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

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

Would you be making this argument if it was a 'poor' woman living in a 'wealthy' man's house.... That she should pay half towards his house (without gaining any automatic stake) despite her circumstances, and if she complains, then she's being ungrateful and stand on her own two feet??

peggyundercrackers says: Anything other than equality is greed and selfishness which aren't very good qualities in anyone

Anything other than (a false) "equality" created by the more financially solvent partner handing over his/her assets to the less financially successful partner is "greed and selfishness" on the part of the more financially independent partner?

Is that what you really think? That someone who wishes to maintain separate finances from her boyfriend and not unilaterally hand him her equity is being greedy and selfish? That the OP's partner, who expects her partner to be financially adult and pay for his keep, is selfish and greedy for not giving him an even cushier ride than the one she offered?

I have absolutely zero curiosity about or interest in the finances of any man I've ever been involved with. Nor would I entertain much curiosity about my finances on the part of any man. What he has is irrelevant to me, and what I have is irrelevant to anyone but me and my solicitor and the executor (my sister.) If that makes me greedy and selfish, so be it. Not interested in a man with his paw out for what I've accumulated via decades of hard work.

Flashbang, yes, I would say the same if the genders were reversed. No one should be a mooch.

I didn't say Lea was wrong, I said I don't think she understands the discussion.

I also think she's self-obsessed and is making this about her rather than the OP.

Lea - he is being a "mooch" by accepting the current arrangement.

Your arguments are self circulating tbh.

Not really, but it's typical for people who run out of logic to begin personally critiquing posters they disagree with instead of sticking to the topic at hand.

Lea - you've made my point with your last post.

Lealeander

You seem to treat your personal relationships like business relationships, with each side jealously protecting their money and assets from the other, sharing nothing, making every purchase a transaction between you that's recorded on some mental (or perhaps real) ledger. That doesn't seem conducive to a loving, trusting relationship to me... But maybe that's not what you want.

Flashbang, that's not the argument - take each situation on its own merits. That said, if it were a female in the ops position, I would say exactly the same thing.

OP
Go round and shag her, rent or buy your own place. She's stitching you up.

Icon fail!

Was reaching for the ironic eyebrow raise and got the green lady. Hey ho

Lea, quite frankly no-one is saying the DP shouldn't be independent in her finances nor are they against her wanting to keep her house 100% for herself. What the problem is and has been pointed out numerous times is that by law if the other person pays monies towards the monthly mortgage amount than they can claim a % equity respective to the amount they have paid. It is a law. Also she cannot take money to pay for decoration/ renovations.

IF she really wants money towards paying the mortgage then unfortunately to ensure the OP cannot claim % equity then she should have had a tenant/lodger agreement in place.

What the majority of people on here are saying is she cannot expect to take money to pay part of her mortgage from her partner and think she still owns 100% equity. I couldn't care less if she doesn't want to share her asset with OP but I do care that she isn't doing it the right way and is infact shafting her partner financially to her own financial gain.

Why didn't she for example kick him out when he decided he was no longer going to give 70%? Why couldn't she accept 50%? Clearly the money means a lot more to her and I still stick by what I say in that sure she still likes him to a certain degree and she is holding on to him for as long as possible to help clear her mortgage and once 5yrs is over and mortgage is cleared I have no doubt she will kick him out.

OP is clearly starting to realise the same thing and asking for others opinions.

If it had been so important to me that I asked my partner to sign a document waving their rights to a share in my home, which they agreed to and had for years been taking the financial benefit that ensued I think I'd find it pretty terminal that he wanted to change the conditions 4 years later. Without the hint of any other commitment at least. I'd be willing to enter into a discussion of what is fair 'keep' wise, including something to cover repairs etc.
My DH agrees too, but maybe that's where DH and I are compatible and OP and his partner aren't.

Cross posts - Flashbang, you do realise people can have different opinions which are equally valid to your own & which don't merit personal criticism or attack??

Think if it as rent. Fact is you need to pay rent where ever you live. I think yabu to think you shouldn't pay rent or that doing so earns you an equity share of her home.

I guess you could buy a rent to buy property somewhere if you want to get in the property ladder?

And you never know, if you stop acting like a dick about this issue and start being more reasonable re paying your way you might find she eventually changes her will anyway.

Lea

I have no issue with the OP's DP protecting her assests, But from what we have been told she has been using the OP's money to buy/improve that asset that is (IMO and others) wrong.

The legalities of the situation is that as he has been paying money that has been going to the mortgage or improvements to the property he has a right to some of the property.

Lovely

And for how many years should he do this?

For how many years should he "over pay"?

RTFT....

oneowlgirl

Where was the personal attack? I was merely attempting to illustrate the wider impact of holding this view on the wider relationship.... Yes, of course people can and will have different views to me, and they have every right to hold those views.... However, I don't have to accept those views as 'equally valid'. If we all believed our views were equally valid on this thread, we wouldn't be disagreeing with each other!

LovelyFriend

As has been posted before, if it it was rent he would have legal rights, and she would have to declare it to the tax man (if was over £354/month raising to £625/month in april, just so that other posters are clear on the legal tax issue).

Think if it as rent. Fact is you need to pay rent where ever you live.

Really?? If you owned a property outright, would you expect your partner to pay you rent for the privilege of staying there (by rent i don't mean a contribution to upkeep or payment of the bills, but a payment for living under your roof)?

Alasalas:
There's an old thing called a "will". You might have heard of it.

Ala - ummm...

That's are what wills are for.

There is nothing stopping the partner from leaving her assets to whom she wishes.

You can have legal agreements that in the event of her death, he can live in the house but not own it. On his death it would pass to her beneficiaries not the OP's.

Sigh...

Alasalas

He's not asking for the whole house when she dies.... Not even close!!!!....just a fair portion of the amount he's contributed, which would given the circumstances only be a small % of the estate.