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 don't know. I think if anything happened at all to my DH and I met someone else then I would want all my assets ringfenced for the children - not some new partner. I think I would expect a partner to bring something to the table and we would live equal lives with the understanding that what we made together was jointly ours but everything we brought from the past was individually our own and ringfenced for our children where necessary.

It sounds OP as though you are living a pretty good life for very little outlay and with very little behind you. Can you use some of your money to buy a modest buy to let or something like that?

I also wonder a bit about how much equity there is in the house and how the mortgage actually costs and how many years outstanding. Paying say, £700 towards a £1400 mortgage with 20 years to run is one thing. Paying say, £70 towards a £140 mortage with three or four years to run is quite another.

She's right; you should be paying rent unless you are doing something else in lieu of rent - being the main carer for any mutual children and not working because of that. If you were married then it'd be different but you aren't.

By means of context. My kids are 13 and 8. My partner gets on fine with them but takes no active role at all in their upbringing. They stay with us 2 days in 10. I do pay a bit extra for their food etc.
I could at a push buy a place of my own and I would do that rather than rent but things would be very tight. I fully admit I have a comfortable lifestyle but at a cost. I have no long term security.

I think I agree with her, on balance.

It doesn't seem fair that she pays the entire cost of accommodation for both of you (even if she has more disposable income). I can see why she wants to remain financially independent and doesn't want you to have a share in her property (that's her investment, no?). I can see why she doesn't feel that you should get to live there rent free, with her effectively subsidising your living costs (again, this comes down to financial independence).

I guess where it gets a bit grey is if 1/2 the mortgage is more than half of market rent, or more than 1/2 of the rent you would choose to pay were you to be in your own accommodation (e.g. rent for a one bedroom flat). But if 1/2 of the mortgage payment is equal to or less than you would be otherwise paying, then I think that asking you for this in lieu of rent is fair enough.

You say that you are life partners, but you wouldn't expect her to contribute towards, e.g., your children's expenses, would you? Surely by retaining financial independence you are allowing yourselves to have an adult relationship free from these complications? Ditto the point about not being included in each other's wills - it all seems sensible to me, and a perfectly reasonable way to structure a relationship. Obviously people can choose any set up they like, and some people do pool finances etc, but maybe that's not the sort of arrangement she wants? I don't think it has to be terminal if you can both accept that?

I think you should be paying 50% of the utilities but not of the mortgage.

OP you are a lodger in this scenario. She's not looking at you long term. Get your own place and see how the relationship goes.

Good luck!

I assumed by the 20% that it represented the time during which the mortgage is paid. So, four years of 20.

Have you been together a long while, or have you moved in fairly recently? I think there's a big difference between a partner of six years wanting a stake in your home, and a partner of six months. You could split in a year and she could be stuck with you because you have a stake in her home, entitling you to stay there.

But I understand your position too. You lost your home, are supporting your dc's, and your girlfriend wants to charge you rent to live with her when she doesn't need the money. I wouldn't call her 'the winner' in all this, perhaps she's just being cautious, but you can't make her change her mind if she doesn't want to.

If you don't like the situation the best thing you can do is get your own place, and see how the relationship goes once you're living apart.

This is one of those problems that's a cold legal one, and a bigger emotional one, and there are maybe very different answers to each.

You obviously feel you had a financial punitive divorce; clearly if your DP's drawing such defined lines around her property, she had her fingers burned too and wants to retain some financial independence. But there's something about the way you mention her childlessness, and the irrelevant fact that she wants to leave her money to her sister and nephew - what's that got to do with anything? Presumably your estate's going to your children, not her? Have you (plural) moved the relationship on in four years towards something that might be more permanent? Or is the arrangement with your ex and the kids giving you or her cause to keep everything at arm's length?

To be honest, if I'd been living with a man for four years, having retained some financial independence post-divorce, and he showed no signs of wanting to make some kind of commitment to me, either by buying a house together or getting married, I'd be very reluctant to jeopardise my financial security by letting him contribute to the mortgage. Bills, yes, mortgage, no.

You're not paying "half the mortgage" but half the current mortgage payments as Laurie explains better than I could.

I married my partner and he moved in when there was £20k outstanding on a £250k house. He pays half the bills including mortgage (half our bills, not just mine- he takes double the amount of time in the shower!) When mortgage is paid off (this year ) we will put the money into a holiday fund.

I have 2 children, he has none. It doesn't seem right he should have half the house, or indeed all the house when I pop my clogs. He might marry again, have kids, and my own children end up with nothing.

