now, as a good will gesture she could make a stipulation that if they were to separate he will be given the amount of money he has put in over the last 15 years.. that is a more than fair arrangement.

Paying rent for 15 years doesn't earn you a house at the end of it, OP has basically inherited that house and it is hers to do with as she wishes.

Also the way some people have talked about the rent paid previously and going forward, as if they were housemates rather than a couple.

It’s amazing how many people seem to assume that if couples aren’t married it’s because the man wouldn’t get married. Also, lots of comments that seem to think he might leave at anytime, just because they haven’t gone through a wedding ceremony; plenty of people walk out of marriages as well. Almost as if some women think that if they have managed to get a man to marry them, their relationship is better in some way. This couple have been together 15 years, which is a lot longer than many marriages last and they obviously are committed and see their future together.

Fair point, a lot of landlord"s wouldn"t have allowed them to do that though, if this landlord gave permission then did an eviction that is very sneaky, lesson learned for you friend I hope.

Your partner would have needed to pay rent wherever they were living. Rent is not a mortgage. You are being gifted the house from a family member therefore the house is yours. If the house didn't belong to your family, your rental payments have no impact on you eventually owning the house so I'd try to reframe the way you're seeing it.

Does he want to marry?

Been with my DP coming up 16 years, 2 DC and a false engagement.
He doesn't really want to get married.
I do.