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

The cynic in me says she has you paying her money to contribute to the mortgage and there is only 5 yrs left, how convenient to keep you around and paying towards it for another 5 years and in 5 years turn round and say sorry its not working cya later. Off you go and she has had the benefit of you paying half of her mortgage payments for 9 years. This 100%. If the genders were reversed, mn would be screaming financial abuse. Because that is what it is. She is making sure that she is financially alright at a severe cost to you. Regardless of circumstances, if you truely love someone and are in a partnership with them (especially one as long as yours) you'd work it out for both of your benefits. If she dies, your fucked. OP, you should have posted as a woman as you would have got a whole different set of responses. I wonder if your dp sees you as no more than a lodger with benefits.

I'm confused.

First you said you'd been paying half of nearly everything.

Then you said whatever it was you'd been paying was far less than if you had to rent or buy yourself. Half I think you said.

THEN you said in fact to you'd been paying 70%?

And now you've reduced it drastically????

Not sure what to make of it all really.

She had a lot of equity she put into this house. She has a small mortgage that seems to have been for home improvements.

You signed an agreement that you'd have no share in it.

You don't want a share apparently but a "safety net" of some kind? What do you mean by that? A share in the will? A tenancy?

If you've only ever been paying what you'd have had to pay to keep yourself anyway, why do you feel so strongly that your partner owes you security and has shafted you? What was stopping you buying a place and renting it? Being independent?

OP, I'm sorry you've been royally shafted by this woman. It's time you wake up and smell the coffee. She is not rigid and set in her ways, she's massively selfish and determined to make a profit out of you.

If a woman posted here that she was paying 70% of household expenses including a mortgage on a property she was denied an interest, you would be told it was financial abuse.

It's good that you negotiated that down, but you shouldn't be contributing to the mortgage at all.

The people who say you would be paying rent anyway, no you wouldn't you'd be paying your own mortgage, with all the benefits. A far wiser financial choice.

This 100%. If the genders were reversed, mn would be screaming financial abuse. Because that is what it is. She is making sure that she is financially alright at a severe cost to you.

Exactly.

Bluejug apart from it's not quite accurate. The bit about her relocating for her man and the mortgage being a bill like any other or face repossession.

Op said She made a huge profit on her house and could have bought our current one outright. However she elected to keep on her mortgage and plough the profit on her sale into improvements to the new house.

..and move in her partner so he could help pay for them without him benefiting equally. Presumably she saw a good opportunity to add value. If she calls it the mortgage rather than him paying half of the improvements she can still call it all hers.

It is all hers.

What did he think he was signing?

She didn't exactly trick him into this. She was plain from the start that the house was hers.

I wouldn't say the opposite if genders were reversed. I have always said women shoudl work full time and make their own way and don't live off male earnings. it is utterly gender neutral. Adults should support themselves. If someone has had children and is divorced it is even more important not to lose your assets to your other half.

In all honesty if I wasn't planning children with a partner I wouldn't dream of giving up any of my house that I had paid for for 20 years.

She didn't exactly trick him into this. She was plain from the start that the house was hers

If as Collaborate says the paper was for the mortgage lender standard disclaiming an interest then she could be in for a shock.

I wouldn't dream of giving up any of my house that I had paid for for 20 years.

She hasn't paid for it for 20 years.

Financial abuse if they had dc's and he was stuck and powerless, yes. As often happens.

That's not the case here. He said himself, he can afford to leave and buy a small property. Which he'll probably do, once he's 'clawed back' as much of his money as he feels appropriate.

Very different situation to financial abuse. 'Genders reversed' bullshit entirely redundant, as is usually the case.

Determining that to be abused you must be 'stuck and powerless' is stereotypical bullshit.

If a person is free to leave a relationship then it can't be abuse?

Jesus.

I agree with you Yseulte

I agree with you Yseulte Likewise.

If you pay towards the mortgage, then there could be a trust created in respect of your contributions to the mortgage, this could mean you could challenge to 0% entitlement clause you signed.

Constructive trusts through payment of bills etc can also arise. You need to sit down with her and calculate how much her cost of living has increased by, and then agree to pay her a monthly lump sum to use as she wishes as payment for you residing there. It's a difficult sum to agree on, but clearly you should look at a cost lower than if you were renting, and certainly if she wants to keep control over all her asserts it should not be half of her living costs either.

wiltingfast

"It is all hers."

If the OP can prove that he has paid towards the mortgage, building repairs and general maintenance then he has a case for a percentage of the property.

Financial abuse if they had dc's and he was stuck and powerless, yes. As often happens

So if she was punching him in the face once a day, and for some reason he didn't leave, even though he could, it wouldn't be physical abuse?

Abuse isn't abuse if other people can't understand why your staying?

Nope. I said that this is a very different situation from a woman being trapped at home because money is being withheld from her due to her circumstances (small children and unable to work). That is financial abuse.

A partner saying, yes you can move in with me, but you have no claim on my house and you should pay your way isn't abuse. Just as him now admitting that he is actually paying LESS than he should because he's getting his money back, isn't financial abuse. Because she can tell him to leave, and she should. He clearly doesn't think much of her, and probably vice versa.

If his kids are using the house part of the time, I see nothing wrong with him paying more than 50 percent of the costs of running the household. He's burdening it with three people out of a total of four.

The "financial abuse" label is pure claptrap. He's not helpless or dependent and can walk away at any time. But apparently he's rather stay & try to figure a way to convert some of her "huge profit" to his benefit.

This is a good example of why I and many other single people refuse to date people with kids. I have worked hard for everything I now have and no desire to be sucked into the financial morass created by some other couple's divorce and childbearing choices.

In fact he even agreed that he was effectively being subsidized right from the start, that it would have cost him more to rent. And now he's paying far far less because he's getting his money back from her. Where is the financial abuse?

He clearly doesn't think much of her, and probably vice versa.

Yes it sounds to me like the relationship is probably coming to an end. When he moved into the house, he saw a future with DP and did what she asked. Now he doesn't see a future together and is behaving differently.

Of course it's not abuse. If there is a risk he might claim later some of the house despite the written agreement not to, because he pays the heating bills then she should only let him move in if he buys a separate property to let out and gives her half of it so that if he makes the claim against her half then she has a claim against his for example.

*TAKING his money back I should say, not getting. She gave him the chance to say yes or no to their arrangement. He isn't really doing the same.

If his kids are using the house part of the time

They stay 2days every 2 weeks.

He already says he pays for everything g whilst they are there including food.

Their stay does not equate to paying 20% extra for a big chunk of the time they have been together.

Kids are there more than 50 days a year or at least 15 percent of the time. So of course he should pay more than 50-50.

Seems a distinct lack of gratitude for what the partner has provided in this scenario.