To buy house on my own-sorry long

[tomverlaine]

I live with my partner and DS. I have always earned a lot more than DP and am more career focused. DP had been travelling when we met and after a couple of years retrained and was freelancing when DS was born - but not working full time. DP had savings from selling a house and the income from this provided additional income
DS is in nursery a couple of days a week and DP looks after him the other three. DP works a couple of evenings a week and could work the days DS is in nursery or weekend. we have a cleaner and other tasks are split ( i would say 80/20 to me!)
We have been renting since we moved intogether - before DS was born we both paid towards the rent/joint account (unevenly) and I paid all extras. Now I pay all household expenses/rents/food/childcare plus pay DP £400 a month for childcare.
We are now buying a house together - I am paying for all of it- deposit/mortgage in my name/renovations/expenses etc. mainly from savings built up over several years.

DP has suddenly raised the issue of whose names go on the deeds/ownership of house. I was really surprised how I reacted as the idea just horrified me (we haven't talked about it yet) - it feels like its my house as I have worked my butt off for it. I don't think DP is worse off financially through having DS than before- although I prefer DS not to be in nursery full time its not a huge preference and I am happy for DP to go to work. Am i being unreasonable?

X post, sorry, OP you seem to accept his two days off. That's your choice, you've accepted how he spends his working week so you have to accept that everything else is fair too, including splitting the house. Doesn't sound fair to me though.

From your last post, if he is not prepared to invest his savings in the house, then you could reasonably argue that the house is your pension. Is he going to put his savings into joint names? I'm thinking not.

Generally I think a shared approach is a good way to go, but not here. My impression is that he wants to sit on his arse, do his hobbies, own half of your assets (while keeping his own separate) and get it all financed by you. I don't think he can be described as a sah parent, if the baby is in childcare 2 days a week, you have a cleaner and you do 80% of the remaining work in the home.

Agree with monstrously this is all topsy turvy. I'm no flagbearer for conventional living, but the problem here is that you're trying to conventionalise an unconventional situation and that never ends well.

Why doesn't he invest his money in a house which is rented out, and you buy the house that you are both to live in? That way he would still have his 'pension' and his 'house' should anything go wrong in the relationship. The rental could pay off the mortgage. You also maintain divided assets which you both seem to be quite keen on.

DP hasn't used up any of his savings; He had income on these savings and income from his work and used that pre DS.
So on day 1 if he put the savings in the house then he would obviously get a share - but he doesn't want to (he sees it as his pension which i understand)

And that is where it all falls down. If he has substantial savings, he should be putting them into the house, with you. The house will be your joint "pension".

If you dont plan on staying together long term, then fine, go ahead and buy the house in your own right, if he is keeping his money for himself. Make sure all the legal aspects are covered.

It isnt much of a partnership though. I would wonder if it is a relationship worth having.

Just to give the facts DP works two evenings a week - about 5 or 6 hours.
DS is in nursery 8-6 two days a week - about 20 hrs.
2 days a week DP has DS all day - from 7.30 am to say 8pm
1 day a week DP has DS all day but i work from home - so 9-12 1-6 say.
DP is lovely with DS- but he finds it hard work - and is pretty hands off the rest of the time eg when I am there.
He does everything such as garden/maintenance/car/emptying bins etc and shares in shopping.

Not sure if that helps explain- but I would say i think the issues are a bit separate in my mind- we are striking a balance more on what we do/how we feel about time allocation - this to me is separate - buying the house reflects all the hard work I have put in over a lot of years (not just since I met DP) and it does feel like he'd be getting something for nothing - but then I do feel committed to him and would like to show this - i think it just scares me as finances represent security to me- sorry if its a bit garbled

Tomverlaine: I which case I think you are totally reasonable putting the house in your sole name. Your DP is save for his future in terms of the separate savings/"pension", he could put the savings into the house but he has chosen not too.

He has chosen to keep his finances separate, it's up to you know to chose whether you want to do the same and discuss your decision with DP. He may or may not accept it.

Doesn't make you two any more or less of a partnership if you do go forward like this, you are both still working together to provide for the family, if somewhat unconventionally.

YABU. If you're unhappy with the current financial situation then you need to deal with that separately. Your DP is essentially a SAHP and so even if you are paying the mortagage solely, you are buying the house "together" (your words) and so you should both be in the mortgage.

If you are putting in savings (and DP could do the same, but refuses to) then you could reflect this in your ownership share - tenancy in common.

If the issues (houusework/work/money) are separate to you and the pair of you have found a lifestyle that works for you, then keep the issues separate, but you will have to agree each bit seperately

I agree with Karmabeliever.

