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

Maybe the rules about lodgers are different in your country. Here they can be asked to clean the gutters, shovel snow, scrub the floors or whatever the landlord requests, as part of the tenancy agreement.

At any rate, again, the OP agreed to one set of terms and now has decided that his girlfriend is in the wrong rather than admitting that he simply no longer likes the conditions he originally agreed to. Trying to portray her as some kind of stingy or un-loving bitch instead of portraying himself as a mooch expecting a nearly-free ride.

Wow Lea how much projection are you going to shoehorn into a post?! Interesting.....

He didnt say that he wanted her to be a surrogate mother to his kids, just that she has no input in their parenting. Thats not unusual. My ex's GF never babysits while ex goes to the pub because he spends his access weekends with them, thats normal too.

And I would say that in fact its more often that men are expected to fork out money and energy when they live with a woman with children than the other way around. My husband now spends far more money living with me and my kids than he ever did when he was single.

But hey, dont let that spoil your clearly bitter outlook.

OP's girlfriend is a stingy, unloving bitch, though. You've summed her up perfectly, LeaLeander.

Oh, except you forgot tax dodger.

Very good point about the tax!

I've never seen or indeed heard of a lodging agreement that requires the lodger to be the landlord's servant, in any part of the country, and TBH I don't believe that such a thing exists. Why would anyone pay for that?

Of course he agreed to the current terms, but that doesn't make it unreasonable to take the view that, if his partner were committed to the relationship, she would rethink them.

By no stretch of the imagination can this arrangement be described as a nearly-free ride. OP must be paying out thousands.

And roundabout is absolutely right, unless the partner is declaring each and every penny for tax, which I strongly doubt, this cannot be characterised as an arrangement where she is simply using her property to earn an income.

If I started a business and a friend agreed to work for me for nothing while I was starting up, would it be unreasonable of them to want to renegotiate when that business started to make good money? Of course not.

The OP signed that agreement when they were starting out and werent sure if them living together would work out. After 4 years it can be safely assumed that it has, so he wants to renegotiate. I dont find that to be a problem at all.

The fly in the ointment is that she sees him as a rent paying lodger and not the life partner that he views her as.

Here, one pays no tax unless a profit is earned. By law, she would not be deemed to be profiting so no tax liability would ensue.

Well she is not there is she? She is here, so not sure what sort of point you are trying to make.

Your understanding of the law is incorrect, LeaLeander. If OP had a lodger on the sort of terms operating here, she would undoubtedly be making a profit in the Inland Revenue's eyes.

IS there no longer a tax exemption for renting out one room in a house? There used to be.

It isn't romantic, but from the g.friend POV this is the home she's paid for over decades. When her DP moved in, she had no way of knowing whether it would work out, and her mortgage co. would want her to ensure that he didn't get a share.

If the tow of them had kids, and he gave up work to raise them, I would expect him to live rent free with a share in the house, but this isn't the case.

What would happen if the two split up? Her living costs would go up, but she could rent our a room to offset that. He would need to rent or buy a place large enough for himself and his children, which would cost more (going from his comments).

OP - you didn't 'lose' your house in the divorce. Your DC, who would have been pretty young then, got to keep it, and (from what you've said) their primary caregiver is able to stay there and raise them while you financially support them, with some input at weekends. That is actually an incredibly good deal to how much time & money it would cost you to raise your DC if your wife had died. Perhaps you could try a 'glass half full' approach to your finances? You live in a large house at minimal cost, can have your children over to stay with you, know that they are safe and well brought up, and still have options (move out to rent/buy, or get a BTL) if this isn't what you want in life. That is actually a pretty good position to be in.

Lealander

Leaving aside your quite frankly extraordinary views and the fact you seem to want everything to be about the US when it is the UK and its laws being discussed. I cannot believe you are correct about the no tax due as no 'profit' is being made, or otherwise you could get your firm to pay your mortgage for you in lieu of salary, since you wouldn't be making a profit no tax would be due. Good luck selling that to the IRS

Kickasangel

I bet you would not think a woman moving into to a financially well established man's house with ongoing commitments to children should be paying half the mortgage on top of half the bills too. It is a desperately inequitable situation where consideration of long term commitment seems entirely absent.

