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 has said that their partner is female . We have no idea if the Op is make or female and very few posters have referred to sex as as a relevant issue or said that those opinion would be different if the Op was female.

Not that its worth anything, but my opinion on that thread is the same as this one, that the OPs shouldn't necessarily be paying half the mortgage costs but they should be acknowledging at least a fair maintenance contribution above their share of the bills (plus also acknowledging the improved financial position that puts them in above renting or owning on their own, so should they later wish to buy into the property or have their own assets, they're not prevented from doing so by their partners). The only reservation I'd have with the linked thread is the newness of the mortgage, and potential instability there. But gender doesn't change my view.

The OP made it clear at one point that he was male. I can no longer be bothered to go back and find out where...

thats perhaps the noticeable difference. the dp in question is a woman, so is just protecting her asset, and is not being unreasonable asking someone else to pay towards her mortgage. When a man does this, it is financial abuse/taking advantage of his dp. And Id say that certain posters have (rightly or wrongly) identified with the op as being male by suggesting op was a cocklodger.

Actually, I can be bothered. OP specified he was male on: Wed 17-Feb-16 13:24:10

So, after 40 pages it would appear there are no right answers. But OP if you're still here, it does sound like you two aren't all that compatible.

It doesn't sound like much of a partnership. I think you need to cut your losses and leave. You haven't said much positive about the relationship.

The thread is not comparable, kidnapped; the OP in yours is asking for advice before doing anything (sensible) and not four years later when things are going sour. Plus, that thread runs to 92 posts whilst this one runs to nearly ten times that. Even if that thread was posted in AIBU, as this one was, I seriously doubt it would be nearly full.

If we replace a house for a car, the analogy seems to make it even more unreasonable.

Supposing I was in a committed long-term relationship, and only I was only the one who had a car (that I had bought prior to the relationship), but we were had decided to both be on the insurance. Whereas I can see that it would be reasonable for both of us to contribute a fair amount to the running costs (petrol, insurance, tax, servicing etc.) and also perhaps to contribute to any fund for its replacement, I can't imagine it even crossing my mind to require my DP to pay me an additional 'car hire' amount for the privilege of using my asset, yet this is in effect what the OP's partner is doing with her house. What next, a usage fee for turning on the TV that I had bought prior to the relationship?

Putting personal relationships on such 'commercial' terms surely takes the personal out of the relationship...

Financially the OP is getting a better deal than he would any other way by living with this lady.

He lives in a house big enough to accommodate his DCs when they come to stay and he pays less than half the going rental rate for the privilege.

In the linked thread the Op wanted to pay the same as if she was renting somewhere - it was her BF that insisted she pay more, so it's not really the same situation at all.

If Op didn't live with his girlfriend, he'd have had to live in a smaller property, or do a flat share, or buy somewhere not as expensive, so in essence he is quids in over the 4 years period, over what he would have been in any other circumstance. Why on earth it would be reasonable for him also to get a lump sum if he breaks up with GF ?

blindsider, I've posted a couple of times on this thread. It is a long thread I know so things do get lost.

Broadly, I think I see both sides. The house belongs to the OP's partner and she wants to keep it like that. That's absolutely fine. She can do what she wants.

In her position, I hope I could show some kindness and love by saying "You know what, dear, I know your outgoings are much more than mine because of your financial obligations to your children. Let's say we split the bills apart from the mortgage, which I will pay alone". I think the OP would have been happy with that at the outset.

That said, I've not been in that position. DP and I have been together for donkeys years and we now own our house jointly (no mortgage left on it). I'd say that we've paid roughly about equally into it over the years.

flash your analogy is great and I note you've specifically mentioned servicing too, and yes rent in this circumstance can be seen as 'hire' although had OP chosen to get his own car or hire his own car he would probably be paying out more again. However the OP wants to change it as to pay petrol/insurance/tax - but no servicing. If he asks to pay petrol/insurance/tax and servicing, then the partner doesn't lose out if he drives badly and they both get a bit of financial relief.

Bluejug

I wouldn't treat someone I loved like this

and there is the nub of it, generally couples are not always equal and one of the two 'puts up' with it as they want to be with that person. I am genuinely staggered by 'the what's mine is mine and what's yours is ours' mentality on this thread

kidnapped

Broadly, I think I see both sides. The house belongs to the OP's partner and she wants to keep it like that. That's absolutely fine. She can do what she wants.

Of course she can (subject to the law), I think people are assuming he wants equal rights ie 50/50 - he is only looking for some recognition of the portion he has bought.

