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

It is a tricky one.

The OP has no way to build up equity in a different house since he is living with his partner and paying half of everything there.

The OP's partner is benefitting from having him pay for 50% of all outgoings. Also presumably benefitting from housework/DIY/gardening. She doesn't have to get strangers in as lodgers to help pay her bills (with all the hassle that involves). All of this leads to a net gain financially to the OP's partner. She's the winner in all of this.

The OP is paying for 50% of all outgoings without any of the longer-terms benefits that come with it. No security of tenure. No equity. No inheritance for him or his children. That is a net loss to the OP. He's the loser.

Is this equal? Yes.
Is it fair? No.

Particularly since the OP has two children to provide for. And yup, these children are not the OP's partner's problem of course, but you know, if you love someone and all that, you should not want to see them struggling. Particularly when you can do a small thing (like pay your own small mortgage) to help them out.

Their ages make all the difference to the responses.

Then that is wrong. We don't know how old they are for starters!

Paying 'rent' after a mortgage is paid off just seems ludicrous to me in the context of a loving relationship.

Just imagine it worded this way.
My partner and I both take home £1200 a month, we pay £300 each to cover bills leaving £900 a month. My OH owns the house outright so wants me to contribute £500 per month, I'll end up with £400 a month spare whilst he has £1400. My friends think he's taking advantage but I think it's a good deal as if I was renting privately I'd only have £200 spare at the end of the month. Aibu?

But 20% of the mortgage is not outstanding - that's a failure to understand mortgages or what she's put in over the years.

That's a very crude and completely incorrect measure.

Actually why isn't it as simple as the op thinks? If there's say 20% left, op starts paying his half of the mortgage and all other bills and then owns 10% at the end?
I suppose she took the hit when interest rates weren't so low

I don't see why I should contribute 50% towards the ongoing purchase of a capital investment that I have a 0% share in.

This is the nature of renting. She is viewing you as a tenant and protecting her assets.

You are both divorced and she may well have learned a bitter lesson in her first marriage. Is there any need to move in together? It doesn't sound like she is especially interested in seeing you as her partner. Could she let her house and rent or buy somewhere with you? I'm throwing ideas into the ether here. It's not an easy situation unfortunately.

I don't want half the house. But if 20% of the mortgage is outstanding and I'm paying half of that. Would that not mean I'm entitled to a 10% share?

I think that I would consider that fair in your DP's shoes (or yours FTM).

At the moment you have less security than a tenant.

Has the subject of marriage never come up?

If this was a woman she would be told not to pay unless she was added to the deeds.

50/50 is the fairest way of splitting things but expecting a half the mortgage without being on the deeds seems unfair. Your "half" in savings maybe with the aim of buying a new joint home together.

She's made her stance very clear, she sees it as her house and not your home and by charging you rent in turn it feels like a lodger situation.

You live with her, if you didn't you'd be paying rent.

Or you'd be paying your own mortgage. That detail makes a big difference.

And if you're not living with her you'd come and go as you'd please, receive people at home as you'd please, and so on. Instead, you're sharing a life as well as a house.

Unless you don't share chores equally or fairly, don't care for her when she'll ill, don't share your evenings and compromise on what you watch on TV, what you eat, where you go, and so on.
Be a proper lodger.

JohnLuther - I thought about that but my response would be the same if genders were reversed. Man or woman I would advise the OP to start planning to buy his place for financial security. I think the situation changes if any children come along and of course they could decide to get married at some point but at the end of the day, both OP and his partner have already gone through divorces and so are well aware of the realities of life and relationships. Not wishing to co-mingle assets is the decision of a realist.

OP you haven't mentioned your children. How old are they? Is your 4 yr life partner a step-mother? Does she co-parent when you have the kids?

What is your relationship with your children like? Do they like/love her? do you really share lives?

Seriously I think you may have very different views on where this relationship is going.

All of this leads to a net gain financially to the OP's partner. She's the winner in all of this.

Which ever way you look at it this is true.

It sounds like OP can't afford better housing or to buy his own place due to his financial settlement with his ex and maintenance. Unfortunate, but not his new DP's problem.

Only entitled to a 10% share if you have put up half the equity mate, you're missing out that crucial bit of the equation

"But 20% of the mortgage is not outstanding -"
How do you know ? Genuine question , I fully admit to not understanding mortgages

This is the nature of renting

But if OP was renting (s)he'd have the confidence of knowing that she couldn't be thrown out at a moment's notice MrsJorah. A direct comparison to renting doesn't work.

