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

Well it would be quite terminal to most relationships if you believed your partner was more interested in getting his share of your house than being with you.

People can be extremely different financially. Some will happily give half of everything to s new partner some are far more cautious.

This mortgage was for home improvements only.

She made herself as clear as she could.

You may not approve of charging a partner for their "keep" but people can have v different attitudes. Should she let him live there and freeload on her home? Is that reasonable?

LeaLeander - this has bugger all to do with independence. She doesn't lose her independence by not charging him rent.

Lea there's a very big difference between financial independence and taking financial advantage of someone.

He decided that rather than keep a share in his bricks and mortar he'd rather secure a future with his pension. that's not much different than her putting 20 years into bricks and mortar asset and not wanting to compromise her future nest egg either. He is contributing financially towards her house and by doing that she is contributing to an improved financial state. He wants a claim on her house, but what would she get in return? Is he willing to acknowledge the financial savings she's allowed him and give her a similar share of his pension?

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.

I think this is would be reasonable - asking for a contribution to wear and tear etc. is very different from paying someone else's mortgage.

I would be aghast at someone charging rent to their long-term partner when they owned the house outright.... but for some reason some on here seem to think it's a different argument when it comes to paying someone else's mortgage in lieu of rent - bizarre!

Imagine if a female someone posted a thread about moving into a male millionaire's house, and he demanded rent from her.... I wonder who would be defending the millionaire? No one.... (OK, so the woman in this case isn't necessarily a millionaire, but the argument is the same.) The posts would unanimously be calling for her to LTB. However, some people's attitudes seem clouded by the fact this is a man dependent on a woman, rather than vice-versa.... There's definitely an ugly undercurrent of misandry on some of these posts.

Lea

I am financially independent from DH.

We both like it that way and it works for us.

But being independent is NOT the same as shafting each other financially.

It's about equality, fairness and respect.

The relationship is question shows no evidence of that.

Yes - he signed an agreement. Years ago! Relationships change and evolve.

She has shown no signs of compromise at all. Yet on this thread the OP had been totally unfairly labelled as a cocklodger despite making payments well above his share of household out goings.

So to you that call call "cocklodger" on his side (I hate that term) I'll call "gold digger" on hers. As that's equitably wrong.

wiltingfast

If you contribute to a mortgage for home improvements, the law recognises you may establish a beneficial interest in the property.

OP is not asking for any special consideration, and unfortunately he's been far more interested in the relationship than the house, to his detriment.

Paying for your 'keep' is paying for your bills, maintenance, wear and tear. DP is asking for far in excess of that.

How is offering someone (and his children) a nicer home than he could afford himself, at below market "keep" as the OP put it, taking financial advantage of him? On what planet?

Should everyone who has accumulated financial assets dole them out unquestioningly until they reach equilibrium with everyone in their lives? Again, not all of us (incuding the OP's partner, apparently) are interested in that starry-eyed, "we are one being for all eternity" sort of relationship. I might enjoy sleeping with someone, or vacationing with him or spending every single weekend together - and might even offer him a roof over his head if he were in dire straits after a divorce - without wanting to jeopardize my own long-term financial plan by handing over assets in exchange for a minimal effort on his part. Nor would I expect any of his assets to be handed to me.

Let OP go out and find the equivalent home and see how much it costs him, and then report back about how his partner is "taking advantage."

I can't work out if some people here are so selfish they would happily shaft their partner similarly, or whether they're too naive to grasp the implications of what they're saying.

Well, YellowTulips, apparently the relationship has "evolved" more in his mind than it has in hers - and oddly enough, in HIS financial favor, according to him. What a coincidence, eh?!

(and I don't think 4 years is very long, to be honest. He still has a long slog of being financially responsible for the kids, before he might have better cash flow to make him and partner more equal, so what, really, has changed in the few years since he signed the agreement? Doesn't sound as though his respect or affection for her has deepened, either, though again that really should have no bearing on the financial terms.)

It sounds as though their ideas of cohabiting and financial responsibility are quite different and I agree they should separate and each find someone more in tune. And I disagree that he is owed any percentage of her equity. By the time you factor out the fair market value of what he has received for himself and for his kids - i.e. the use of the dwelling - and the interest paid, etc., his claim would be microscopic anyway.

Lea

He is not asking her to "dole out" her personal assets FFS.

He is asking for a proportionate share of his contribution to what is their home.

A point you have unfailingly seemed to recognise.

