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

In cold hard financial terms this arrangement seems entirely "fair" to me.

However, I can understand that your partner's lack of provision for you in her will, etc., might feel like she's not fully committed.

Personally, I own the house my partner (of 12 years) and I live in. He has paid nothing towards it outside of bills/general upkeep. Should I die, though, I would want him to have the house. He wouldn't expect it, but I hate the thought of him being left in difficult circumstances if I popped my clogs. Because I love him.

Tricky one, OP.

If you are living there you should be contributing towards that as a "rent" even if it pays towards her mortgage.

I don't believe it is fair or equitable to live off her just because you object to her using the money towards an investment.

I would encourage you both to separate the issues: you should financially contribute to where you are living and not be there for free. If she were paying rent you would not object to covering 50% of it?

If she then uses that money for the mortgage that's her prerogative I believe.

Good luck- it would be sad if this were the barrier between an otherwise fulfilling relationship

How can anyone say this is financial abuse - is no one ever responsible for their own decisions & actions anymore??

The op was fully aware of what he was getting when he moved in but over time has decided he doesn't like it & has changed his payment amounts arbitrarily without her agreement. His children are still spending time there & he's made no allowance for this.

I would say exactly the same if the op were female. Everyone is responsible for their own actions & decisions & if he doesn't like it, then he should leave. TBH, I'm amazed she didn't kick him out when he started being funny.

I'm so fed up of everyone screaming abuse - it really detracts from genuine cases.

I am very sad to hear about your situation. Unfortunately, money quibbles can often break up the strongest of friendships, so it is important to find something you are both comfortable with, otherwise it will just affect the other parts of your life and might cause other problems.

Personally, I agree that you should be contributing something towards the mortgage, too, though I would think in this case it would be considerate from your partner to add you in on part of the house value, even if it is 10% or something. What about if you discuss it like you were buying something together now, what kind of arrangement would you come to then? If you can't find a solution, it might be best to consider it as paying for your living expenses like if you were to rent part of the house, though personally I would look into trying to save up for a deposit to buy somewhere, too, so you are not left homeless in case of the worst. That might help you feel more secure and when you have save up a small deposit, you could bring up the conversation again to come to a better agreement or buy somewhere, but rent it out until you need it.
Naturally, it is best to agree things like that before moving in, though I understand you are past this point now :)
Hope you can find a solution and you can focus on enjoying your relationship again!

The op has full access to his own income, he also personally controls his own ability to earn.

They have totally seperate finances.

He initially thought the living costs he funded were reasonable and less than it would cost him living alone,so they saved him money and worked well for him providing him with what he describes as a comfortable lifestyle.
He openly admits that things would be tight if he was living alone.

Male or female I wouldn't describe it as financial abuse

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.

I'm confused by this ^^

Surely if this is all the OP's partner wants then she could earn substantially more towards the mortgage by renting out rooms at market value?

Surely if this is all the OP's partner wants then she could earn substantially more towards the mortgage by renting out rooms at market value?

if she rented out the rooms though the person would have rights as a tenant and they wouldn't be expected to do things like decorate, gardening etc. etc. - OPs partner wants her cake and to be able to eat it.

PCPlop - but she did have the choice to be mortgage free and not need a partner/lodger whatever.
She choose to get a mortgage which she expects her DP to pay into. I wouldn't class that as a joint living expense ( he does pay half of all the bills) because the house improvements financially benefit her alone.

I did the exact same thing with a previous Partner. She is right.

She doesn't necessarily want to have sex with any old lodger, PCPlop Also, this one has been unusually docile, handing over what she asks for, without asking any questions, for years. Seems like quite a good find, tenant-wise. Given that the current problems with finances are the culmination of a downhill relationship in which the OP has said he finds his partner lacking in intimacy, not very good at sharing and unwilling to spend much quality time with him, I suspect his upset over the financial side of things is the cold realisation that this may be more of a convenient financial arrangement than a genuinely caring relationship and if it is, financially speaking it is only good for him in the short term and that doesn't seem to bother her one iota - implying she doesn't care about his future (because she doesn't care too much whether or not she is a part of it, or what happens to him). By making a fuss about finances, he is putting her affection to the test, to see how much feeling actually exists!

OP had a choice regarding the financial arrangements when the house was initially purchased. That was his time to speak out.

Instead, He's had 4 years of his "good" salary & paying below-market housing costs. But has chosen to do nothing to secure his future. Or that of his DC.