If genders were reversed here I'd feel the same. If a man came on and explained that he works full time, employs a cleaner, pays for DCs nursery 3 days a week, does 80% of the remaining household tasks, then said his DP has a substantial sum of money she is not prepared to invest jointly in a house with him, yet requested an equal share of the house he was paying for solely, I'd say that she needs to invest jointly and start building a new pension pot for herself by using her 2 free days per week to create an investment for her future.

Sorry for lack of full stops there.

OP, from your description of the chores your DP does, plus the fact that you have a cleaner, how do you get to the household work split as being 80/20 in your favour?

I agree with LunarRose - him having substantial savings which he is not willing to put towards the house puts an entirely different spin on things.

It's totally understandable. Financial security is very important.

There are different models for dealing with couples finances, but none of them include one person getting to keep a large amount of savings as 'their money' whilst expecting the other person to share their savings/the benefit of their savings.

As Karma said, if he sticks to that line, then the house is your pension.

It's totally unreasonable to withhold savings that are substantial enough to provide an income off the interest and expect you to put his name on a house where your savings are covering all the deposit.

Sorry about the misunderstanding earleir. When you said he was living in part off his savings I assumed you meant using them up, not using the income from his investments!

The crunch is that he has savings that he wants to keep for himself, the fact that he pays so little into the household and is choosing leisure before work, and so keeps this status quo. He does not want to share what is "his" with you, but expect you to share yours with him. Plus he is paid for the time he is not looking after his child because he is in fact in nursery! It beggars belief!

I agree that you need to discuss this. If he wants to be on the deeds of the house, he needs to contribute, by either paying his savings into the deposit and contribute to the mortgage, or he turns his savings into joint savings for you both to enjoy in retirement. Or something.

Regardless of gender, the way it is now, is not fair, and what he is proposing is not fair in that he looks out for himself only and not you.

Seems we are all coming to the same conclusion re: his savings. The division of tasks in the home now seems immaterial.

Hope things are becoming clearer for you now OP

household chores are not the issue here- but ...the cleaning that the cleaner does is not all the cleaning that needs to be done (well DP disagrees)
DP never puts away anything (dishes/toys/washing)...

Thanks for all the replies. I think I'll talk to him about the savings and then think about what percentage he thinks he is contributing to - eg what do his 3 days a week childcare work out as in terms of share of mortgage - just to get a view. I DO view it as our house- and I want to make sure he does to- so maybe it is just a discussion on percentage.

I don't resent him for being a slacker (well it would be great if he was a thrusting executive and I could be a lady of leisure!) - I resent (strong word) - i find it annoying that he has reinvented the past to say that he would be earning lots/being a thrusting executive- if it wasn't for DS- so i should compensate him for this!

OP - I had a similar situation before we were married. DP earned a lot more than me, we had (and still have) separate bank accounts into which our salaries went. But then I had a big lump sum as a deposit (from inheritance) and he didnt. When we bought a house, we talked to the solicitor about putting the house in joint names but with differing % assigned to each. It ended up being something like I owned 65% initially, but tapered off as he paid more of the mortgage than I did and so after x years it would be 50:50. As it turned out, we got married a year later and had kids and I am a SAHM so it's all void now.

Since you are not married, you DO need to consider your own future financial wellbeing. It makes perfect sense for your DP to have good pension provision, as it means you wont have to support him! But to give him 50% of house ownership means that in the case of a split, you wont have anything to fall back on and he ends up with half the house AND all his savings. That's not fair whichever way round the genders go. The fact that he CAN (and does) work now but its just more convenient not to, means that he does have it to fall back on. In the case of many SAHM/SAHD, they have left their career and find it very hard to break back into it a few years down the line.

TBH your relationship sounds like mine (other way round though). We chose for me to give up work when we had kids. DH's job (weird shifts, working away) makes it very very difficult for me to commit to most types of work, and I am very happy to be a SAHM, and I admit I have a pretty easy life! I do tiny bits of freelance stuff and keep all the money I earn. In addition, DH puts money in my account every month; as you said, for things I want to buy but not have to account for. We have a joint account and credit card, funded by him, for household/kids/hols but we are both accountable for this. He has his own account too, I have no idea how much is in it, and I dont need to know. We want for nothing, and he would never refuse a big purchase if it's important. ie we actually TALK about big-ticket expenditure!! Neither of us would dream of paying more than £100 for anything from the joint account without a little consultation with the other. And it has nothing to do with who earns more or whether it is a SAHD or a SAHM.

It's a shame that to have to be married to automatically get the sort of rights that ought to be available to everyone. But until this changes, you do need to look at the future and make sure you, he, and your children are protected in the event of a break-up.

You will find your conveyancing soliciter should be able to help you on the wording on your ownership paperwork. But please ensure you and DP are straight about all of this before commencing! Good luck