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 is not a cocklodger. If she wants him to have no claim on the house than by law he should not be contributing to paying the mortgage. If she wants him to pay towards living there (not talking bills here) than a tenant/lodger agreement should be arranged. Therefore his only contribution will be towards bills. He cannot even pay towards renovations as by other posters have said he can claim a % on the house.

OP never said he doesn't want to pay a single penny he just wants more balance and there is nothing wrong with that.

As it is even dropping from paying 70% to 50% she is not happy about - says it all really she really is creaming it from him. Has no interest in the kids despite the fact they have been together for over 4 years now - seems a bit odd to me.

seeing as people keep saying that OPs DP is unreasonable I can't help looking at this from the other side of the fence. Seeing as we only have OP side of the story I can only guess at his DPs side but if I did I would see it like this...

Her is a woman who after the end of her marriage got back on her feet, financially secure and worked hard to own her own home. She had a close relationship with her sister so chose to provide for her in the event of her own death. We don't know the sisters situation, maybe she's loaded or maybe she's struggled her entire life and this inheritance would change her world. Either way, OPs DP has worked for everything she has and should be allowed to leave it to whoever she wishes, it's just nobody else's business.

So several years ago she meets OP and presumably falls in love but they live a fair way apart so the conversation regarding her relocating and him moving in comes up. OP says that this would have been financially better for him, he would pay less than renting and live in a nicer home but now he resents the 70% of the household outgoings (I don't think what those outgoings are actually matter, if DP doesn't pay the mortgage the house will be repossessed. It's a bill like any other and so irrelevant) anyway, the amount he would pay must have come up and I would suggest that either he agreed to pay her what he was paying for his current rental (unlikely as he said he'd be better off) or she asked him what an average rent for the area was and they agreed on that. I can't believe that she sat and worked out what the household outgoings would be and then thought to herself, right what can I squeeze out of this man I love enough to relocate for. That just doesn't make sense.

So, DP finds a house that's convenient for OP and close to his children so that they can stay with them (no mention has been made of whether the children want a relationship with her. Only that she doesn't get involved. Seeing as she was willing to rearrange her life in order for OP to have a good relationship with them I would think there's more of a story here) she uses the equity in the house she's worked hard for and puts that into the new house. OP is required by the mortgage company to sign a standard waver saying he has no right to the house (this is perfectly normal and means that he cannot take OP to court for a share of the house regardless of what he thinks he's entitled too)
Things trundle on and DP sets about building a new life and making the new house her home. 18 months go by and OP discovers how much the regular bills are. Suddenly he decides that he's been paying too much so insists on only paying 50% of the bills. Fair enough and DP obviously agreed to this though she may have found it a bit odd that OP changed his mind about what was reasonable after so long. 50/50 sounds fair and that's what he got... The problem is that the money is now playing on his mind and over the next few years of talking with friends (who all side with him because they're his friends and that's what friends do) and deciding that he's hard done by he comes to the conclusion that not only should he have stopped paying the higher rate but that DP should give him what he sees and as an over payment back. Not only that but why should she own the house? OP gives her money and some of that goes on the mortgage so why shouldn't he have a right to the house too?
Well, because that wasn't the agreement. Maybe it was DPs intention to add OP to the mortgage and her will but she's never done it which suggests that she has always had some lingering doubt. Yes we could paint her as a cold hearted money grabbing woman who doesn't care about OP at all but for me it doesn't match up with a woman who moved her entire life for the convenience of a man she wanted to be with. I imagine that the OP constantly changing what he thought he should pay and his asking her about her will and a share in the house fed those misgivings as it may have come across as he wanted her money and assets rather than him wanting a fair deal.

So time goes on and we come to today. The question of money, the will and the house has caused a great deal of resentment certainly on OPs side and probably on DPs side too. We don't know how long he's been trying to get DP to see his way of thinking but I imagine it's been several months if not more.
At this point OP isn't thinking about how he can save the relationship, or telling us that he loves his partner and can't imagine a life without her. It doesn't sound as if he wants to marry her, to be honest it doesn't even sound as if he likes her. All OP seems concerned with is getting his hands on her financial assets, finding ways of reducing his living expenses (even though the living arrangement they had initially doesn't seem to have changed unless they became more comfortable given that DP invested a good sum of money into improving the property) and getting DP to change her will so that he can get his hands on her house and presumably pass it on to his family rather than hers.

Whether DP is the cold, distant, unfeeling person she is painted to be or not, at this point it's easy to see why she wouldn't want to tie herself into any long term commitment to OP. She probably feels that the relationship is coming to an end and while she's not ready to pull the plug it must feel as if OP is just trying to "claw back" anything he can from her before the break.

