to want to get married?

[Lemond1fficult]

My partner and I have been together 9 years. We live together, and are well-matched, solvent and happy. Except for one thing: We've always agreed we never want to get married. But in the last year, for reasons I don't really understand, I have completely changed my mind.

I'm not one to wait around to be proposed to, so we have discussed it. But my dp hates the idea of a formalised relationship.He wants to throw a big party for our 10th anniversary instead. (To be clear, i want a low-key registry office job and a marriage, not the whole bridal bit). Obvs I wish he would change his mind, but I have no interest in bullying him into something he doesn't want.

So here's the thing: I'm worried it's turning me into a complete nutjob. I had to go to my room at a recent wedding because I got so upset. And because it's making me so crazy, I'm actually considering ending a relationship that is the envy of our friends.

AIBU?

[ImperialBlether]

LeanneBattersby, read the thread! There is no mortgage. The OP's partner inherited money and bought the house. She lives there rent-free and they split the bills.

[dimots]

Consider buying a flat as a matter of urgency. If you can't afford one in a London suburb, consider a house in another cheaper area popular with renters. Its OK now saying you wouldn't want a share of his house, but I assume you are 20s or early 30s. If you were to split in 20 years time you would be very vulnerable. You would find it difficult to get a 25yr mortgage and house prices may have risen way out of your reach. You don't want to be stuck in rented accommodation in later years if possible to avoid it.

Another thing to consider is if he were to die. You would have no rights to arrange a funeral etc. I know of a woman who was excluded from her DPs funeral by his parents (she didn't get on with them). They had 2 teenage children together & had been together a long time. She did attend the funeral, but had to sit at the back unacknowledged away from the family mourners.

[Lemond1fficult]

I'm 33. But I've never had plans for bambinos, and my contraceptive regime is as watertight as it gets. I'm friends with lots of wonderful mothers, so I know that life is not for me (shoutout to all you ladies). But should that clock start ticking, I would insist on marriage before even trying.

[leedy]

"Marriage is far deeper than a 'live together' relationship - they are NOT the same. The only people who say they are the same or that marriage is just a piece of paper have failed marriages, products of failed marriages or are not married."

Gracious, I must inform my partner of 17 years and father of my children that we're missing out on all this deepitude. Does just saying the magic words make the deepening happen?

[ImperialBlether]

It's a relationship where you're financially legally joined, leedy. Living together isn't the same.

[suzannecaravaggio]

his money is invested in a fast appreciating asset
her savings are hardly appreciating at all and she doesnt have enough capital to get on the first rung of the property ladder
he's wealthy and she isnt, not really a partnership of equals is it

I doubt I'd want to get married if I was in his shoes,

[dimots]

No, signing the legal, financial document is what makes the 'deepening' happen. It has nothing to do with your feelings for each other, but protects the financially vulnerable in the event of death or a split.

[BlueEnvelope]

Marriage is far deeper than a 'live together' relationship - they are NOT the same. The only people who say they are the same or that marriage is just a piece of paper have failed marriages, products of failed marriages or are not married.

Snorts. I assure you that, as someone who happily cohabited for 20 years, then got married to my partner almost four years ago, absolutely nothing changed in our relationship, except having a marriage certificate somewhere in the drawer of my desk. No magic deepenings. It is in fact just a piece of paper which puts in place certain legal safeguards which were important to my partner though not to me. It says precisely nothing about our love and commitment to one another, which remain the same as they were before we got married in a largely-forgotten registry office ceremony after which we drank a lot of champagne for lunch.

[suzannecaravaggio]

It says precisely nothing about our love and commitment to one another

I would say that the willingness or otherwise to enter into a legally recognized contract...to form a financial partnership, speaks volumes about how committed you feel to your paertner

[Lemond1fficult]

Wow, thanks caravaggio! And here was I thinking love might have something to do with it. Best find myself a sugar daddy and seal the deal quickly.

[ImperialBlether]

Nobody's saying that, Lemon.

[suzannecaravaggio]

I dont need a sugar daddy thanks d1fficult
I'm not saying love isnt involved...I dont know where you got that idea from

but the more you love someone the more likely you are to agree to share 'all your worldly goods with them'

[Lemond1fficult]

Sorry caravaggio, I was being a bit prickly there. Though I don't think I'm ready to boil it all down to economics just yet. Lots of couples have unequal inheritances - it's just his came early, which has made our situation a bit unusual. We're certainly the only ones of our friends who isn't being slowly roasted on the coals of the London housing market.

[suzannecaravaggio]

Im not even suggesting it comes down to just economics
the costs and benefits of any decisions we make arent just financial
the balance sheet that we consciously or unconsciously assess includes all sorts of factors

re inheritance, well a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush isnt it!

