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

Do we know the op is a he? I haven't seen the sex of the op stated anywhere.

I would guess they would pay until both parties renegotiate. Like they reached an agreement before the op moved in.

What really seems to be bugging them is not having any growing equity but they could solve this problem themselves buy buying a property. But they aren't so keen to do that, instead they are demanding a share of their P's equity.

As for "we are life partners, together forever" well we know how that worked out before. Let's face it none of us really know who we will be with in 10/20/30 years, if anyone. I don't think the op's P feels that they are life partners. Or is she does she feels much more pragmatic about it.

If the op's main issue is being homeless in the event of p's untimely death then they should discuss that. But most people will need to rent a place.

Why does the OP's gender matter?

Lovely you seem far more conciliatory in your responses since you have suggested that the OP "might" not me make tbh.

ARGH why don't people get it - if you are cohabiting there is a law that says if you non-owning partner pays x amount or towards the mortgage or decoration/ renovation than they can be entitled to a respective %equity in that house.

END OF.

If the DP wants to own 100% of her house than she shouldn't be taking money to pay for the mortgage because by asking OP to pay towards the mortgage she has opened up a huge risk that he can take her to court to ask for his respective %equity. Why has she opened herself up to this risk is beyond me.

Total auto correct fail.

Might not be male (sighs to self re: typing dexterity)

The op's gender doesn't really matter apart from all the huffy comments saying " if the genders were reversed you wouldn't be saying this" and everyone assuming the op is a he.

My opinion is no more conciliatory and unchanged since I first posted.

ARGH why don't people get it - if you are cohabiting there is a law that says if you non-owning partner pays x amount or towards the mortgage or decoration/ renovation than they can be entitled to a respective %equity in that house.

END OF.

I don't know why people don't get it. I don't think it's that hard?

If you owned a property outright, would you expect your partner to pay you rent for the privilege of staying there* *

Well if I had expressly discussed it and agreed to contribute BEFORE I moved in then yes. I might have a problem with it, but then I would say so when it was discussed, or choose to live elsewhere.

But if there is a mortgage on the property then it won't be owned outright.

Well I'm sorry to say do think gender has played a part on this thread.

I've seen plenty of posts over the years about "asset ownership" and the overwhelming view has been about "equality" and "fairness". Or tbh if I am honest "getting all you can".

But in this thread it's all about a woman who has no dependents.

The OP has children and yet some posters think it's ok for him to continue to risk his and theirs security in favour of her financial status. Role reversal on this re:gender and this thread would have not passed 100 posts.

Truth be told - she can do what she wants but it doesn't make her a nice person or a loving partner.

The OP should take the red flag for what it is and LTB.

I would question OP on this legal agreement - is it an agreement drawn up by a solicitor or is it basically something the OP typed up and he signed and he feels that is a legal agreement.

ARGH why don't people get it - if you are cohabiting there is a law that says if you non-owning partner pays x amount or towards the mortgage

Argh indeed. We GET what some of you repeatedly keep saying the law is. What some of us dispute is whether what the OP has been paying is "x amount TOWARD THE MORTGAGE."

He is paying his partner x amount in return for being allowed to live, and to house his children part-time, under partner's roof. There is NO direct line between the money he gives her, and how she pays the mortgage. He gives her a sum of money every month. She does as she pleases with it.

She pays HER mortgage out of a NON-JOINT account every month, and the mortgage is in her name only, and they have a signed agreement that he forfeits any right to ownership in the house. And he is paying a below-market monthly amount for accommodation for himself and his part-time kids. I would think any legal claim would be on shaky grounds given the very, very obvious arms length between him, his money and her mortgage.

And whatever the legalities, it would morally be repugnant and aesthetically very tacky of him to reward her largess toward him and his kids with a suit demanding a piece of her investment.

He has actively chosen to reduce his living costs the downside to that is he risks his security.

His doing his choice.

He could chose to have normal living costs for himself and his children and obtain the security that comes with that if he wished

Truth be told - she can do what she wants but it doesn't make her a nice person or a loving partner

We are no longer in the 50's. These days unless one party has caring responsibilities or has their earning capacity reduced because of the relationship and expectations in it or some other reason for reduced earning ability we tend to expect grown ups to fund themselves and not need to be supported financially by a partner.

Move out. Pay a rent elsewhere. I wouldn't pay a 'partner' who as you've described doesn't support really support you or your dcs.

I'd be off.

The OP has children and yet some posters think it's ok for him to continue to risk his and theirs security in favour of her financial status.

The op has many other options to " secure their financial status". They could continue to live in a lovely home with their P for very reasonable cost and buy a rental property, for example. Might be less costly than buying somewhere to live themselves anyway.

I guess some people don't look at their P and ask themselves "what else are you going to do to improve my financial status".

If you really want to go " all in " financially and otherwise, on a relationship I believe there is an institution called marriage which may help some people.

OP ltb. It's all her way. I'd take the highway.

Yeah leave them and play twice as much in rent living in a much smaller home. That will teach her!