Is it fair to be expected to pay half her Mortgage?

[Tophat72]

Hi there. I'm looking for some impartial comment on what has become a huge issue between my partner and me.

We are both divorcees but although with similar salaries, have very different financial commitments. I have two children I am financially responsible for while she is childless and comfortably well off. She has her own large home and only has 5 years left to pay on her mortgage. I lost my house in my financial settlement with my ex.

I live with my partner in her home. Before moving in with her, I had to sign a legal agreement acknowledging that I have no claim whatsoever on any percentage of the house in the event of our separation. The house is hers and hers alone. Furthermore, I am not catered for in any way in her will. Should she die, the house and her entire estate goes to her sister and nephew...

My partner believes that all the household expenses, including her mortgage payments, should be split 50-50 between us. I however am adamant that given the circumstances, I should not be contributing towards the purchase of her house and I am only prepared to pay for my share of the other household bills (utilities, council tax, groceries etc)

This has become a huge bone of contention between us and sadly things are looking terminal.

Her position is that paying half of her outstanding mortgage should be looked upon by me as paying a modest rent as if she were my landlady. She also quite rightly points out that I am still living very cheaply and if I were to get a place of my own my monthly outgoings would be well over twice what I currently pay her. She feels that I earn the same as her and live under the same roof so I should pay the same.

From my perspective, I have absolutely no objection to going 50-50, but only if she is prepared to afford me some kind of proportionate security or stake in the house in the event of our separation or her death. I don't see why I should contribute 50% towards the ongoing purchase of a capital investment that I have a 0% share in. I feel as though she wants to have her cake and eat it, keeping everything to herself while expecting me to pay for an equal share of, well nothing.

I've tried to write this as objectively as I can. Obviously her friends and family support her position and my friends and family mine. For my own peace of mind, I would be really keen to read the thoughts of a truly neutral observer. Cheers

After 5 y with someone id want to know where it is going? In 5y after mortgage is paid off and he's being paying in for 10 what then?

Ideally I'd want them be talking about her selling up and putting half equality in to a new house then she can protect the rest and he can build up share in new house.

Will he still be expected pay rent after its paid off too?

She may have paid for the majority of the house, but she hasn't paid for all of it. So why her sense of entitlement?

But lea dont you see that her insisting that he pays half of her mortgage but having no stake in the property is her having her financial security at a major financial cost to him?

He cant invest in property if he is paying half of the mortgage on a house he will never see any benefit from. She is costing him far more than a 20% share of the property will cost her.

The OP wants part of her equity. That's a financial cost to her.

Not if she's received money equivalent to the part he gets.

But he wants a percentage of the home's value at some unknown future date - when he hasn't been paying the full period when the price appreciation was realized. As others have pointed out, that's absurd.

He is paying rent to live in a nice dwelling. That it's half her monthly housing costs (be that mortgage, rent, upkeep, whatever) is irrelevant. If he thinks he can get a better deal elsewhere he should take it. She shouldn't be expected to give him a free ride.

Exactly Gruntled. He isnt asking for this for nothing, he will have paid for almost one fifth of the house by the time it is paid off, and presumably she is sitting on a nice little nest egg of savings from the money she hasnt been paying towards the mortgage in that time.

Sounds like she wants him to pay towards her investment, but to keep all of the profit. Stuff that!

She may have paid for the majority of the house, but she hasn't paid for all of it. So why her sense of entitlement?

Not sure what this means. Of course she has paid for the house, with HER income and HER income alone.

That her income happens, for a period of time, to include rent from a lodger (a lodger lucky enough to be paying below market rates) is irrelevant. Is she supposed to also cede part of her equity to her employer because her income from that company/organization was used to pay down the mortgage?

She is the one getting the free ride. He should leave her and find his own place - she sounds like a self-centred dead loss as a partner.

lea appreciation etc is just part of owning property. That doesnt mean that someone who has paid 20% of the cost of said property shouldnt have their contributions recognised because she wants to keep all the equity for herself. She wants it all her own way!

