to be annoyed I am ALWAYS being reminded about 'what's mine and what's yours'

[MrsFC]

Let me start by explaining that MrFC is an extremely generous and kind man. He pays all the bills and mortgage, and I just work for three days a week and pay for the food and things for my DS.

But he's starting to drive me crazy. DS (from a previous relationship) & I moved into his house two years ago, and when I sold my flat I paid him a lump sum which was all formalised and I now have a 12.5% share in the house, whilst paying nothing towards the mortgage or upkeep. We recently traded in my old banger for a shiney new car and again I just paid 10% and he paid the rest.

Lovely lovely, I know. But HONESTLY, does he have to keep reminding me how lucky I am? Because I KNOW, right? I'm very happy and very grateful, and I DO tell him, so cut out the little digs, because quite frankly when you constantly tell me you don't want to marry me it makes me feel more insecure than grateful and happy.

Hmmm... I sound like an ungrateful spoilt madam don't I. In my defense I am 15 weeks pregnant with our much wanted and awaited child and so just maybe I'm a touch hormonal...

what hecate said

honestly, its not normal

lots of couples dont make identical contribtions to the family, in terms of working hours, money etc

many SAMPs work much much longer hours than people in employment. most employed partners earn more. its not better or worse, just different. its teamwork

yes he will earn more while you are on mat leave. and you will do more childcare. unless you are planing to split the childcare and housework and do half each?

no,i thought not

1. I was in a similar situation once.
2. It went tits up.
3. I have never recovered financially.

Advice? Start supporting yourself as an independent woman because your livelihood is hanging by a thread, even if you can't see that right now.

You need a decent pension, some investments, and a f/t job, and a secret bank a/c he does not know about with surplus funds in case of disaster (equivalent to about 3 months' net earnings).

The way he has it set up, you use your income for things that represent disposable income (car, food), while he uses most of his income for things that appreciate in value (i.e. house). This is a time honoured trick of the trade amongst men that resist marriage and the legal obligations to women that go along with it. The law is very weak in this area and you can expect no support from that quarter.

OP how would you feel if the situation was reversed and you were the one earning the bulk of the money. Would you talk to him the way he does to you? ever?

Before you thank him for supporting you make sure he thanks you for looking after your (both of yours) child. Contributions to a relationship do not have to be financial to count.

Are you married? Don't you have to promise to bestow each other with all your worldly goods?
I would be very cautious he sounds like he is trying to protect himself in the event of a split up.

If he is supporting you on maternity leave, point out that a nanny costs at least £80 a day (or does round here) cleaners start at £10 an hour... get him to add that up, very few SAHM's are a bad deal when their true value is worked out.

Is he paying into a pension for you? Are you named as the beneficiary of his life insurance? Do you have wills in place?

To be honest I think he's being an arsehole. He is paying the mortgage so retains the rights to the house, while you support him in other areas by paying for food etc which is all money that just disappears.
I would say that you need to get your name on that mortgage now that you have a child together, as an absolute minimum.

good post boffinmum

but just as a point of information, co-habiting couple in Scotland have more legal rights than under English law . See here. If she lives in England she is very vulnerable if they split

KristinaM That's why it is important for the financially vulnerable partner to marry before having children.

Sorry but English law has it right- nobody should be married by default.
The law should not marry people because they've lived together for a while and had a child. That's just Marxism.

I am sick of women (NOT a dig at OP) who get pregnant by men outside of wedlock then scream "Snot fair!" when they've told they've got no rights to a property that they've not contributed to. (AFAIK, paying food bills and childcare do not count when it comes to property "rights" over someone else's house -obviously, jointly owned property is different).
It's not right to take away other people's right to live with a person out of wedlock without financial ties because these women can't be asked to marry.

OP, I think you're lucky but, at the same time, I think your partner is very, very financially savvy and has checked out to the nth degree what YOUR entitlements would be in the event of a split. He's got HIS rights over what money he has to give you worked out to the letter I think.
He knows that legal marriage would give you the edge.

As for the case where the man got 50% share in house, he got it because the house was boughtjointly between the couple.
The actual nature of the relationship of the couple was not relevant.
If he had not been named as joint owner- he'd have got nothing.

Agree with Marantha- cohabitation and marriage should continue to be legally distinct.

Otherwise how are the courts supposed to differentiate between people who consider their partnership to be similar to marriage and those who are not married because they dont want their relationship to be viewed in that way?

The current system is actually very fair. It's just that there is so much myth about "common law" spouse rights that people lull themselves into a false sense of security.

