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

MistressDeeCee nailed it: 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?

Of course he's saving her money, Lea. If he was not there, she would have to pay all the bills in full, and that will include large elements that would cost the same irrespective of whether he was there or not - e.g. the mortgage, council tax, water rates, insurance etc. He is also paying half of bills like electricity and gas despite the fact that, again, most of those bills are ones she would incur whether he were there or not: a lightbulb uses up just as much light if there is one person in the room as two. And it is highly likely that he is doing other work round the house e.g. general maintenance, gardening, cleaning etc. which she would either have to do herself and pay for.

This arrangement simply isn't comparable to someone deriving income from letting out a property, because if that was what she was doing she would have to give him exclusive use of at least one room, wouldn't get anything like that by way of contribution towards bills, wouldn't get help with maintenance etc, and would be expected to maintain his part of the house.

I met the man who lives with me when we were both in our fifties, I had 12 years left on my mortgage, he had several debts, but our earnings were on an equal footing. I allowed him to move in on the grounds that he paid rent (at the level that the HMRC considers to be below tax collectable under the rent a room scheme, something the OP's partner might need to consider!) When I started to collect my private pension at 60 (he has no private pension) then I paid it all towards extra mortgage payments.

Now we are both semi retired, we are on State pensions and we both do some occasional work for former employers on zero hours contracts. The mortgage is paid, my private pension pays for our holidays and we split bills down the middle. We are both in good health, so he can expect to live here rent free for his retirement. He seems happy with this outcome.

Maybe the OP should look for the positives in his life. I also understand how his partner feels about her house, but she should be careful. While there is technically no such thing as a common law marriage, there is a law before parliament at the moment to give more protection to cohabitating couples and the courts are moving towards looking to share assets to people in the OPs position should they split up.

Of course he doesn't have an automatic entitlement, he would have to drag them both through a stressful court case and have one hell of a lot of evidence that he had helped pay off some of the equity. The cost of the case would probably wipe out a lot of the financial point of it. Why the hell do you think she got him to sign an agreement that his contributions wouldn't count towards the equity in the house? Because she'd been advised that he could, otherwise, make a claim if their long term relationship eventually broke down...

Many years ago partner at that time moved in with me to a house I already lived in and had quite a bit of equity in
We took out a joint mortgage as tenants in common based on what his share would be when the mortgage was paid off
80:20 share if we had stayed together in long term
After 3 years we split and I had to pay him off
He'd paid in 2-3000 and got back £25k
I'm still struggling

I am totally amazed by some of the views in this thread, yes if he had a place of his own he would have to pay rent, but it would be his own. Frankly this woman sounds a bit money grubbing she isn't paying any more mortgage because he is there. It is a financial commitment she took on before he was on the scene. If he contributes to her mortgage then he is effectively buying a proportion of her house and that should be acknowledged.
My advice would be LTB she wants her cake and eat it.

I'm with the OP's partner and I'd do the same in her position.

What you might find interesting Lea is I would identify financially more with the woman in this scenario than the OP, yet I still think that she is being unreasonable.

Mistress yes he does have that right, or rather he would if he hadnt agreed to sign that right away at the beginning of their cohabitation. In fact, he could go to court with the agreement and ask them to judge whether it is fair or not, and it is is entirely possible that they would find in his favour.

The calculations are based on the fact that he will have paid almost 20% of the total cost by the time the mortgage is paid off based on a 25 year mortgage.

MistressDeeCee, you've lived a very sheltered life if you've never heard of the concept of someone in a long term relationship putting a lot of value into someone's property being entitled to claim a share of it. It's what happens regularly, albeit more often when a woman moves into a house a man owns, and indeed it happens even when she hasn't paid a penny but is deemed to have made a financial contribution by virtue of her work which leaves her partner free to go out and earn more.

Gruntled, I guess we have fundamentally different outlooks on the meaning of "saving" money.

I own my house. If someone moved in here and started paying me a fair rent, he would not be "saving" me anything. I would be "earning" money from an investment. An investment I had the gumption to make, that I paid all of the originating cost for, that I risked over a number of years of being solely responsible for, etc. If the time comes that the property changes from a liability to an asset (which it actually has in my case) I am under no obligation to suddenly use it to subsidize someone else's lifestyle choices.

When I get a dividend check from the bank for interest on my savings, the bank is not "saving" me money. It is paying me an agreed-upon amount for the use of my funds. Just as the OP is paying his girlfriend an agreed-upon amount for the use of her home.

When I get a payment from a freelance client, whether or not I apply that payment to a vacation, to a home improvement, to a night at the casino or to my investments, the client is not "saving" me money. They are paying for a good or service that I have rendered to them. What I do with the proceeds is my business.

How the OP's girlfriend manages her personal finances is her business. But the OP seems to be expecting to double-dip for his relatively minor contribution - he wants a place to live, a place to bring his children AND equity in a property when he has assumed none of the risk of the loan, none of the long-term costs of property ownership (does he pay the taxes too, I wonder) and already is getting a pretty good deal. I hope the girlfriend stands firm.

he would have to drag them both through a stressful court case and have one hell of a lot of evidence that he had helped pay off some of the equity. The cost of the case would probably wipe out a lot of the financial point of it.