Our solution is that he has life rent and one third of proceeds of sale if anything happens to me.

Most people seem to agree that OP's partner is right to protect her assets - only a fool would give him rights over half a house.

Most people seem to agree that OP should not live free but that neither is right that he has the status of a tenant/lodger but none of the rights that go with it.

The consensus seems to be that there is an inequality in the relationship and that OP should get himself some security as he is in a vulnerable position.

Good luck OP.

Considering your last post, I'd definitely invest in my own place and save up as much as possible.
If that means you two not going out for dinner as often or on holidays, because you can't afford it, so be it.
And definitely don't pay any maintenance to her.

YANBU if you aren't saying you want a 50% share. If as you say you want a share of the asset for the time you have been paying the mortgage I think that's fair. So If you have been paying the mortgage for 9 years and it is a 25 year mortgage, you've roughly paid for a sixth of the mortgage (you've been paying half of it for a third of its length). So she should be able to keep whatever deposit she originally put down, plus 5/6ths of the value, and you should be entitled to a sixth. That's what seems fair to me.

However as she didn't agree to this at the beginning, and in fact set everything up for you to legally be her tenant, I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on. I think she is being pretty cruel to treat you as a lodger who doesn't even get his own room in such a long term relationship though.

It doesn't seem as though your partner has the same view about your relationship as you do. Her long term security is more important to her than the kind of relationship where everything is shared.

You are not happy with a relationship on those terms, and so it would seem that your best bet would be to move out and live independently, perhaps buying a house of your own if that's possible for you.

This has become a huge bone of contention between us and sadly things are looking terminal.

I can imagine they would be op.
I don't think that the current situation is fair on you. You are being expected to pay "rent" but have none of the securities renting brings (I'm assuming you don't have a tenancy agreement). You are a lodger. I suppose you can either accept this and carry on as you are, become a lodger (ie no contributions towards maintenance/new kitchens/replacement white goods etc), push for a share (I think what you suggested sounds fine) or leave.

Is it a deal breaker?

If you can buy yourself WTF are you waiting for? If she ends this relationship where will your kids see you then? If your ex wife moves to the other end of the country you'll want a place where the kids can stay for a weeks at a time maybe. You have nothing.

Move out and buy.

Just because you are paying her an amount equivalent to half the monthly mortgage payment doesn't mean you are "paying half the mortgage" - there is a difference. She can use the rent money for anything she chooses.

I agree with others, why should she subsidize your living arrangement at a financial cost to herself? Without her you would be worse off. If you are paying for accommodation at less than market rate for buying or renting your own place, what's the problem?

If owning a home is important to you, you should go off and get your own. I would not be handing over equity to someone just because he was my lover and in any event getting a small share like 10 percent is not going to provide you with "long-term security." I'm afraid when one is responsible for providing for children AND hampered by the financial fallout from divorce, long-term security is going to be difficult to come by in any scenario. But it's not fair to expect your girlfriend to shoulder that burden. She's providing for herself and that's plenty.

Move out, buy and get your own lodger!

I can totally see your point, but am afraid I agree with your other half.

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?

You can’t reasonably expect to pay what something was worth 20 years ago for an appreciating asset. Depending on the area, you’re partner’s house will have doubled or tripled in value during the term of her mortgage and you can’t see that appreciation as your right.

I also think that you have to look at buying a property of your own, if you don’t want to have to pay rent at some point in the future.

I love my partner very much indeed but I wouldn't put my financial security at risk for her and she loves me enough not to demand that.

Surely it depends what the 10% is of
better a tenth of a million pound house than a whole house costing £20,000

i don't agree with sparkeface's theory as it takes no account of the intial deposit and growth in value of the investment in the property over the years before you appeared.

can you not buy a small place and rent it out? that way you have some security and it won't cost so much.

Oh here a thought.

Legal people answer this:

If two people are in a relationship (not LL & lodger) and not married and one pays towards a mortgage that they are not named on do they have any claim toward the house? There's no rental contact either.

I'm guessing no?

You have no long term security because you're divorced and don't now have the benefit of buying at a time when property is affordable.

And you have 2 massive drains on your finances (your children)

No one after divorce is financially in a restored position - I have never recovered financially from mine.

It's much cheaper to live as a couple than a single.

Btw everyone is assuming the poster is a man, has that been confirmed? Could be a woman with a female partner.

No, you are paying a proportion of the rent that's it. If you moved into Sparerooms.com you wouldn't expect to own a percentage of the house you lived in. Get a grip, tbh I feel you are pimping off her.