This is all just my assumption and reading between the lines and may be completely wrong but OP I would suggest you cut your losses and go and buy yourself a property to move in to. I would be absolutely amazed if she gives you a share of the house or changes her will as it's obvious the relationship is in its death throes. If you keep changing the financial arrangement and pestering your DP then what will more than likely happen is that eventually she will snap and throw you out on your ear. If you go by your own volition you can do it amicably and in your own time and if I've read this wrong and there is still love between you and your DP maybe you can salvage the relationship by living separately. If not then leave the poor woman alone and stop trying to force her to sign a share of her assets over to you.

(Before I get told that I wouldn't have this opinion if OP was female let me assure you that I would. I've been on both sides of this particular situation and neither is comfortable. You can't make someone commit if their not ready or don't feel secure)

She doesn't sound fiercely independent, she sounds fiercely controlling, and the OP infantilised himself by handing cash over to her each month so that she could sort all bills and other expenses out for him without even telling him what the actual expenses were. If I were the OP, I would get out of that relationship - it sounds deeply unsatisfactory in more ways than one. Her lack of interest in the children says it all: she is not someone who will ever get deeply emotionally involved with him or his family (or indeed anyone else, by the sounds of things - she's too obsessed with always being in control of everything).

LyndaNotLinda

You have called him a cocklodger, others have done the same, claiming that your definition of cocklodger is correct doesn't make it correct.

But the really good news is that as he has been paying mortgage contributions or money like mortgage contributions he has a claim on the property.

Does he Boney? My reading of the situation is that he signed a legal document before moving in that states he will have no claim on the property despite any contributions to the household. To gain a "Beneficial Interest" legally, a court would have to find that there is an "implied trust" created (in the absence of an express trust - a written agreement between partners that his financial contributions would give him an interest in the property.) A court will only find there is an implied trust when there is either evidence of an understanding (could be verbal) between partners that his contributions would count as mortgage payments giving him an interest or possibly in the absence of any understanding or discussion about his payments giving him an interest in the property (if for some reason it never had never been discussed). As the OP has described it though, there is an explicit understanding between him and his DP (backed up by a signed document) that his contributions are NOT intended to give him an interest in the property. Sorry but it sounds like his DP got good legal advice before he moved in.

I don't think it is relevant that she doesn't get involved with his kids. There is nothing in OPs posts to suggest they are not welcomed in the house or that she doesn't like them. Maybe she steps back, so they can spend time with their dad.

Also irrelevant is the tax thing. It makes no difference to the OP whether she is declaring it for tax. His interest only extends to whether he should be paying her in the first place

This thread shows you can argue it both ways. The important thing for the OP is that he and his dp take opposing views and neither can/will change. So the only viable option is to move out and take it from there.

Can I just say how much I detest the phrase 'cocklodger'.

She's not just stepping back to give him time with his children, though. From what the OP has described, she steps back from most things, except rent collection. She gives her tenant plenty of space!

I would leave. It doesn't sound a healthy relationship in more ways than one. As it was a new house it would have been an ideal time to put you on the mortgage, if she was investing capital and you weren't im sure a legal document could have been drawn up saying that she put x upfront into the house and you didn't so down the line if you split this could have been taken into account. And if she loved you she really should have thought about that.

When my DP moved into my house he wasn't paying me rent, he had just been made redundant. After a year I decided I wanted to move (he wasn't keen) but we (I) did sell up and moved to a bigger house. Used my old house as the deposit and my wage was enough to cover the mortgage (he still wasn't working). It was joint names on the new mortgage. Technically I have put more money into this house than he has and if it came to splitting up I don't know if that would be recognised but I'm not bothered. I couldn't imagine if when we'd moved to this house I hadn't put his name on the mortgage.......we had got a child together by then so maybe a bit different?

What do you think she would say if you proposed? I'm not suggesting you should.....im just wondering if thinking about her likely response would give you an Indication of how much she values this relationship.

So I guess less controlling and more uncommunicative and insufficiently involved for what most people would want from a relationship - sharing by letting people be present, rather than really letting them into your life. It reminds me of the stage of development children go through when they play alongside others but haven't yet learned how to play together effectively. You generally hope they will one day go beyond that stage and learn to interact effectively! OP's relationship doesn't seem to have developed in a way that works for either partner.

It doesn't bode well that you and your partner aren't in it together, like the person above said. You could buy somewhere together and keep each of your portions seperatly when you die. Other people I know have had the property valued to get a base point, then the property is valued again at the point of seperation/death and that portion is shared.
To be honest I'm not sure it really matters what anyone else thinks, the point is that the way you feel is important to you. I can see how you feel as your partner is making money off of your back, just like a landlord who is in it for the money, rather than being in this relationship together as equal partners.

