AIBU to feel undervalued when my husband keeps score financially?

Given you would be on means-tested benefits if you hadn’t remarried, I’m presuming you had some detailed discussions on plans for your new married life as evidenced by the ownership arrangements for your home. I presuming your lifestyle is massively different from a life on benefits - holidays, home, expendable income etc.

Is there a mismatch between expectations and reality? Did you plan on having children together? Given your son has a long commute to school, I’m presuming he is at senior school, so in ten years at least one of your children will have likely moved out to university. I think you need to sit down and have a discussion with your DH and possibly some marriage guidance / counselling. Central to everything must be that the children should not suffer from you entering into this marriage.

You don’t really say what it is that he says to you or does that is so regularly demeaning.
He moaned a bit when you asked him to pick up children once.
How does he remind you of the contribution he makes, and how often ?

Sounds like you protected your larger deposit when you bought the house by ensuring that it was held as tenants in common. Now, your income is spent partly on food but the rest goes on your kids, your car, your phone your petrol and your activities. He's paying all the household bills, the mortgage and no doubt money on your kids. Can't you see why he is pissed off?
What does your EH contribute? Also what are your activities that you are paying for when he is paying all the household bills? Sounds like your income is yours but his income is everyone's!

Point scoring in general isn’t very nice in a relationship. Imagine if you did that every time you had sex with him or cooked him dinner… he wouldn’t bloody like it! He sounds unkind.

Generally on MN there’s a bit of a double standard that says step mothers shouldn’t pay for their step children and step father's should, but I personally think if you’re going to be in a child’s life like that you should be all in.

If the roles were reversed people would be telling OP that she didn't have to look after her partner's children or take on extra housework because her partner had children to look after

You must be joking?! Have you ever visited the step parenting board?! Step mums are expected to do more than actual mothers. And what the hell is wrong with expecting a man to check on dinner or do some housework? Most of us work and do these things.

More standard would be that the deal is that her 200k is ringfenced and she gets that back and then any other equity is split 50:50 from day 1, with his mortgage contributions acting to reduce that 200k over time (so once he's paid 200k off on the mortgage it's just straight 50:50). That would be completely reasonable and better for him. At the end of year 1 that would have her getting back 215k (still 7.5% and with a free place to live) and him getting back 35k (also 7.5%).

I've also known it done that the 200k is ringfenced and then the mortgage contributions don't matter, but that's not fair on him - his financial investment isn't recognized at all.

Yes why are you working part time, id be annoyed if i was him look at it from his side, hes paying the mortgage but you are entitled to half the house and hes paying all the bills for you and your 2 children, i think things need to be more equal, hes effecticly keeping you and your children and if you have a mortgage why are you working part time, imagine if you paid all the mortgage but knew if your partner left they would be entitled to half the house its not fair,

Im curious if you lived together before buying a house together as Surely these differences would have been apparent and less impactful on the kids who are now going to be exposed to conflict/unhappiness? Popping out and asking someone to check on dinner isn’t a big deal in healthy relationships but yours sound toxic

@HelenHywater

What the OP is saying (from what I can work out), is she put in most of the deposit. Let's say she paid 100% of the deposit. She talks about it being hefty, so let's assume that means much more than 10% down. Let's say the house cost 500k, she put in 200k . Mortgage of 300k.

The way their deal works, on day 1 she is entitled to 100% of the house. Over time, his mortgage contributions give him equity. It's not clear how they've structured this, but let's assume that he didn't completely roll over and give her the best deal in the world meaning that when she talks about his mortgage contributions it's the repayment plus interest payment rather than just the repayment.

Assume he pays 20k a year in mortgage.

At the end of year 1, she has put in 200k, he has put in 20k. Collectively the house has cost them 220k so far. He's paid 9% of that, she's paid 91%. So the deal then is she's entitled to 91% of equity and he's entity to 9% of equity. She may or may not have her deposit ring fenced, or they may be equally at risk if house price goes down.

Now over a 20 year mortgage, if there isn't something to say that he doesn't ever get more than 50:50 there's a risk her ownership share goes below 50%. It's not definitively unfair but with inflation etc that's not something that would have been a great deal for her and I'd have expected a lawyer to advise against. Although if the deposit is ringfenced as well then it's still a decent deal. All depends quite how big the deposit and mortgage are and what happens with house prices.

