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 op said he paid 'keep' those were the words he used.

He didn't say, I have entered I to a formal arangement with her to expressly contribute towards the mortgage.

Or perhaps he expected there to be more to it than thAt appears to just be a financial arrangement, after 5 years Many are married with kids, so whilst he may have seen it right at the time, due to it being new perhaps he feels a bit now it's just a little bit like a cash cow.

LeaLeander

Given that some posters believe this then the OP's DP should be getting sound legal advice, because what you believe is wrong.

So being a financially successful, single middle-aged woman (or less; if the OP's kids are that young his partner may be only 40ish) with a nice house nearly paid for, solid retirement savings and a good career = lonely "old woman" rattling around in a "too big for her" house? Because she is not willing to fork over her assets to a man? hahahaha!

I guess if tellling oneself that makes one feel better, go for it. But you might be surprised at how UN-lonely we selfish old biddies are. There's quite a market out there for independent, unencumbered and non-dependent women.

Speak for yourself. I know a lot of lonely old single, childless women.

Strictlymum

He may pay out more per month for his own mortgage but that money is invested with long term benefits so it's actually a better deal.

With a payback mortgage he would own his home outright in time; with an interest only mortgage he would have the benefits of long term rise in property prices, or he could pay off the mortgage completely at some point.

Lea

I think he should have left a long time ago. At least he's waking up now and smelling the coffee.

I know a lot of lonely, old childed women, too. And men.

It's a amazing that on a forum such as this, which is rife with tales of women being disadvantaged financially and otherwise but untrustworthy men, that a woman who does take sensible steps to protect herself is mostly vilified as "selfish." Quite telling indeed.

What the OP actually said was:

My partner believes that all the household expenses, including her mortgage payments, should be split 50-50 between us.

The OP is very clear and his partner is apparently very clear that he has been and should be paying 50% of the mortgage.

Except now the worm has turned.

It is quite telling that those most vociferously advocating it are single themselves. Pooling finances works for some, just as remaining resolutely independent works for some. You just have to know what you want most and be aware of the risks of one path or another. The OP's partner would not be a fool to be a bit more generous, nor would she lose her independence. The OP would be a fool to continue with the current arrangement, as it puts him in an unnecessarily vulnerable position. They could rearrange things so that neither of them ended up particularly vulnerable. Or the OP's dp could decide she loves her house being her house more than she loves having someone to share it with.

yseulte then what's stopping him doing it and finding his own property? Its not paying her because he's have to pay that and more to be living somewhere temporarily. In fact as he's lived with her for 4 years and will have been paying far less than market rate there's nothing having stopped him saving that money and investing it himself. Its not just her that wants to have her cake and eat it, he's happily taken financial benefit and chosen not to use it and is now complaining. She, on the other hand, has made her own sound investment over the last 20 years he now wants some dibs on.

"It" being the OP's dp's position...

It's hardly surprising Lea that some women end up financially disadvantaged given the general level of financial nous on this thread.

There are a lot of posters here who think what this woman is doing is ok, so if a man set the same terms for them, presumably they'd think that was ok too.

Lea,

That may be because this site is dominated by women, and will mostly hear by those that were wronged, MN is not a representative sample to the world as a whole. If this was a male centric site where people generally post for help you would see the opposite

These are choices he made and signed up for. Do you all recall he said she could have bought that house outright? The mortgage was just for home improvements.

And I think he said st one point he could have got his own place but things would have been tight.

My own feeling on this is he thought she'd relent over time and now he feels cheated. But she actually made it as clear as she could the house was hers. I know he says he doesn't want half the house but what is this about if he doesn't want a share of her house?

When DH and I decided to move in together he had FA in terms of savings but equal income. He, like the OP had a dependent - my now DSD.

"I" put down £75k on the property we bought. We contributed equally to living expenses on a monthly basis.

However the house "we" bought was in joint names. Why? He was my PARTNER not my lodger.

Every relationship is a risk, but it's all about balance. The OP is NOT asking to be given assets gained before he and she became a couple. Asking for relative financial parity in the context of a long term relationship is not even slightly unreasonable.

Whilst on the side of the OP I struggle to call financial abuse, but I do absolutely call selfishness and piss taking.

Ironically in my circumstances my DH had an unexpected windfall. What did he do with that? Cleared the mortgage. Did he ask to protect "his" share. No - because even though we have totally separate finances (our mutual choice) we are in it together.

So the upshot for me is you can of course take the piss take by treating your partner as a lodger but don't complain about being alone and single - as the message here (irrespective of gender) is 100% "I love my money more than you".

Well, actually, the OP and his partner are single, too, roundabout.

And the partner is her own best advocate. What's wrong with that? She made her terms and conditions clear up front. If the OP now doesn't like them, but she doesn't feel moved to change; that doesn't mean her feelings for him are nil or valueless or that she is a bad person. She's being true to her own boundaries.

You make it sound as though SHE is materialistic and shallow ("loves her house more") for wanting to maintain her financial security. But apparently for him to agitate to change the terms in HIS favour is not materialistic, shallow or selfish? Quite interesting.

What's stopping him indeed. I think he's in denial. It's hard to face the fact that you've been financially shafted by a partner, it's also hard to face the fact that they're not really invested in the relationship.

It sounds like he met her at a traumatic time after divorce, and he accepted whatever terms she set to feel like he had a 'home'.

It's interesting that once he stands his ground re finances the fallout is looking 'terminal' for the relationship.

In short she appears to care much more keeping her hands on money than on him.

He does seem belatedly to have realised that he needs to be saving, but it woul be more sensible to accept this relationship is dead.

You think she would be financially insecure if she stopped requiring her dp to help pay off her mortgage?!

That was to StrictlyMum ^

She doesn't need his rent money, she just likes it.

They might both end up better off if he gets his own place and rents it out while still living with her, rent free. Paying her to pay off her mortgage is a waste of money for both of them if they stay together, and a waste of money for him if they don't.

Some of you keep insinuating that the choice is between forking over one's hard-earned assets on demand and being "alone and single."

I assure you, and no doubt other posters will do the same, that being financially independent doesn't make one "alone and single." Quite the reverse; many men are delighted to meet a woman who doesn't want anything from them but companionship and intimacy.

The message can well be "I love you and my money/your money is not part of the equation whatsoever. We each manage our own financial affairs and don't impose on one another."

Lea why is the terms in his favour?

He was paying 70% of the bills and she kept the property and all rights over it so the balance was in DPs favour. All he has done is changed the bills to 50/50 and the DP STILL keeps all rights over the property so things are still on balance in her favour.

How can you call wanting back what you have put in materialistic, shallow or selfish?

He agreed from Day One that he had no interest in the house. He also accepted below market-rate housing costs readily enough, and as others have pointed out had an instant, nice place to shelter his kids. I'd call those pretty favorable terms. And he should pay more than 50 percent since he and his two kids add up to a greater burden on the household than the partner does. One full-time person plus two part-time people is greater than one full-time dweller, clearly.

He has no more right to the property than a flat dweller has to the fruits of his landlord's investment. As was made clear to him, absolutely, before he ever moved in.

The ugly part of this situation is that the OP's partner is expecting him to live with her - to her financial advantage - with the proviso that he has (after many years together) no "home"'security for him or his children at all.

I am finally going to call gender bias on this thread tbh.