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

Although in a relationship where true love exists each person wants their partner to be secure and cared for. Neither of you sound like this is true love - you are both way to focussed on the 'I'm alright jack' position. Which indicates that she is right to protect her asset.

Clam, because if he pays half her bills including half her mortgage, the law says he has a financial interest in the property, and she is very clear about not wanting that. I think this should be publicised more widely, tbh - if you want someone to move in but you want to keep your property to yourself, then you need to pay the whole costs for it yourself. I didn't know that, and I too would have thought it was grabby for someone to be reluctant to pay anything towards the house itself. Turns out it isn't.

I think real love is about wanting to protect the person you profess to love not benefit from their financial status.

I am not nor have I ever been a I'm alright jack type

Why is it not ok for the homeowner to benefit but perfectly ok for the none home owner to do so?

Because the homeowner will end up with a valuable asset and the non-homeowner will not. Simples.

Can't see much evidence of pride OP, she's not your mum, it's not her duty to subsidise you.

Financially you need her more than she needs you, stop whinging and stand on your own two feet. She might have more respect for you then.

NeedsAsockamnesty
"I think real love is about wanting to protect the person you profess to love not benefit from their financial status."

Surely that goes both ways?

Yanbu. If she wanted you there it's fair enough you split the bills but pay off half the remaining mortgage? She wouldn't have anyone doing that unless she got a lodger, she supposed to love you not see you as a lodger. If it were me in her position I'd be happy with half the bills and want my partner to buy a BTL to ensure he had some security in the future. We'd both be better off that way than living separately.

Yes but if he was not expecting to benefit from his girl friend owning a house he would also be paying rent elsewhere.

And if he did pay rent he would have tenancy rights, including exclusive possession, security of tenure and defined contributions towards household expenses - none of which he has currently.

Which is why he isn't paying market rent.

Swings and roundabouts, innit?

If she wanted to live with our op (we don't know) then she is bu. If she was quite happy for him to live elsewhere, then she is nbu.

The amount you can charge for letting a room in your house goes up in April to, I think, £750 pm before you pay tax
Simplest solution is to have a formal tenancy agreement IMO
But it may sour their relationship
When I married DH he had a house worth at least twice the one I sold,the profit from which went on esssential repairs to his .We didnt put me on the deeds until we sold that house and moved to another We had DD1 by then .We own the house 50:50 as tenants in common although DH's initial investment must have been ten times mine
I think OP and partner are at a very different stage in their lives though and I do not blame her for protecting her assets

think OP and partner are at a very different stage in their lives though and I do not blame her for protecting her assets

But you are happy your husband hasn't protected his assets.?

Until she declares the income in her tax return, he is not paying rent. They are both being stupid not to formalise what they actually are doing, as people get nasty when they feel they are being taken for granted or taken advantage of, and they are both clearly thinking that about each other. Whatever they do, they ought to do it properly - the current arrangement is a massive balls up.

Yes you should contribute towards the mortgage.
However she is profiting from you and has been very proactive to make sure you do profit from her in this respect.
I think this argument is a symptom of deeper problems! I would not feel comfortable with this deal either because I would know I was coming off worse.

What BlueJug said. Nail on the head.

He is paying mortgage for the house his ex lives in.
I haven't read all replies but he is likely to have stake in that house at the moment.

He should be paying a reduced rent to his partner return for use of the house. That means there's no bad blood between them.
She is responsible for repairs, she won't be asking him to contribute towards redecorating or any broken appliances etc.

This logic is so obvious it is hard to believe OP can't see this!

Obviously contribution towards bills would be on top of that.

Antimatter - in the original op Tophat says "I lost my house in my financial settlement with my ex " so why do you assume he is paying the mortgage on it or has a stake in it?

I wouldn't contribute to a mortgage that didn't have my name on it

Id accept the situation as it is, not focus on what it is not, and then go forward on other options open to me to secure my own longterm security, especially as a parent

OP must be pretty good at looking into other options - his youngest DC is just 5 yet he has already been living with new partner for 4 years. That doesn't suggest to me someone that doesn't act speedily when they want to sort something out, tbh

Its not even been made clear which of the payment towards the home is for bills, and which or whether there is a sum on top of that actually specified as "towards the mortgage", and paid into the mortgage account by him. Or even whether he still owns the home with his former partner - that seems under debate here & there in thread so it can't have been clarified.

There are too many holes in this story.

OP says he is living comfortably. Paying towards his own mortgage - if thats the case - & towards his DCs are his own responsibilities, which would be difficult without having moved quickly into his partner's home. As I see it she is doing enough, he has a comfortable home, and if she wants to protect her assets then its up to her. She is choosing her option and OP can choose his based on that. There are choices

For me, after reading several replies, the advice I would be taking is the role reversal one. Ie. If it was a woman in this situation, people would be urging her to get financial security, names on the deeds etc. He should do the same.

I have been thinking about this one. With my mortgage the repayments are approximately 1/3 interest and 2/3 capital. Given that DP doesn't want to share any gains/losses in the capital it makes sense that OP shouldn't be asked to contribute to that.

However, it does make sense that OP should be asked to contribute to half the expense of having the mortgage. So that means OP pays half the interest (i.e 1/6th of the mortgage) + 1/2 bills/upkeep.

Because the OP might be out on his ear at any moment, he should then save/invest the equivalent of 1/3 of the mortgage. If in 5 years time he has savings to buy a place of his own if they apart or they have some joint savings to spend as they like if they decided to move to a full fiscal union..

Lets just say he bought his own house and asked her to come and live in his instead, would you think it reasonable that she paid half his mortgage as well as all her own?

I doubt it.

mellicauli

However, it does make sense that OP should be asked to contribute to half the expense of having the mortgage. So that means OP pays half the interest (i.e 1/6th of the mortgage) + 1/2 bills/upkeep.

That would also not be entirely unreasonable, at the end of a mortgage term the vast majority of payment is capital rather than interest.

Is he paying rent? Or half the mortgage? Because a landlady has the right to spend any rent how she pleases. Mortgage, shoes, holidays, putting it into a pension, whatever she pleases.

If he is saying he doesn't want to pay rent, how does that sound?

How old is the op and partner?

Assuming if he stays with the partner, he could be living with her for the next 35+ years, how long and much of his life does he need to devote to her to be granted the simple pleasure of not being turfed out onto the street by his partners sister if she unfortunately dies before him?

Assuming the status quo doesn't change in those years and she is still happy with the arrangement where her last will and testament effectively tells him "get the fuck out of my sisters house"?

And for the people throwing the term "cocklodger" around, she's the one getting half her mortgage paid, half her bills paid, affection, attention, a sexual relationship and anything else a live in partner provides, with no negative impact or accountability to her finances or way of living. If he leaves tomorrow, she has the whole burden of the bills and mortgage to herself, whereas when an actual cocklodger leaves, the person being wronged by said cocklodger, is already the one paying majority of those bills anyways, so how would the op be a cocklodger?

If you pay rent, you get legal protection with the rental contract. More than the op has who can be thrown out with no notice or rights.