Neither of those propositions is necessarily true. He wouldn't need "one hell of a lot of evidence", it would be pretty obvious from the simple evidence that he had over 9 years paid her substantial sums including regular payments equivalent to half the cost of the mortgage. That in turn might well mean that he would get summary judgment without having to go through a full trial and she would have to pay the costs.

Why the hell do you think she got him to sign an agreement that his contributions wouldn't count towards the equity in the house? Because she'd been advised that he could, otherwise, make a claim if their long term relationship eventually broke down...

Precisely, roundabout: it is exactly because she knew he stood a decent chance of getting equity in the house that she got him to sign it - which rather contradicts the first part of your post. And yes, that agreement is now legally binding, but it doesn't make it unreasonable of OP to think that if she were really committed to him she wouldn't now insist on it.

You should be paying rent!

Not sure if the fair amount of rent would amount to 50% of the mortgage though. It might be less or it might be more. Why don't you research what comparitable lodgings would cost to rent?

I think it is a good rule of thumb to say that you shouldn't ask someone to do something you wouldn't be prepared to do yourself.

So what about you put a deposit down on a new house, she rents hers out and comes and lives with you and pays rent? So she doesn't want to do this....well then she can't be surprised that you don't either.

OK - what about you rent a place together - no, she wants the rights and responsibilities of ownership? Well, no surprises there, so do you.

It seems to me that if she is not prepared to take the step of financial entanglement with you and you both want the rights/responsibilities of ownership, maybe you are not really in the right place to move in together yet

You've both got to be into it body, soul and bank balance for living together to really work. Stick to having fun for now.

Bollocks to this woman's "gumption". I don't consider myself to have had gumption to have bought myself a foothold on the property ladder. If it had been that risky an investment, I wouldn't have done it.

Sure, Lea, if someone moved into your house as a lodger it would simply be a matter of you having made a decision to use your house to earn you some money. In return you would have to give up rather a lot - you would have to give the tenant sole use of at least one room, you'd have to allow reasonable use of things like the kitchen and bathroom, you wouldn't get any payment of and above rent even if a very hefty bill came in, you couldn't expect the lodger to help with cleaning, washing up, cooking, maintenance etc, in fact you'd have to maintain the lodger's room or rooms. Most materially, you wouldn't expect to be in a committed, loving relationship with him with all that that entails. It simply isn't a comparable situation, and that is a fact that the law recognises, even if you don't.

(does he pay the taxes too, I wonder)

I assume that you are in the US, there are no property taxes in the UK, just council tax which the OP has said that he pays half of.

Sorry I should say, there are no ongoing property taxes in the UK, there are sometimes taxes due when buying or selling depending on your situation, but nothing like the US property taxes.

Of course one can expect a lodger to do chores, help with cleaning and upkeep. Those arrangements are made all the time.

People next to me have a lodger and I saw him out shoveling snow today to clear the pavement.

The landlord sets the terms, and this OP's landlord/landlady has set clear terms from the get-go, to which he agreed but now doesn't like. The onus is on him to go forge a life to his liking, not to expect her to retroactively agree to fork over part of her prized financial security.

Exactly, which is why he should LTB. He has already said this is the likely outcome of her apparent inability to tell the difference between a lodger and a long term partner.

Lea she is his partner, not his landlady! Why do you keep insisting on referring to her as his landlady?

Well, what was his first clue? He's also complained she is not that interested in being a surrogate mother to his kids. Translation, likely, she won't watch them while I go to the pub.

Why is the expectation that women are supposed to automatically fork over their time, emotional energy, financial assets, etc. to ease a man's circumstances in life just because he is willing to pay them some attention? Clearly this woman established from the get-go that she wanted a rather aloof arrangement and as long as it suited him he was fine with it. Now suddenly he is totaling up the balance sheet, finding he gave away more than he now thinks is fair and somehow that is HER fault? SHE is in the wrong? Let him go out and make the life he wants, instead of getting it handed to him on a platter by his girlfriend.

You can only expect a lodger to clean the parts of the property he uses. You can't expect him to go out and clean the gutter, for instance. If he chooses to shovel snow, that's a matter of goodwill. If you demand that he do it you would have to reduce the rent.

This is not OP's landlady.

As for the "expectation", that is what the law expects. Just as happens if a woman moves in with a man at a property owned in his name.

I wonder why she got him to sign that weird agreement at the beginning, instead of a tenancy agreement with residential landlord? Was this a tax dodge on her part? She should definitely be paying tax on her "rental" income... I bet she doesn't put it in her tax return! Naughty, naughty, to tell someone to pay rent and then not pay tax on it...

Maybe the OP should dob her in to HMRC.

The OP isn't in a relationship, he is a lodger. He is already paying 50/50 on all bills and council tax (she would be paying 75% of that without him there) this woman seems to be taking no consideration of his commitments just assumes that earn the same so should pay the same. :-/

Dump her.