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

He is getting a benefit from the money he is paying ie a roof over his head . Just the same as if he paid rent .

The OP wants a share in the increase in capital on his investment, while not wanting to give his partner any share in his savings . ( I assume this as the OP has not mentioned this ) .

There is no way of making this situation equal . If they want to live together on equal terms , they have to move into a place that they own and pay a mortgage on or rent .

Or the OP has to move out and buy his own place .

That has already been mentioned, Kr1stina. Oh, the misery of the super rich, that they could never live equally with anyone else without having to slum it!

When I moved in with now DH, he owned and there was no question I'd pay half his mortgage, the bills, etc. Now we're married and we co-own our house. He has put most of the capital in, and I don't contribute financially any more but DH thankfully doesn't see this in terms of what I literally put in financially - he sees the financial aid I give the house in terms of running our household budget/cooking/cleaning/looking after the kids/etc.

Firstly if you want some capital out of this then the only fair split is ishouldbes. However its not like you're paying half her mortgage isn't financially helping you out. 50% of her mortgage if she has 5 years left will be far far less than market rate, so I don't buy that she sees you purely as a lodger - if she did then she'd charge you market rate.

Apologies if this has been covered already, but say she owned the house outright, would you still expect him to pay 'rent' given he's in a 4 year long term relationship?

If 'no' then it's hard to see how the argument that he should pay the 50% mortgage holds.
I understand the argument about him making a contribution to housing costs, but the thought of one long term partner paying the other rent so that partner can enrich themselves doesn't seem right at all, does it?

It seems right if you don't see yourself as someone's life partner, but as someone you want a clean separation from when the time comes.

Of course, the problem with my way of splitting it is it doesn't factor in all the mortgage interest the OP's partner has paid over the years. So he would be getting out what he put in, plus a share of the increased value of the property, whereas she'd be getting what she put in, plus the increase in the value of the property, less interest. So to make it truly fair, one would have to deduct half the interest that's currently being paid from what he can be considered to be contributing. But it's doable, it just makes the maths more complicated.

flash If it were me and I owned the house outright I would still expect a contribution above just bills so there was a pot to cover any wear and tear or damage caused by my DP. However if anything happened to the house/decoration was needed/etc I wouldn't ask DP for a further financial contribution. Whatever it was, it would almost certainly be lower than market rent rate.

This thread has been one of the best I have read on MN, I thought I would be in same situation as the dp in this thread, if I moved a new partner into my house, I would have a large amount of equity in my house, that I would not like them to have access to, but also I would expect them to pay 'rent'=equal to half the mortgage, with no access to the equity.
But one thing this thread has pointed out to me is, after 4 years being together he still has no right to the equity, with another 5 years to go...so he would have been paying in 50% of the mortgage for 9 years in a 25 year mortgage, this is completely unfair.
So my mind set from now, would be for a new partner to only pay half the interest payments, and they save the rest of the difference from paying private rental, and additionally they would be able to save on paying bills if he lived alone. After a year he should have enough deposit for a flat, and coulld rent this flat out, therefore having a property he owns.
Yes it would be painful for him to be paying only 20% of my mortgage, but he would have no right to any of my house, or me non to his flat.

I forgot to add, if I was in a relationship with someone with kids, I would never expect them to pay more into the shopping allowance when the kids stayed over...this is just ridiculous!

TheEmma dilemma

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

Sorry you say your previous partner? I wonder why you are no longer together

Blindsider

Yes - this exactly.....

Will people stop comparing this to rent. If he was not paying DP's mortgage he would be paying his own mortgage, no-one with any sense throws money away on rent unless less they absolutely have to.

Instead of paying off his own mortgage and accruing all the benefits of a long term investment in private property, he's paying off DP's mortgage with no benefits whatsoever.

Surely that is not hard to understand?

He is getting a benefit , he's getting a roof over his head . Why do people keep saying this is nothing ?

Ask any homeless person if it's nothing .