That said, I would not want to be in a relationship with a "partner" who didn't name me in their will, after all these years together. Not necessarily for the whole house, but for a part share of it.

His children are still spending time there & he's made no allowance for this.

Yes he has. He pays for all food etc.

I would not expect a non-married partner to name me in his will, even "after all these years." Ever. Especially if the relationship was entered into after, say, age 30.

I can take care of myself and my assets will go to my sister, to charities and to people in my friends/family circle who are in financial need. Not to a partner to eventually be distributed to his children or family upon his death, no matter how fond I am of him.

Not everyone wants the "we are melded into one being" type of relationship, nor does everyone require a relationship to continue to continually escalate in terms of how entwined people's financial / family lives are (the horrid "next logical step in the relationship" mentality.) Some of us, particularly seasoned women who are not dependent on a man for our livelihood, are happy with sex and pleasant companionship. It sounds as if the OP's partner has no interest in becoming his caretaker or surrogate mom to her children. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I would not expect a non-married partner to name me in his will, even "after all these years." Ever. Especially if the relationship was entered into after, say, age 30.

After the age of 30... Jeez

Same here if you ahve had your children with someone else you want them to inherit not some later on live in lover who is more than old enough to buy his own place and pay his own way. In most cases those men also have had a house and they want that to go to their own children too so it works out quite fair.

I can take care of myself and my assets will go to my sister, to charities and to people in my friends/family circle who are in financial need. Not to a partner to eventually be distributed to his children or family upon his death, no matter how fond I am of him.

he doesn't want her assets though, he wants what he has paid into it - why should his DPs family benefit from his contribution? he also wants to have a house to live in if anything happened to his DP - after all people in a relationship share the house they live in, he doesn't want to be out on his ear. We have established he isn't renting so its not his landlords house...

Of course, it is quite telling that LeaLeander and DeoGratias, who are most strident in their belief that there is nothing wrong with the OP's partner's attitude, are single. That attitude lends itself to not forming long term relationships. If the OP is seeking a long term relationship, with promises of support in times of need and continuing affection, rather than occasional, convenient companionship, I suspect he had better look elsewhere!

SauvignonPlonker

"Instead, He's had 4 years of his "good" salary & paying below-market housing costs. But has chosen to do nothing to secure his future. Or that of his DC."

We don't know what he has done in the last 4 years.

TheEmmaDilemma
"I did the exact same thing with a previous Partner. She is right."

The most pertinent word there being previous

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.

Financial abuse takes many forms, I suggest you read up on it before laying the law down.

It may take the form, for example, of refusing to contribute to household expenses and/or children's expenses, making you account for every penny, making you give up savings, making you contribute well in excess of your fair share and banking the profits.

There are many women sadly who sign up willingly to totally inequitable financial terms out of fear, naivety or lack of confidence. Your stereotyped idea is simply not accurate.

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.

It's perfectly OK to say you want a partner to have no claim on your house, but in that case you don't demand mortgage payments.

Demanding that you pay more than your fair share and contribute to a mortgage you are denied an interest in is not OK.

The law recognises this: If you have paid towards a mortgage, towards improvements like an extension, you may be able to establish an interest in your home in court. Usually you need proof of the mortgage payments and receipts to show your payments for work done.

Succeeding in this, the court recognises that you have the right to a share in the house's value, and may even have the right to continue living in the property, depending on the circumstances.

In the OP's case he should be contributing 50% to bills and some contribution to household maintenance within reason - ie not expensive renovations or extensions that will increase the value of the property without providing any 'beneficial interest'.

if she rented out the rooms though the person would have rights as a tenant and they wouldn't be expected to do things like decorate, gardening etc

And it's taxable income.

yseulte you are not correct

Rent under £4250 per year is not taxable, anything over this amount is taxable. Therefore any rent over £354 pounds per month would need to be taxed.

So what have you don't

Why not buy somewhere to.I'm

Nicely put roundabout

I think fair enough she wants to protect her house in the case of a separation - who knows her reasons, that's her choice the OP signed up to it, the complexities could be huge

But what does not sit well with me at all is the fact if she died tomorrow the OP would be homeless. Why after four years of being in a commited loving partnership would you not want to make sure your DP was at least not homeless in the event of your death is beyond me.

So five years on with no security at all I'm not sure I would want to stay in my partners "house" it just doesn't sound like a very loving relationship to me and certainly not a partnership.