OP if she reduces your "rent" payment substantially, are you suddenly going to be happy with arrangement, and not want a share of the house? Somehow I don't think so. Just as I don't think there'd be this debate if that house were negative equity

OP I know there's some belief going on around here that you are the financial saviour who also does the gardening decorating..you know, all those little jobs women can't do unless and until a man comes along - & all other chores you do in a home you live in must be factored into your "rights", but it looks to me like you made an agreement, signed it, and now you don't like it as you thought things would naturally change

The pie in the sky calculations some are doing on here are just fantasy, not law. Ultimately its her house whether you're partner or lodger, whichever it is, it makes no difference. You've no claim. You're not her husband. It is what it is. Jointly buy a house with your lady instead of sitting there planning your future and finances on the house she had way before you came along. Or move out

She doesn't have to give you a share in the property, its her choice. I wonder if she is your sole beneficiary in the event that you die before her?

You have choices you just don't want to take them up as you believe in your entitlement. Thats not your partner's fault she made an agreement, you accepted, if you now don't like that agreement well then, you aren't bound by what you signed to so you can make changes. If you want to, that is....

I don't think anyone's suggesting that only OP does jobs around the house and that the partner does one. But the point is that the likelihood is that he does some, and that in itself has a value and indeed may add value to the house, and also puts him in the position where he is not a lodger.

That should have been "the partner does none", not "does one".

Please don't tell me what I think.

If a woman were able to work ft, had a fairly low time commitment to her kids, and could, if she wanted, buy somewhere to rent out to give her security etc, just like the OP, then that would seem fine to me. In fact, I've been on threads and offered exactly that advice.

Cohabitation is tricky. The problem is that people suddenly need to make a big financial commitment to one another before they are emotionally sure of the situation. The OP has made a number of commitments during his life, 2 children being the most obvious, and that is costing him in a way that it doesn't his DP. If the two of them were committed enough to marry, then the situation would shift and I'd expect money to be pooled as family income. If they had kids together it would also be different.

The current situation allows both the OP and his DP to live more cheaply than if they live separately. That seems pretty beneficial to me. If the DP wants to live cheaply, he won't get security. If he wants security, he won't get cheap living. He has to make a choice, and is fortunate enough to be able to make that choice AND support his kids. That makes him pretty wealthy in world terms, and better off than many people in the UK.

If he's worried that the current situations shows a lack of commitment from his DP, then he needs to have that discussion with her. However, he hasn't even mentioned that.

They're basically in a friend who iss a lodger type arrangement. He wants security, but also wants the cheap rent. That isn't going to work out for him.

Whether he is a lodger or not is besides the point and Im unsure why it keeps being raised. I may understand however if there is a law that says, if a person does jobs around the house he actually lives in, thus adding value to the house (?!) then that entitles him to a financial share in it.

OP has choices open to him that he isn't taking. Its not his partner's fault he is less wealthy, or "lost" his house previously (although I don't know that the family home being for the primary carer of the DCs could be described as "lost" actually). In her shoes I wouldn't change a thing, there's no need to.

When someone shows you who they are, believe them. OP signed up for this, now it doesn't suit then no amount of false hope up in here is going to change things. At best he can go for a reduction in payments to his lady, at worst move out, somewhere in between those options a middle ground ie purchasing a separate home together. Suggestion of any or all of these things would let him know where his relationship stands.

Blindsided I would refer you to irs.gov. Assure you as a small business owner that no taxes are due if expenses exceed profits.

*primary carer and their DCs

Rent a room scheme still seems legal in the UK, so the DP doesn't need to be paying tax on any 'rent' btw.

But the expenses attributable to OP living there are clearly much less than he is paying, particularly given that, unlike most lodgers, he doesn't have exclusive use of any part of the property.

And OP isn't renting a room.

There aren't many things that are really important in life but having the security of a roof above your head is one of them. This is the reason that so many people, including the OP, want to buy rather than rent a property - so that eventually the payments stop and they are not faced with paying unpredictable, or high, rents right up until they die. People also want to be in control of their homes and not be forced to move when the landlord wants their property back.

The OP describes his relationship as a committed, long-term one but surely the essence of a loving, equal relationship is that you consider your partner's life and happiness to be as important as your own. Here, the OP's long-term partner has gone to considerable trouble to ensure her own, long-term security but seems perfectly happy that her partner doesn't have the same benefits - in fact, she has taken deliberate measures which might result in him one day being homeless. I would seriously question the quality of a relationship where one partner can be so indifferent to the other's wellbeing.

The obvious and normal solution to this would be for the OP's partner to sell her property and start again with the OP by buying a joint property - if necessary a smaller one so that they can both afford it. That way, they both have security in their advancing years and can regard each other as equals. If the OP's partner will not leave her own house and insists instead on the present arrangement, which gives her all the long-term advantages while denying these to her partner, then she cares more about her house and finances than she does about him. This situation lays bare the fundamental values and character of those involved - with this knowledge, it is up to the OP to decide what to do.