Oh, please, blindsider. How juvenile can one get?

Not everyone wants to subsume themselves into another being when they are "in lurrrrrve."

It is quite possible for independent adults to enjoy one another's companionship, sex, etc. and have a mutually agreeable living arrangement without making the relationships the be-all, end-all in their lives and without wanting it to be till death do them part. That doesn't mean there is anything dysfunctional about or lacking in the relationships while they are in force. People move on from one another for a variety of reasons.

As to starry-eyed young women eager to merge all they have with their DP (or more to the point expect him to be happy to share his earnings and assets with them) - more power to them. Check back with us in 20 years or so and let us know how that's working out. From what I observe, the women who did so back then now envy the women who stood on their own two feet all along and are neither dependent on a man for security, nor supporting a financial incompetent.

Very well put Lea & completely agree Kr1stina.

Benefits of a mortgage

Kr1stina, except he would presumably be able to afford one f his own if it weren't for his partner, he's getting a temporary roof over his head with no security, he's helping her pay her mortgage for 36% of the mortgage length by the end of the mortgage for 0 investment. It's not that if he doesn't pay he's homeless, he could get kicked out of the house without a moments notice and have no recourse after paying 18% of his partners mortgage

You're homeless comparison is as silly and unnecessarily emotive

Yes it would be painful for him to be paying only 20% of my mortgage, but he would have no right to any of my house, or me non to his flat.

Hasn't it been pointed out enough times on this thread that if a partner pays anything towards a mortgage he/she may be able to establish a beneficial interest in the property in court. The law recognises, even if people on here don't, that if you pay towards a mortgage you may be able to establish an interest in the home to which you have contributed.

So it's not true that your would have no rights to your house in the circumstances you describe.

He's absolutely not a party to the mortgage, hence in no way shape or form is he paying down the mortgage. He is paying his partner a fee for the use of her house for himself and his children. He is not "getting nothing," he's getting a place to live and a place to shelter his kids. At less than market rates.

If she chooses to apply that money to the mortgage, to spa treatments, to savings or to burn it in the fireplace, once he's paid it to her it's none of his business what she does with it. And if she chooses to invest it in the property or anywhere else, he is not entitled to a share of the proceeds.

If he paid her his monthly amount and she purchased stocks with it and those stocks rose in value, would anyone say he's a right to a share of the investment returns? If she bought a diamond necklace and later sold the necklace at a profit, would he be entitled to a cut of that?

He is not a party to the mortgage nor does he have an ownership stake in the house - a fact to which he agreed to in writing years ago. He can withdraw from the living arrangement but changing the financial terms while still enjoying the same exact roof over his and his children's heads is quite weaselly.

Your partner ^

Well, I'm checking in for my parents' 50th wedding anniversary this year... I don't think they envy those who categorise people as dependents and/or financial incompetents. Mind you, it is financially incompetent to pay rent to someone who claims to love you,mouth who is actually wasting money you could be spending on your own mortgage. It's not as if the OP would be homeless without his partner and her tiresome house.

When people say 'getting nothing' they don't mean no roof, bed or running water, they mean none of the benefits of paying his own mortgage rather than hers.

Just because he's not on the mortgage doesn't mean he's not paying the mortgage, the OP is very clear that he is.

Stocks and shares do not have the same legal status as property.

except he would presumably be able to afford one f his own if it weren't for his partner
If he wasn't paying his partner he could only possibly own his own, or rent elsewhere, paying a whole lot more out than he would to his current partner. His financial gain for housing is significant.

If it's so, so onerous - why doesn't he split and get his own place instead of finagling ways to get his clutches on her existing equity? Doesn't sound as if he likes or respects her very much anyway. Perhaps that is at the root of her self-protective stance re her finances. Or does it serve her right for being "selfish" ?!

Self-protection= a lonely old woman in a house far too big for one. It really depends what it is you want to protect, and why, doesn't it?