LeaLeander - so you think she has a pure business relationship with him, do you?

She has not described him as her lodger. She has also specified she wants him to pay half the cost of her mortgage - from his income.

She wants a monthly contribution equal to half the cost of the mortgage. That is NOT the same as "paying half the mortgage" - for one thing, the OP does not have the legal responsibility nor the liability of the mortgage.

His name is not on the loan, ergo he is not paying the mortgage. If he wants to be responsible for a mortgage, is he willing to refinance the property, add any equity, be responsible for the costs associated with originating a new loan and otherwise formalizing it?

Sorry but just because a boyfriend pitches in some expense money every month and - as he should - pays half the cost of maintaining the dwelling - doesn't mean he is entitled to an ownership stake. It's ludicrous. If he stayed in a hotel for a week would he expect an ownership stake? If he rented a flat for three years would he expect the landlady to cede an ownership stake?

Why does a romantic or sexual relationship automatically mean a woman should hand over her capital assets to the man in question, even if he is just living there on a pay-as-you-go basis?

But, Lea, having a percentage of the value at a future date is perfectly standard, irrespective of whether you know what the value will be at that point. If, for instance, you make an agreement with someone that you will have a 50% stake in a property by paying 50% of the purchase price, then you will have 50% of what it is worth when the property is eventually sold: even though you haven't been paying anything of the period when the property value goes up, and even though you haven't been paying for maintenance costs etc.

You could also get round the difficulty now by getting a simple valuation. Say the property is now worth £500K and OP has already paid £25K, you could make an agreement that he is entitled to, say, 7.5% of the value. I suggest more than a straight 5% because the value of the property has already gone up over the last 5 years whilst OP has been contributing, and he will also have contributed to its worth by paying for things like insurance and general maintenance. You then agree that his entitlement will rise proportionately each year till the mortgage is paid off; you could also agree that he will continue to pay rent after that in return for an increased interest in the property.

And, as people keep pointing out, he isn't a lodger on any legal interpretation of that term and therefore isn't paying rent.

She paid her mortgage before OP arrived, presumably she can do it if he is not there, even if it means taking in a lodger then. I doubt he's her "financial saviour"

Regarding paying rent - if he wants to negotiate paying less rent in some way then fine, but if she doesn't want to give him a share in her house then he should leave her alone. If you're paying your living costs where you are then thats what you focus on, not what its going towards. If he pays a little less but still feels its "helping" her with mortgage, what then? Take a little more off please, don't want to feel Im paying towards your house, as its not mine?

This looks like a case of putting up with what doesn't suit you, in the hope of a "prize" at the end. Well, there is no prize so go get your own place, or suggest you put your relationship on a more solid/equal footing by buying your own place together. Theres no other way around it and I think thats known, but the hope of the prize is clouding things.

When something is not yours it simply is not yours. Even if you think it should be. Now if you think thats not fair then you equalise, or get your own, or move on. What else is there to do, anyway? Cant browbeat the woman..

Lea, you need to turn the hotel analogy round. If someone has their boyfriend over for a couple of nights a week, should she expect him to pay her rent or the equivalent of what he would pay in a hotel for the night?

If he's paying half the cost of the mortgage he's not simply pitching in some expense money.

That her income happens, for a period of time, to include rent from a lodger (a lodger lucky enough to be paying below market rates) is irrelevant.

It wouldnt be if he was indeed a lodger, except that he isnt.

A lodger moves in with a clear contract, private use of their own space and no expectation of maintenance on the property. A lodger pays a set amount for rent and bills every month, they are not expected to contribute further and cater for themselves.

The OP is living with her as his partner, sharing a bed and room with her (presumably), doing the garden, decorating, doing the upkeep and paying half of her outgoings which wont have doubled since he moved in. He is saving her thousands per year and yet she refuses to recognise that in anyway. 9 years he will have paid, 9 years and he just wants a stake in the property to reflect that. He isnt moving in in the last year and demanding a 50% share, just proportional ownership in line with his significant contributions.

