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

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

Actually his DC are 13 and 8. How about actually reading the posts rather than making sarcastic incorrect comments

I think he's expecting the partner to provide something she doesn't want to provide. That may change. In the meantime, he should sort his own finances out.

She is completely correct. If you want to leave her, cut your losses, leave, and pay out twice the price.
She is a wise wise woman.

Maybe she doesn't see him as a 'lifelong partner'.

'she's the one getting half her mortgage paid'

I thought he said he pays half the bills, no 'rent' or half her mortgage.

OP, I am curious - you have been together four years and your youngest DC is five.

Youngest is 8 not 5!

She can make the terms she wants. There is nothing to stop the man from buying a separate property and letting it out so if their relationship ends he has something to fall back on.

Don't I did read it. Somewhere it says 8 then I saw it said 5. Apologies if I didn't scour thread from the beginning as deemed necessary, it seems.
But you sarcastically picking out my comment doesn't exactly resonate regarding the actual post topic reallyso, what odds

Still the case that OP hasn't made story entirely clear re if he pays into the mortgage account.

Same thing whether child is 8 or 18

bibbitybobbityyha - you are right, I mixed this thread with another on MH, sorry!

the rest of my reply I stand by anyway

We have been married for 33 years blindsider.Over that time I have brought in as much ,if not more, income and we have raised our 2 children together .We had a discussion about this recently ,actually, vis a vis the two Dds buying property (they were party to the discussion).DH said it never crossed his mind when we married that I was gaining in financial terms.The difference was we were relatively young, had married and intended to raise a family together.As someone upthread said, over the years circumstances change and evolve. By now all our assets are joint and all our income has always gone into a communal family pot.

On the basis you are not expecting to "gain" a 50% share in the property I don't think you are unreasonable.

I think your partner can't expect to treat you like a tennat without any of the legal protection that affords.

The nub of the issue here for me isn't actually about the money. It's the lack of willingness from either of you to find a compromise that sugests to me that the foundation of your "partnership" is on very shaky ground.

Yes, it's her house and you should be contibuting to it but a partnership should be equitable and fair. This situation is very unbalanced in her favour.

My thought is that you should be entitled to a 50% share of the equity from the point of your contibution.

Lets assume the remaining mortage is 20k and the house is worth 100k.

If you pay 50% of the mortage then "your share" of the house should be 10% - because that's the contribution you have made.

Right now that is worth 10K, but if the house value increases to £120k then your share would still be 10% at £12k.

If you split up, she should be prepared to "buy" you out of your share.

i also think think you should have rights not to be kicked out of the house - which is also your home, should she die and any sale should not proceed until after your death, though she does with her share of the house is up to her - i don't think it should automaically go to you.

The key issue people your partner is missing here is that if you didn't choose to live with her, then you could buy your own home and have the opportunity build up your own equity. She is denying you the opportunity to do so, or have any security whatsoever in the place you expecting to be your joint home in the long term.

Her position is only reasonable if this was a very new relationship or one she wasn't committed to. Given you have been together for 4 years I can only assume it's the latter and as such in your case it would be a deal breaker for me.

He could buy his own home and stay with her. He could have a home with her and a property asset that he rents out. He needs to sort out his own finances. He has responsibilities to his children and needs to be hard headed about money. What works for him and for his children? That's how I would be thinking.

We have each willed our half of our property to our DCs ,with the surviving partner having the right to live there as long as they wish .It has been done for financial reasons and not because we dont trust each other but it would protect our DCs in the event of the survivor remarrying too .Seems perfectly reasonable to me

HaveIGotAClue
She is completely correct. If you want to leave her, cut your losses, leave, and pay out twice the price.
She is a wise wise woman.

You missed out

'own a property of your own'

Otherwise (IMO) it sounds fairly controlling, she isn't doing him a favour.

'The key issue people your partner is missing here is that if you didn't choose to live with her, then you could buy your own home and have the opportunity build up your own equity. She is denying you the opportunity to do so, or have any security whatsoever in the place you expecting to be your joint home in the long term.'

She paid her mortgage on her own for years without his being there.

There's nothing stopping the OP from buying another home and either living in it or renting it out.

And the op also states his lifestyle is more comfortable than it would be if he was funding his own accomadation

How is he going to be able to afford to buy a house if he's already paying 50% of her mortgage?

It's a totally unbalanced situation.

NeedsAsockamnesty

The flip side is that her life style is also more comfortable than it would be if he was funding his own accomadation

Hmm, you can't really expect your partner to give you half her house?

A house she has paid years of mortgage for presumably?

Especially as you seem to think she should do so for just 5y worth of contributions?

If you are serious about wanting the security of a property I would suggest you sit down with her and work out what half the house is worth and buy into it. IF she is open to that.

All that said, given that is her position, I personally would not be looking for a contribution from you "to the mortgage".

She's probably not that unreasonable to look for some form of rent, I personally would not do that if my circumstances were overall comfortable, but not everyone would see it that way.

HTH

Hmm, you can't really expect your partner to give you half her house?

That isn't what the OP wants at all.

Contribute in other ways, but the mortgage should be down to her.

I'm not sure your post is all that helpful actually wiltingfast. Not after the 519 that have come before it!

Hmm, you can't really expect your partner to give you half her house?

He doesn't

She on the other hand expects to have 50% of her mortgage paid, whilst offering her partner no security whatsoever.

If she wants them to live together as long term partners then the financial arrangements need to change to reflect just that - an equitable partnership.

So the OP has the choice to a) suck it up b) leave if she wont compromise which ironically leaves them both worse off financially.

boney

Has the op said he is already paying for half her mortgage? I was under the impression he was not and the request to was a new thing.

If that is correct he is doing nothing other than funding his own utilities and food. In that case her lifestyle won't be much more comfortable than without him but his would be a fair bit more given that he is not paying for the current roof over his head

I'm amazed by the notion expressed by several here that "true love" means an individual has to fork over her assets. Kind of a juvenile mentality.

It's quite possible to be fond of someone, enjoy his companionship/sex, wish him well etc. and still not want to erode one's wealth to make up for his past mistakes. It's not the woman's fault that the OP had a failed marriage, has kids to support and doesn't like his present financial circumstances. There's no rule that says you have to meld yourself financially and legally to one you love or your relationship is meaningless.

And for the last time, the OP is paying for the privilege of living in the home, and for a place to bring his children - he is not "paying the mortgage." What his girlfriend does with the money he pays in exchange for a place to live is her business, not his.