The more I think about it the more I think she's absolutely shafting you. You've been living together four years, you're not some flash in the pan, "let's see if things work out" fella. If you've been paying your way all that time, doing 50% of the chores, contributing to her mortgage and generally doing what's expected of a loving partner then I think the least she could do is give you some security.

Asking the OP for rent after she's paid off the mortgage would be ridiculous. How could you profit off someone you presume to love and wish to share your life with, who's been living with you for at least nine years and who has been dealt very different cards in life to you? If it were me I'd be worried about my lodger's my partner's future were something to happen to me, I'd want to cut him some slack (not a whole pile like, but certainly ignore the mortgage/'rent') and let him build up some savings or his pension pot. She's ring-fenced her house and savings, so what would it really cost her to do that, compared with him moving out?

I'd be on the Number Nope bus to Nopetown to look in the nearest letting agent's window tomorrow OP.

*She is treating you like a lodger, not a lover. In which case, make sure you have your own room (which a lodger would have), make sure you do not contribute to maintenance (which a lodger wouldn't)...don't be doing her housework (a lodger wouldn't)..I could go on..

Doesn't sound like a partnership does it??*

I agree with this. Of course people should pay their way, but if the OP started complaining about something a lodger might, he'd probably be given short shrift by his partner. It is like he is a partner for some purposes and a lodger or tenant for financial purposes.

I can understand wanting to leave my assets to my own family but can't imagine wanting to render my partner whom I am living with homeless on my death either.

I think this is a relationship problem as much as a financial one. OP, I think you need to figure out how you can get on the property ladder or at least have some security of housing in the long term. A tenancy with a stranger might well give you more security than this arrangement where you pay rent but don't actually have a tenancy.

Tophat, consult a solicitor for advice. Honestly, the outlay would be worth it in the long run. If it is rent, you need a rental agreement. If it is a contribution to the mortgage, then there needs to be recognition of that.

Example of friend of mine who moved in with partner who had own house; they split everything 50-50 from then and had an agreement drawn up which reflected his initial ownership and investment etc. And from then what her entitlement would be.

The other option is to move out and rent your own place.

If this is a reverse, it reminds me of the poster who got married whilst having enormous reservations about her DH moving in with his two DC EOW, whilst only contributing to food or something.

Effectively if the house was bought for £100,000 and there £10,000 left. Let's say it's worth £200,000.
I think the op, if he pays half of everything for the last 10,000 is maybe due about 2.5 to 5%.
Of course we don't know if the partner has just paid for a brand new kitchen and bathroom. So maybe that adjusts the figures slightly. But it must be possible to do some calculation along those lines.

OP if you want a stake in a house you need to either buy your own ( live in it or rent it out) or talk to your dp about a joint venture and the terms for this.

I can understand why this is important to you and so should your partner. You need to negotiate a way for both of you to get what you want in this respect which should be possible if the relationship is strong.

If you were a lodger and she was your landlord, your 'rent' wouldn't equate to half the mortgage. If you were renting a property from someone you would have a tenancy agreement and wouldn't be having sex with them

I think that if your DP was renting then of course you would have to pay half. But as she owns the house (she is on the deeds) and is just repaying a loan she took out to purchase the property then you shouldnt have to pay 50% for her to have 100% gain.

I agree something should be paid as a contribution as she also shouldn't be paying to house you... But the figure would depend on how much the mortgage repayments are and how much you both earn.

No, even if she had 20% to pay off before OP moved in and he paid half of that sum 10% would be a much higher share than would be fair: he has put in zero equity.

I think the issue here is that you're both putting 'assets' above love and a sense of wanting the other person to feel happy and secure.

After spending many years reading many threads on here I maintain that the best way for a long-term relationship to be financially equal is for there to be one pot of money and assets that is shared equally. I think any other arrangement leads to resentment, for many reasons. I know there are couples who manage to have separate finances and for it to be fine, but I think that's actually quite rare.

An other alternative position to renting by himself would also be to have a partner (an actual one) with whom to buy together, thereby investing and lowering costs.
A partner invested in the long term and not you'll do for now, and just as long I'm the only one financially protected in my investment.