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

She isn't saying no, they cannot stay here. Even if she was leaving the house for those times, she's providing them a roof to stay under.

So that equates to an extra 20% that he has been paying for nearly half the time they have been together?

A court may see it very differently.

dontcare

I'm not sure of your point. My point is that she is both providing him and his DC with somewhere to live, at a rate he is financially benefiting from over paying rent or buying he can afford. She isn't not supporting him or his DCs. And he isn't getting nothing from the current arrangement, his lifestyle is being subbed by this arrangement and he had the choice whether to use that financial gain on improved lifestyle or creating his own asset. He's not losing out here, he's after more of a gain.

Partner OTOH loses whatever way - she either loses her relationship, voluntarily hands over some of her assets or gets no contribution to her house above standard bills or gets taken to court. Unless OP is willing to broach their financial arrangement in a different way, which exists but for some reason he appears to have drawn a battle line. Which probably confirms to her she was right to insist on having that document signed in the fist place.

As I've said before, the OP should leave his partner - they are clearly not compatible. Whatever happens now, one of them will always be forcing the other's hand. He would be far more sensible in the long term getting equity in his own property. She has every right to want to protect her own assets and he is right to think this is not a sufficiently strong relationship for him to risk his long term financial security on. He could treat it as a convenient temporary arrangement, enabling him to have lots of space to entertain his kids until they grow up, enabling him to save for a deposit on a house when he moves on, and taking away the risk of him now making a bad housing investment, but I think they would both think he should have more reasons than that for staying put. If he no longer thinks the relationship is going to stay the course, he should leave now, or become her tenant for real, rather than both pretending this relationship might last the course.

Which probably confirms to her she was right to insist on having that document signed in the fist place.

As pp have said more than once. That piece of paper could be worth less if it was the mortgage lender disclaiming an interest paperwork.

I wouldn't want to live in someone else's house. It's a totally crap arrangement for the long term.

I know people on MN slate couples who get together young but reading this I'm glad that both my DH and me had not a bean to our names when we got together!

The thing is, you can only have your cake and eat it if you get things right first time. Otherwise, you can make lots of cakes with lots of different people, but you always lose bits of the cake each time it ends. Or, you can stop making cakes.

OP she has set up her house / finances / life so that she doesn't need you to contribute financially. If you walked away, she would not be affected at all apart from losing the rent you pay her.

I guess she insisted on rent payments to start with, when you first co-habited, to check you were committed to her and not overly influenced by the cheap/nice housing option.

However, as another poster said earlier, when she is in such a good place ( house/ financially secure) compared to yours it seems unloving that after 4 years she would continue use her powerful position to take money off you that you could really do with saving/ investing and which she simply does not need. Assuming she loves you and likes living with you, and believes you love her back. Assuming she wants you to enjoy security and have less stress.

She can in theory justify taking the rent in one way: that if you didn't live with her you'd pay rent/ mortgage. But you are a long stay houseguest more than a lodger who she could ask to leave at any minute. House guests don't pay to stay, they are just expected to be thoughtful, buy token gifts from time to time and respect the 'rules' of the household.

She could be generous- spirited and say - I care about your wellbeing and would much prefer to see you use that money to buy your own flat or build up your savings. If you pay me a bit to cover the increase in household bills then that's ok with me. It is much nicer for us (me as much as you) to live together as a couple rather than you in a separate ( not as nice, you couldn't afford it) place so that we are not commuting between the two, spending time negotiating logistics - who stays where, who cooks when etc). This is such a nice house and if you rented elsewhere I'd probably want us to spend our time as a couple here ( apart from when your kids are around I suspect).

If she doesn't want to co-own a house again, having experienced divorce, that is her call. Ditto her Will. Tbf while those things are hard to hear, at least she has / is clear so you know where you stand.

If she isn't interested in your kids that doesn't bode well.

Shakalakababy

Agree completely with your post.... Very balanced and articulately supports the view that the OP INBU given the length of their relationship.

Who pays when you go out? I find it is just as expensive to have a good social life as it is to pay for somewhere to live!

If you pay the total bill for dinners out, theatre, weekends away, holidays, hobbies and to run the cars for both of you then she needs to share in those bills to make it fair so this is not left just to you on top of your rent and bills.

You do need to pay towards the house (rent or call it what you will) and bills as you use the home and why should you not? When I lived with my first boyfriend I paid for all the food, home decor, entertainment and running both cars whilst he paid the rent. It worked out about 50/50 as we had a good social life.

Head, yes I accept that for young couples (as I was ) pooling of everything and thinking you are married for life (and we were married 20 years) is the best way. However once you've had a lot of money taken from you by a man on divorce and your chidlren suffer for it you tend not to want to risk that as these later unions are not about founding a family for life - most of them break up anyway and secondly you have children to consider.

On costs you just can't generalise. My mortage was £90k a year at one point so someone paying for a bit of food would be neither here nor there. 5 sets of school fees was over £50k and I still pay over £33k a year on school fees even now. Everyone's finances and divorce are different and house value. My house is probably worth £2.5m to £3m. If I moved a man in and he bought a few meals out and paid the council tax it would take a lot of eternities to make his contribution worth £3m even if the sex was pretty good!

deo I completely agree I just wouldn't risk a second Union if I was in that situation.