If op has saved the money he has clawed back (horrible way of putting it I think and possibly indicative of his feelings about his dp) and is worried about his future financial security why does he not just buy a flat to rent out and fund it out with his savings and current wage.There would be some initial outlay but depending on where they live and rental rates on a monthly basis he would probably break even on his mortgage (paid for by the rent on his property) or even make a profit.That would enable him to remain living with his DP without the angst of not having any security to fall back on.
Really after the dissolution of the OP's first marriage you could see it as the DP having gone out of her way to make sure he is comfortable-having him move in with her, relocating, buying and improving a largish house for them to live in so they have a nicer quality of life and near his kids.All whilst he is meanwhile quibbling over 25 per cent of household bills.OP have you ever discussed marriage with this your DP? If so what was her reaction? Does she see you as a life partner or not? Perhaps she is nervous about your long term intentions or the future of your relationship?
Ether way she doesn't owe you a living or security-why not sure up your own position by taking steps independently of her.If that improves your relationship you can amalgamate finances further down the line?

I can understand, to some extent, her wanting to protect her assets in the event of a split. However I cannot understand a situation where if she were to die that the OP would be homeless. That is not the way to treat someone you love, your long term partner who shares your life and home. If she is not prepared to protect you in the event of her death then j think you really need to consider the future of this relationship.

round

Perhaps she's one of those people that think the actual parents are the parents of children and that they should be parenting them.

Respecting those boundries is not a personality flaw.

rain is right. If he signed to say no interest in the property then any attempt to imply by paying money that went to wards the mortgage could well rebut any presumption that he was getting some kind of equitable (fairness) interest in the property. Itc omes back to my advice - don't move these men in if you have substantial assets and children who live with you (67% of second marriages/relationships where there are existing children fail anyway usually over the different styles of being a parent of the two people). Just have the boyfriend but don't endure his clutter and snoring. Tends to work better for children too not to move the man in.

Given OP's post of 19.33 yesterday, I think he should be making some firm plans to move out. Before it was a 50/50 thing, and I could see that you can still love someone but want to keep a cool head about finances.

The situation now appears to be that the relationship is going nowhere. The partner - rightly or wrongly - has no intention of budging, and the OP is resentful and nervous of being left high and dry.

I know it's seven years of relationship down the drain, and OP and partner have no doubt had good times, but now it's time to move on, for OP to get his own place and thereby some self-respect which his partner is clearly eroding.

don't move these men in if you have substantial assets and children who live with you (67% of second marriages/relationships where there are existing children fail anyway usually over the different styles of being a parent of the two people). Just have the boyfriend but don't endure his clutter and snoring. Tends to work better for children too not to move the man in.

Jeez.

What exactly are these men then?

I always advise a homeowner moving a partner in that if they want to ensure the partner never has a claim against the property they must ideally take nothing from them for the mortgage or home improvements. To take any more will result in the risk of a claim for a beneficial interest.

The simple signing of a mortgage lender standard letter disclaiming an interest in the property is an irrelevance. It merely acts as between the non-owner and the lender, not the non-owner and owner.

To pay 70% of all bills would imply some sort of equitable interest.

I've read all your posts OP and I think this is an unfair situation for you. Such huge disparity in your financial security seems very unfair in a relationship.

My view is that in a long term relationship, finances should be pooled. But I can see why she wants to protect her assets.

If she is unwilling to pool finances, then I think you should have the opportunity for some financial security. The fair thing to do I think is to share the bills but for you not to pay for accommodation which would mean you would have money to put aside for some financial security for your future.

Could you see a mediator to discuss it?

Good point Spectre8. Do people saying pay rent still think he should when she's mortgage free?

Good point Spectre8. Do people saying pay rent still think he should when she's mortgage free?
Someone did actually suggest that upthread, don't get it personally. I think she would pretty much be exploiting her partner if she made such a request, there's no way I could do that to someone I loved in all good conscience.

OP - if you want to be fair, pay nothing for the house, but buy a house that you would have bought were you living on your own.

Rent it out. After you pay tax on any profit, you may feel like giving her some. However take in to account the fact that when you eventually sell that property you'll have to pay CGT on it, whereas your partner won't have that burden, so that's a further financial cost you'll have to take in to account.

Runner05 - that post was wise and thoughtful.

Been thinking about this a lot and to my mind, if she loved you she would want you to share bills and general living expenses but would be happy for you to get some security of your own with a buy to let or something. And if you really loved her, you would understand that her security is tied up in the house and you wouldn't even think about wanting a stake in it.

I think that in a 'thinking with the head' sense, your dp is right. Whatever you are paying is less than you would if you went it alone. Having been burned before, maybe she is super careful to make sure you pay your way and maybe she cannot see what is wrong in both of you gaining financially from this arrangement - you by paying less rent than you would alone and her by reducing her costs. From her pov, it has cost her a lot to relocate and do up the new house.

However, it isn't a romantic way of thinking.

I don't believe she owes you the right to live there until you die. You could marry soneone else and her sister would be left with the hassle of getting the house back. Your dp has every right to leave her asset to her own family, just as you would want your dc to inherit yours.

Still think that you should move out. The arguing over this has poisoned the relationship.