I agree that your partner is very financially savvy, OP. He's not going to marry you because he doesn't want you to have legal rights to split the property if you split up.

Why does he remind you all the time that you're lucky and that he's not going to marry you? So that, if things go wrong, you can't ever complain that you didn't know the deal.

This is the deal. You live with him and have a child with him, if you accept that your finances will never be shared, that he will never see you as a team, and that if you ever split up he will take every single penny he can, legally, without a single moral compunction for you and your children.

Are you happy with that? If so, that's great. But that's the deal, and he's telling you that over and over again as clearly as he can.

When someone tells you who they are, listen to them.

BaggedandTagged They can't reasonably know- it would down to the subjective judgement of strangers to decided how "marriage-like" a relationship is. (urgh!)
Far, far better for a couple to declare their commitment themselves, I think. Much fairer.
At least a married person can't say they didn't realise they were supposed to be in it for life.

"When someone tells you who they are, listen to them"

Great bit of advice.

I think if he resents paying for anything then he needs to say that upfront. It seems to me his resentment is rearing it's head through all these little reminders. I think i'ld tell him to keep his money and in future not get involved in trading in your car etc, if that is in fact a problem for him.

He either accepts that you have a firm relationship which will be ongoing and serious and therefore shares his wealthier lifestyle with you or else he doesn't. You hardly want to be with him as an unequal partner, so he needs to accept that from here on in whatever joint purchases are made are just that joint, regardless of the percentages paid by each party. If he wants to withold some of his money he should put it into his own private account.

Totally agree with Boffin.

You are being diddled IMO. Let's get this straight. You have paid a lump sum towards the house, giving you a 12.5% share. YOu don't pay into the mortgage every month, therefore your % equity will not increase beyond the 12.5%. You appear to think this is fair.

HOWEVER, you pay for all food (which I guess could realistically account for anywhere between 20% and 60% of the monthly mortgage charges dependant on the mortgage value). So your DP does not have to pay for food so he benefits, and you are paying for food and not mortgage, so you lose out. DYSWIM???

It is not a fair arrangement AT ALL! I would suggest you speak to your DP about a fairer arrangement. I would be interested to know his view on the matter.

I don't mind being told I'm incorrect at all but the fact that the 12.5% share in house has been formalised indicates strongly to me that that is what you'd get in the event of a split.
I don't think it would be 50/50, somehow.
This man has got it sorted, I think.

You're in a bit of a relationship halfway-house, a bit of a limbo-state, OP.
I've been there, it's not nice. You're in a committed realtionship but not a FULLY committed one, IYSWIM. (Another reason why cohabitation is a bad idea but I am biased).

Marriage/lifelong commitment should be about a merging of souls, minds and practical things like finances. This isn't happening for you at the moment.

Sorry, but the man is an arse IMO. Please take note of the good advice which has been offered here.

I do wish women would marry before they had children. Yes, I realise that cohabitees can be devoted to one another if "only" cohabiting and some married people don't care about each other, but it's not about that.

OK, there are no doubt superwomen out there who don't need to be married, but ordinary mortals do.
It's high time the idea of marriage before children (cohabiting without children is fair enough, I think) made a comeback in this country.

It's NOTHING to do with morality, just good sense. The law has had lots of opportunities to bring in "cohabitee rights", it hasn't happened yet!

Op- have you ever told him how lucky he is that you have let him have such a big stake in your ds life? That really is an honour you know!
Legally- you are in a very dodgy situation as others have pointed out.
Morally- he doesn't appear to have much respect for you, why should you be grateful- you are supposed to be a partnership!

I kind of agree with marantha. I used to get really pissed off with David Cameron's 'marriage tax break' and general promotion of marriage, but then I realised there is solid reasoning behind all the mush - if people get married before they have children, then in the event of a break-up, the higher earner has to provide better for the main carer and the main carer is therefore less likely to end up on benefits.

I have noticed that he has been very quiet about the actual tax break recently - poss he has realised that the half a billion or whatever it was could be better spent

Of course there's solid reasoning behind David Cameron's promotion of marriage.
Marriage is tailor-made for couples who wish to be in a long-term living-together arrangement with children.

It provides legal rights that are not present in cohabitation (and, frankly, why should they be present? It would be illiberal to marry people by default).

EVERY couple in such a relationship should be encouraged to marry.
I am all for alternative lifestyles but I look to the heavens when a couple who living together with children say marriage is "Just a piece of paper" . It is not- it provides a cocktail of rights (and responsibilities) for people.