Assume no ringfencing. Suppose house prices go up 10% in year 1 and they end up splitting. House is worth 550k. Mortgage (once you take account of costs of selling etc) let's just say is still 300k. Equity is now 250k. She gets back 227.5k (13% increase on her capital). He gets back 22.5 k (12.5% increase on his capital). She's made more than him out of the deal AND she's had a free place to live for her and her two kids for a year - I don't know where they are but presumably that's saved her at least 1k a month.

There are lots of ways to cut how the structure works and a lot of assumptions in the above. Short term I can't see how this is in any way an unfair deal for her. If it doesn't stop at 50:50 then it is risky long term, but we're talking maybe 15 years before that's a real issue and she's not had to pay the mortgage that whole time.

I think the way that your finances are set up are contributing to the problem and I don’t see this ending well

Yes he pays more but part of those payments are buying equity in the house he lives.

To try and get my head round this arrangement, Did you buy the house for eg £600,000
You paid in £300,000 and his half was funded by a mortgage of £300,000. So when mortgage is paid off he will own 50% of the house

What happens to the equity if you sell prior to mortgage being paid off

I would hope you have very good contracts in place prior to marriage setting out equity of the house etc

Yep, this.
I get it too. He's being a little too petty about it but it's not like it isn't understandable.

Surely you and the children are a package and you all come as a team, that’s what marriage is.

sounds like at present you own more of your home because you paid the deposit but each month the mortgage is paid your dh owns a bit more of the home so that in the future you will both own the same amount?

my dh has always paid our mortgage but never grumbles that he owns more of the house than me as we are married and everything is joint owned.

Why have you mover the children’s a long commute away from their school?

Which isn’t an excuse to be petty over watching the dinner for 10 minutes.

Regardless they’ve clearly been very open about their finances prior to marriage and using it now as a reason to be a grumpy arse is low behaviour.

Well said @TeaCupTinsel .
Resentment or financial abuse can start after an agreement is settled and one partner is trapped in the agreement. Red flags which didn't show before like attitudes towards kids come out. Four days isn't massively part time and you haven't changed down as you are trapped in complicated child care arrangements for working.
As @TeaCupTinsel said sit down together when the kids aren't there strip it all back get it out.
If he's just a twat and being a bully cos he can you need to expose this.
Look at ways you can cut back to have some spare cash over if you can.
Sort it out or it will end up in other parts of your relationship being effected.
Are you planning on having children together.

Except the small detail of his 6 times larger than OP's salary.

There is a lot of resentment here. And it sounds like it isn't working. Obviously because he earns a lot your life is better financially. I doubt his attitude is going to change. iI you aren't happy then maybe it's time to call it a day.

I think when you set the tone of 'I paid more of the deposit so own more of this house' you have got to expect the relationship to be more transactional than supportive or romantic but it doesn't sound nice and wouldn't be the type of relationship I would be interested in.

How many hours a week do you work ? Four days at 9-5 is obviously different than 10-2.
It sounds like he is resentful of the current financial set up.
The situation with the house sounds weird. Was your deposit 50% of the value of the house ( so you've already paid your 'half') and wanted to ensure you didn't end up with less if you divorced?

Plus he owns others properties - greedy and self serving.

This - he also sounds like a bit of a c*

Can’t believe you married him and your children have him in their lives too

he brings absolutely nothing

You need to upskill and increase your earning potential or possibly look at FT work again

Unfortunately when you’re in this situation, the only way to level the field is to be more financially level. I was in your position. I spent 3 years qualifying, barely got so much as a well done when complete but I doubled my salary, matched his household financial contributions and now earn more. It really levelled our relationship but the damage had been done with the comments for so many years. I’m in a stronger position for retirement and I will not be carrying him after all the comments he’s made over the years.

For sure, I would be on benefits to supplement my income. I did get them previously, but once we lived together I could no longer claim

I suspect he didn't totally realise how much you were dependent on benefits. He probably saw someone affording to house themselves & their kids & did not see himself having to subsidise your finances day to day quite so much.

In a lot of blended families either kids are 50 50 so mum has still had quite a lot of time be able to develop her own career/earning potential, or mum is receiving quite a bit of child maintenance.

I don't think its typical for a new husband to take on financially supporting another man's children, except in some instances where dad has passed away or was never in the picture at all and its known from the outset the new husband is going to be the second parent and support financially.

How ridiculous- so you owned more of the house but the more he pays the more of it he owns?

Hows that going to benefit you?

Im sorry but spending 70pc of your income on food is also not great

He seems to be resenting the set up and does not want to take on the practical burden of kids