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

Sorry not RTFT but I think it's okay for her to ask you to pay something whilst you are living in her house (but not necessarily as much as 50% of her mortgage payments - it depends really how big her mortgage repayments are). However, I don't really think this is the crux of the issue, which seems to be that after 4 years together she's essentially treating you as a lodger and not as a partner. She's made it very clear she does not want you to financially benefit from any of her investment.

Ultimately I would happily pay rent as a lodger, or I would happily pay towards a mortgage with a partner, but having a partner who treats you as a lodger is different. She's making it very clear that she wants to be able to end the relationship easily and move on if she so wishes, and it doesn't sound like she's really as committed as you are to your relationship.

Deogratias
There is nothing to stop this chap if he wants skin in the game from buying a flat to let out so he is contributing to property ownership and if they split up he has something to fall back on.

You really think saddling himself with ANOTHER mortgage is a good idea.

Either she thinks she is in a relationship and owes him whatever %age of the house he has bought by paying her mortgage or he isn't and is a lodger.
The more I think about this the more frightful she appears, him living with her is reducing her expenses not adding to them, if she lived on her own the whole mortgage would be down to her.

I bet if he suggested buying a house together she wouldn't want to take on another mortgage.(despite the fact she could rent hers out)

To be honest OP taking all the emotion out of it, i think my sympathy lies with your partner. You have the choice to go and buy/rent out your own place, but instead decide to live in her house cheaply and moan about it. It's not her job to fix your life.

Its amazing to see so many posters posting with wrong information about their partners paying towards their house.

if you are cohabiting and your partner is paying towards your house (even though they aren't on the mortgage) and the shit hits the fan and your relationship crumbles and your partner leaves your partner can take you to court and they are likely to win their case and you can be forced to give them some of your gain - this is absolute FACT. it is written into FAMILY LAW. all they need to do is prove they have been paying you - they just need to provide bank statements to show money has been getting paid into your account.

I know this because a friend won their case 2 weeks ago and got all her money back from someone they were living with even though she wasn't on his mortgage - she proved she paid money to her DH and that she paid half the gas, electricity, she bought things like carpets, paid for decorating, paid for gardener etc. etc. - she DIDNT have to prove she paid half the mortgage - in fact she didn't pay anything towards the mortgage but their agreement was she paid for all food shopping rather than pay half the mortgage - the food shopping came to more than half the mortgage though so she would have been better off paying half the mortgage e.g. food shopping was £600 per month but the mortgage was only £400 a month.

I haven't read all the posts here. My suggestion would be that you pay half, but that you then get half of whatever equity you have contributed to if you split up. For example:

if the house is worth £100,000 when you moved in. If you split up after two years, get the house revalued. If it is now worth £110,000, then you get £5,000.

I would say this whether you were a man or a woman.

It's not FAMILY LAW if you're not married. As not being married you're not family.

I woulden't mind contributing towards the mortgage, like rent, I used to do this with my now dh, when I first moved into his house with him. What I don't like about op arrangement is the cold hard way his dp is being, leaving nothing in her will for him, and booting him out if she dies, that is not the way to have a loving relationship. For me, that would be a dealbreaker. Either she has been done over in the past and has had her fingers burned, or she does not see the relationship with op as serious, that is something op needs to sit down and discuss with her. Where the relationship is going, and how serious she is about it.

She's right. That is your rent.

If you paid rent to a landlord, which presumably you would if you didn't live with her, the landlord may use your rent money to pay of the mortgage on the house.

I thought about this with my DP if he were to move in with me; because I am now self employed it would not even be straightforward for me / us to remortgage on the terms I'm currently on, and might also be difficult / impossible in the future if I had to remortgage again if we split up and he wanted his capital out / name off the mortgage without even starting to think about inheritance issues.

Havent RTFT but both my Dds are buying property independently ;large amounts of the funding are coming from 'family'money and I would want that protected from any future partner ,in the event of a split .I suppose if any relationship stood the test of time and especially if they had children together I would expect them to agree the longterm arrangements
I think it's odd your partner expresses it in terms of half the mortgage, when you do not co own the house .Why did she not include a rental element when she calculated your contribution to expenses?It's up to her if she then puts it towards paying her mortgage
I don't know where you live but if it's London or the SE you will gain over paying commercial rent .

It's not FAMILY LAW if you're not married. As not being married you're not family.

You do realise that family law covers a heck of a lot of law don't you?

Going by your definition even if you have DC if you aren't married you aren't a family. it isn't the 1950s

"If you paid rent to a landlord..."

All my landlords have owned outright so my rent has not gone towards their mortgage. But the point is that landlords let out for a profit. Are you saying it's normal for OP's partner to make a profit out of him?

What was originally your house, you have already left to your children. Understand you don't want to feel like a lodger: so maybe you should consider setting up somewhere together that you both own.

So because you are life partners you should get to live rent free while she pays a chunk of her income towards the house?

It's not just the mortgage that the rent money is paying though is it? I would assume that she will be the one paying for repairs, large appliances etc? The rent payment would also be towards the wear and tear on her house. She shouldn't have to shoulder this burden entirely herself when OP and his children are substantially contributing towards it.

It doesn't seem to me that she consider OP to be a 'life partner' though does it? Not everyone wants that out of life.

OP, why don't you buy somewhere together?

very good point shesaid.

If OP is going to have a share of the house, then his partner should have a share of the capital from the house he sold.

We were in a not dissimilar position, both had worked hard to rebuild after an earlier divorce, but I was substantially better off as no DCs at the time to find and had had longer to recover financially. We kept separate accom. (I owned, he rented) and stayed with each other several nights a week, sharing food costs but paid our own bills. When we decided we wanted to move in together, and once he had paid off his debts (this was a condition I stipulated for combining finances) we bought together and both put in an equal amount to the deposit and split everything 50/50 (he earned a bit more but had a DC to support too). I rented my original house out for a few years and eventually sold it and used the money to pay for an extension on our joint home- we married and had DCs together by then so it wasn't an issue. It felt very fair, gave me the security of knowing what I had worked so hard for wasn't going to be pulled out from under me, he also had a secure roof for himself and his DC throughout, and we have a solid relationship now.

You're a Cock lodger and a skin flint.

If I was her, you would be long gone.

You want to live rent free? And not only that, you want to snatch a portion of a property that she has paid on, her WHOLE life, before you were ever together.

You want to swoop in, in the last 5 years of what was most likely a 30 year mortgage, and rip a piece of her investment off for yourself?

It's disgusting. Poor woman.

peggy

the food shopping came to more than half the mortgage though so she would have been better off paying half the mortgage e.g. food shopping was £600 per month but the mortgage was only £400 a month.

That is not actually correct because her share of the food would have been £300 which is less than half the mortgage.

You're a Cock lodger and a skin flint.

Jeez.

No he isn't. He does contribute.

You want to live rent free? And not only that, you want to snatch a portion of a property that she has paid on, her WHOLE life, before you were ever together.

Over dramatic much!

If you are going to have a rant at least be correct. She hasn't paid for it her WHOLE life.

Find=fund!!