I think some posters have forgotten that the Op had a relationship with the partner before she had this house.He didn't just move in because it was cheap "rent".

Not sure if the OP is still reading but I have been on the other side of this.

I bought a house, paid the mortgage for 14 years and for about half that time my partner lived with me and paid me (a very reasonable) rent.

After we'd been together for about 8 years we started to discuss buying our "own place" with his savings and my equity. We looked around, saw some options and then considered whether we could spend less by staying in "my" house and doing it up. In the end that's what we did. He bought into the house and now we co-own it.

It was hard for me to give up half of something that had been all mine. But the pay off was having someone else to share the costs with and savings instead of 'just' equity. The new arrangement worked because both of us were getting something new and better out of it.

OP, right now you are paying rent at an amount that equals half the mortgage. You are not paying the mortgage because it is not your mortgage. I can totally see why you'd rather pay half the mortgage in return for an increasing share of the equity - that would be a good deal for you. Most people who rent would like it if that rent bought them the house they lived in. But that's not the situation you're in.

So, your partner could let you pay into the house in return for equity but understand this wouldn't benefit her in any way. You're basically asking her to do you a huge favour out of love for you. It sounds as though she's done you a few already in terms of location and agreeing to changes in your existing arrangement. But it seems rather as though whatever accommodations she makes for you, you always want more.

You need to put something more on the table than your own desire for security and stability. For example my partner paid the costs of a kitchen renovation on the understanding I'd pay him back half when I had more spare cash. You could suggest spending your savings on something for the house in return for a share of equity and see what she thinks about that.

Or you could put a deposit on a separate flat (maybe up north if you can't afford it where you live) and rent it out and use that income towards your own rent.

Basically, understand that your partner doesn't owe you a share of her house. And the more you push for it the less she's going to give you that out of love.

Basically, understand that your partner doesn't owe you a share of her house.

Not that simple. The law may see it very differently.

There is no way I would put in £75k yellow tulips and then be joint tenants

I would have an agreement written up that if we split up house would be sold. I would get back my £75k and then balance be split 50/50 between us

My friend did what you did. Had her own mortgage for years and moved 4 times each time making money

She put £30k into new home with her partner. Then married. Then divorced and lost the whole lot :(

OP doesn't want the house. He wants to stop being charged for living in hers (aside from living costs).

They are both equal in terms of finances I think although Op's divorce was harder on him as he had his children to cover. He doesn't seem to me to be asking anything unreasonable.

I do wonder why the DP didn't buy the house outright and use the extra mortgage money to split a second house with the Op.
She keeps the house and Op is back on the ladder.

I love this thread

In the unlikely event the relationship is salvageable, both parties need to do a lot of work to rebuild trust. The OP needs to prove it is not all about the house by moving out and buying his own place. They could carry on seeing each other on that basis and see how it goes. If it works well, but they miss living together, then they can renegotiate how they share each other's assets and who pays for what at a later date, once they trust each other again. My honest opinion, though, is that a divorced man without his own home and with children to support is not a great prospect for a woman with no interest in his children and large financial assets to protect. She just doesn't love him enough to take on the whole package.

OP doesn't want the house. He wants to stop being charged for living in hers (aside from living costs).
If thats all the OP wants then he could go for the middle ground of paying living costs plus a maintenance fee which they could both work out and agree on. He should at least make some contribution towards maintenance as he would as standard if he owned his own property or rented. What he's asking her is a share in equity or nothing but bills, either way is an unfair loss to the partner.

That middle ground way means no party is being unfairly treated - partner has a fair share of costs covered and OP still gets the financial benefit of living at minimal cost plus possibly furthered ability to set up his own assets.

Alasas

"I think it's worrying that people label someone as cold/calculating/unloving because at the beginning of a new relationship they protected their financial assets. If she were my daughter I would have INSISTED she had done the same."

At the very beginning a reasonable course of action but 4 years in? when he is helping her buy her house. If he wasn't living with her she would be responsible for all her mortgage all her household expenses and 75% of her council tax.

I totally agree if the genders were reversed the women on this thread would be up in arms!!

This is an interesting thread about a woman contemplating moving into a man's house which he owns.

The responses are interesting.

kidnapped

Have you discussed what your arrangement would be?

I sort of see her point but I think it's a bit weird after 4 years tbh. She wants 50% of everything but yet if you carried on you would have then contributed to everything for 9 years yet in her eyes you are entitled to nothing? Also, do you have equal say in things in the house, what you buy for it etc? If there was a major bill for say a new boiler would she expect half of that too? If she covers all new items, a new kitchen, campers etc I would say she was being fair. If not, it seems she wants things all ways round.

kidnapped, that thread is very interesting. only read about 2/3rds of it as it was in broad agreeement that this wasnt in ops interest, she shouldnt be paying towards a mortgage not in her name and that she would end up getting burnt. not one mention of her being a female 'cocklodger'. MN is definitely gender biased. not the first time ive seen gender bias neither