If a young lady moved into a man's house and paid half the mortgage for 9 years before being shown the door, how many of you would be suggesting well she lived cheaper than buying her own place during that time?? It is a nonsense, and I would have nothing to do with the money grabbing harridan.

All very well saying he should pay like rent, but when you pay rent you a rental agreement as protection.

Atleast if you agree to pay the equivalent of rent, you need some protection against instant homelessness incase she dies.

People keep saying "...after four years!" as though that is some sort of eternity. But what really has changed? The OP still has the same responsibilities to the children, his income hasn't changed, his purchasing power doesn't appear to have changed, he hasn't saved up a deposit or down payment amount.

Nothing really is different than it was 4 years ago so objectively, why would the partner suddenly be expected to agree to different terms? Just because they have put in more time together? Again, maybe she has boundaries as to just how far she wants this relationship to go. Not everyone wants continual escalation in their relationships or to be melded at the hip.

All very well saying he should pay like rent, but when you pay rent you a rental agreement as protection.

And when one "pays a mortgage" one is an actual party to the loan. Handing a partner a monthly sum to offset the costs/inconvenience of oneself and one's kids living there does not equal "paying the mortgage" or "building equity." SHE pays the mortgage from her non-joint account using her own savings or income. Just as she would without him under her roof. What she does with the money he hands her each month is her business.

If a young lady moved into a man's house and paid half the mortgage for 9 years before being shown the door, how many of you would be suggesting well she lived cheaper than buying her own place during that time??

If the young woman was well aware at the start of the 9 years that her partner had no intention of ever sharing the then 16 years worth of equity he had built in his house to the point where prior to moving in she had signed an agreement to such effect then I would say yes - she knew the score and if she had not used any financial benefit she was making sensibly then that's her own mis-sight. Should she have, in that time, tried to have negotiated with him in a way that meant they both financially gained - yes she should. Should 4 years into the arrangement she felt the relationship was on the wain so she suddenly wanted hold of the asset she knew he explicitly did not want to share - well I'd wonder what her motives really were and ask why she agreed to it in the first place.

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

Since I posted about being in a similar situation myself you can rest assured I know the law. Paying rent doesn't entitle you to a share of your partner's property even if it does approximate half the mortgage.

The OP would only be somehow entitled if he and partner were married (they're not) or if the rent was an amount she should have declared in tax (round about £4800 annually) and she hadn't declared it. Otherwise the law's on her side - just as it was on mine in the same situation.

Gosh, it is annoying when you write a long thoughtful post and someone smugly says "it's not that simple".

Since I posted about being in a similar situation myself you can rest assured I know the law. Paying rent doesn't entitle you to a share of your partner's property even if it does approximate half the mortgage.

And if you read others posts that also have knowledge of such situations, say that it can do.

Gosh, it is annoying when you write a long thoughtful post and someone smugly says "it's not that simple"

Oh and I wasn't being 'smug'.

The OP mentioned several times that he wanted security. But he has a pension which is valuable enough that he kept hold of that in lieu of any payment from the marital home. Either the house his kids live in is one of the cheapest in Britain, or he has a very good pension set up.

He also has his kids securely homed and safely brought up 12 days out of 14, and he enjoys full access to a home where he pays significantly less than market value, due to the previous savings of his current partner.

That's a pretty hefty wack of security. Not many people with dependent kids have that kind of financial security. Plus, he could, if he wanted, get a BTL and still be on the property ladder. Why does he care so much about trying to get equity in his partner's house, when there are other options available to him, which perhaps would be more profitable and with longer lasting benefits?

I think that in this situation it is better for both parties to keep their money separate as they have such different responsibilities. It's actually better for him to sort out his own investments than to try and merge finances, and they're in a very privileged situation to be able to do that.

It isn't that simple - OP and his dp should be doing a better job of protecting themselves from each other! I suggest separation.

The OP mentioned several times that he wanted security. But he has a pension which is valuable enough that he kept hold of that in lieu of any payment from the marital home. Either the house his kids live in is one of the cheapest in Britain, or he has a very good pension set up.

Not necessarily. Depends how much equity there is in it. Could be not very much could be a lot.

I don't understand all these people who are lamenting the fact that the OP can't be expected to get his own mortgage as he is paying half hers/ rent. Isn't that the same for anyone who's looking to get a mortgage?

There are also a worryingly significant number of people on this thread who don't appear to know how mortgage repayments work.