He cant invest in property if he is paying half of the mortgage on a house he will never see any benefit from. She is costing him far more than a 20% share of the property will cost her.

So what is stopping him from going out and investing in his own property instead of expecting to ride on hers?

And why do so many people think he should get an ownership stake when his monthly fee ALREADY is getting him a place to live, and bring his children, at lower than market rates? Just how clean does he want to pick his girlfriend with minimal contribution on his part?

If he wants an ownership stake, let him pay ALL the mortgage, just as she did for many years to build the equity.

It's not as simple as saying go get your own place. They presumably live together because the partner wanted it, and they live in her house (as opposed to buying somewhere else together) again because she wants it. If OP didn't live there and wasn't contributing so much towards the partner's house, he apparently would be putting his money into the mortgage on another place and would expect to benefit from the rise in value of that property and would have the security of knowing that that property is available to him as long as he wants to live there. By acceding to his partner's wishes he's being deprived of the opportunity to make a profit on the money he's paying the partner, and has no security. If you love someone enough to want to live with them, should you really totally ignore that?

I repeat, if he had not signed the agreement before he moved in, but could prove that it was his money that had gone to pay half the cost of the mortgage each month since he moved in, in addition to sharing all other expenses, he could take her to court if they broke up and get a share in the equity, regardless of whether or not his name was on the deeds. That's because the law tries to do what is fair, unless a couple come to a formal, written, unfair arrangement like the current one. It may not have been unfair when he first moved in, but it sure as hell is, now, if this is a serious, long term relationship. Given it is already unfair, I have every sympathy with him for pointing that out to her. They should come to an arrangement that is more fair, or go their separate ways. It's offensive to tell a long term partner they are just your lodger.

So what is stopping him from going out and investing in his own property instead of expecting to ride on hers?

The fact that a hefty portion of his income is going to his partner?

Not sure if this would work but could you look up what the house was worth 4 years ago when you moved in. Pay half the mortgage until it was paid off and then have it revalued. Hopefully, if it has increased in price then this extra should be shared 50/50. The monatary value of your 50% could be calculated as a % and a legal document drawn up that you have that % stake.

This would only work if you are convinced that you will still be together when the mortgage is paid off obviously. If not, then I would certainly consider getting your own place and renting it out.

"He is saving her thousands a year."

No, he is not. He is paying his fair share of the expenses, he is not "saving" her anything. If she derives an income from a property she has worked hard to afford and establish, why should she then have to give up equity in gratitude?

From the defensive responses on this thread I think there are quite a few people who are reflecting on how much they resemble the OP and trying to justify whey they feel entitled to someone else's property, just by dint of being boyfriend/girlfriend. Very interesting.

Lea, do we know that the partner paid all the mortgage for years to build the equity? Do we know that her ex didn't?

All the calculations being floated around. Really?! So if you live with someone in their home for say 5-10 years then by virtue of all that, you'd be entitled to a share in his/her property? Where do you go to get these agreements/calculations drawn up legally then, since they're being spoken of as if they are automatic rights and sorry, I've never heard of such a thing in my life. That being the case the OP would already have an automatic entitlement, wouldn't he? & he doesn't - does he?

I never knew life could be that easy

Sorry but just because a boyfriend pitches in some expense money every month and - as he should - pays half the cost of maintaining the dwelling - doesn't mean he is entitled to an ownership stake.

Not true. If he hadnt signed the agreement previously then he could easily go to court with his bank statements and claim back what he paid in, or claim a stake in the house, on the basis of his payments. It is perfectly legal. Clearly she knew this which is why she insisted on his signing this agreement before he paid her a penny.

She is very calculating, and I cant help thinking that there is more business than love in this relationship from her pov. He has no rights, no stake and every penny he has paid into the house in maintenance, upkeep and contributions to the mortgage will go to her sister, she isnt even giving him any recognition in her will ffs!