Should everyone who has accumulated financial assets dole them out unquestioningly until they reach equilibrium with everyone in their lives? Again, not all of us (incuding the OP's partner, apparently) are interested in that starry-eyed, "we are one being for all eternity" sort of relationship.

??? The OP isn't asking for this? He's not asking for 50% of his DPs property... he's just questioning why he should help buy DP a property he has no stake in... very, very different.

Yseulte, not if you've signed an agreement to the contrary. There is no automatic right arising. All the circumstances would be considered. From what had been detailed here I'd be surprised if he succeeded in his particular circs.

Lea

On the planet on which the law recognises you can establish an interest in a property by contributing to the mortgage and/or improvements. (yawn)

On the planet on which you're better off paying more on your own mortgage than less on someone else's.

LeaLeander

How is offering someone (and his children) a nicer home than he could afford himself, at below market "keep" as the OP put it, taking financial advantage of him? On what planet?

On the same planet as charging someone more than the cost price for a good/service is using them for your financial advantage.

Lea I have financial independence over my DP, I had my own house before we moved in together, all the money I had went into our new house, I pay all the mortgage - in fact I pay all the bills. The reason I done this is because we have a relationship whereby everything should be equal - I want equality in my relationship - I want my partner to feel he has a home too, I earn much much more than him so why wouldn't I do that? Anything other than equality is greed and selfishness which aren't very good qualities in anyone.

With regards the law in this county the OP can make a claim on any monies he has paid towards renovations in the house - I'm glad the law has that sorted and looks after the people it is meant to look after. So he isn't really paying her mortgage because she paid for the house as OP has mentioned.

LeaLeander - that would be all very well if he moved in with her to get a nice house, rather than because he wanted to live with his partner. However, he's not getting his choice of house, is he? So it isn't a commercial arrangement. Trying to apply commercial logic to a relationship is farcical. Why should he contribute to decorations he might not even like? Maybe he thinks her taste is execrable and if he didn't love her, he wouldn't want to live in that house...

Wilting I think he would be successful because I've been through the process and have seen first hand how easy it was to get the money from the home owner. As soon as the opposing solicitor seen the evidence we Provided about how much had been paid and how much the defendant had paid they caved and made an offer because they knew if it went to court we would be awarded a payment. Difference is I am in Scotland and this is covered by family law section 28 no matter what has been signed.

There is an automatic right that rises, yes, to be determined by the court.

The fact she got him to sign said document shows she was fully aware of that, and wanted to circumvent it.

How much legal validity the document has, I don't know as I'm not a lawyer.
I suspect not much, as prenups don't - they're taken as a sign of intent rather than anything legally binding.

We don't actually know that the document was 'legal' anyway, did he sign it in front of a lawyer?

Or to put it another way, a court may decide you have an automatic right.

I'm leaving this now because lea you are just being obtuse and no matter what anyone posts you will not accept their POV. Your also twisting the OPs words to suit your own arguments.

Partner buys house 20 years ago. Lets say it costs £50k (£5k deposit and £45k mortgage). Mortgage for that is likely to be around £220 per month. Even though this is just a home improvements extension, lets still stay around £220 and be generous.

House has gone up in value to £250k. To buy today (£25k deposit and £225k mortgage) would be around £1070 per month. Lets be generous again and say average rental rates are the same as mortgage payments.

As renting or buying a property on their own that's large enough to accomodate the DC is likely to be more even if the property is smaller (ignoring savings made on just paying 50% of bills vs paying alone), that's around £400 per month the OP is saving.

Over 4 years that's a potential £20k they could have used to but their own asset/save/etc. Its not small fry.

Partner OTOH is at best in this scenario making £110 a month out of this (ignoring bill savings too), over 4 years £5280. Wear and tear need to come out of that.

Who's getting the most financial benefit here?

Im with you on this one.
Why are you not in her Will? If she dies you could be left homeless with nothing.
Im sorry but I dont like the sound of this. Can you afford to rent on your own?
I dont see why you should pay towards her mortgage when you would have no stake in the property. What about if you offer to pay more towards the utilities. At least you are contributing but not to her mortgage.
Plus also she sounds better off financially than you. Why 50/50.?

I honestly don't think Lea can understand this.

I'm with Lea, Yseulte - just because someone fundamentally disagrees doesn't mean they are wrong, so you shouldn't imply that's the case.

I totally think the Op is wrong & should move out & stand on his own two feet.