If my parents left me their estates I'd be set up for life, whether there will be anything left of the loot after care homes/sugar babies/world tours on cruise ships have been taken into account is anyones guess!

[JizzyStradlin]

Love has something to do with it for some people. It doesn't for others, and even where it does, that doesn't change the financial and legal realities.

I think it's fine to really want to get married and fine to really not want to. People have wildly different views. For some people, it would be the ultimate commitment and a refusal to do it would indicate they're not serious about their partner. For others, that wouldn't be the case at all. Neither of you are BU, especially as there are no children or plans for any, but both of you should make your decision from a position of knowledge. He needs to be aware that his decision not to marry you means that you'll be stuck paying IHT on his estate (since from what you've said it's almost certain to be more above the threshold) if he dies first. If he really loves you, he'll want you both to make joint provision for that eventuality, so you're not stuck facing the possibility of flogging the home you spent your lives in together in your old age. This doesn't have to mean marriage. It could mean saving for it, other investments, whatever. And meanwhile, you need to start feathering your own nest because he could boot you out with nothing whenever he likes.

[leedy]

"It's a relationship where you're financially legally joined, leedy. Living together isn't the same."

Er, we co-own a house/giant mortgage, have a joint bank account, our life insurance will pay out to each other, and have wills in each other's favour. I think we're reasonably financially joined already.

[JizzyStradlin]

The house joins you. The wills could be unilaterally altered at any time, and from what you've said neither of you would have much comeback as you wouldn't meet the criteria for unmarried partners making a claim on the non-joint assets. Either of you could change your life insurance at any time too, although I'm not sure of the rules for making a claim in that scenario.

None of this means your relationship is worse or indeed better than a married one. It's just different. You're not financially joined in the same way as you would be if you were married. And that's ok. Maybe you don't want to be.

[GnomeDePlume]

OP you have wills which cover the 'unthinkable'. The problem is that it is very 'thinkable'. It is highly likely that one of you will die before the other.

The other very 'thinkable' thing is that if your DP were to have to go into a care home his estate would be used to pay for it. At present this would mean his estate being run down to about £13k. That is all that would be left to you.

That isnt about getting married but having your name on the deeds. At present his house is exactly that, his.

[suzannecaravaggio]

it doesnt really seem as if you are 'life partners' in any real sense when one of you owns a substantial property and the other has no comparable assets.

You'd want a life partner to be on an equal footing with you, wouldn't you?

If you truly loved and wanted the best for them you would combine all your joint assets and become an economic as well as a domestic unit

These days people who own property are the 'haves' and those who dont are the 'have nots' the OP is the poor relation...except she's not even related

[BathtimeFunkster]

it doesnt really seem as if you are 'life partners' in any real sense when one of you owns a substantial property and the other has no comparable assets.



What?

They are life partners in that they live together, have made wills together, love each other.

The fact that one of them got a big inheritance at a young age (possibly through a very sad and untimely death) is not the fault of either.

I think being able to live rent free in London means Lemon is doing very nicely out of this relationship (although a collateral benefit).

To ask that her partner give her half of his house just because they are in love is bizarre.

If there were children and she was going to be making herself financially vulnerable, that would be different.

But that is not their plan.

He would be crazy to give half of the money away that was left to him by someone who presumably wanted it to be used to make his life better.

Lemon is in a much better position to get herself some London property than someone who has to pay rent.

[NameChange30]

"We're certainly the only ones of our friends who isn't being slowly roasted on the coals of the London housing market."

Well. He's not being slowly roasted and never will be. Currently you're immune to the roasting because he allows you to be immune. If he dies or dumps you, you'll be in the fire.

I'm not arguing that he should give you half his house. But he is planning to give you the whole thing if he dies before you - except that it won't be the whole thing, because the tax man will take a chunk of it.

In your position* I'd be saving like mad and getting a buy to let property ASAP (outside London if necessary).

*Actually marriage has always been important to me so I don't think I'd be in your position, but that's beside the point!

[motherinferior]

If he truly loves you he will marry you and if you truly love yourself you wouldn't demand less. You may find that he may just walk away, and in that case, he wasn't the one for you (however hard that is to admit).


Oh dear god.

Can I just say that if Mr Inferior (who has frequently suggested committing a spot of matrimony) comes in tonight and dramatically declares that I must either marry him or Set Him Free For A Wife I would be really pissed off. And less inclined to consent than ever before.

[motherinferior]

That first bit should be in bold as a quote, obviously!

'If he truly loves you he will marry you and if you truly love yourself you wouldn't demand less. You may find that he may just walk away, and in that case, he wasn't the one for you (however hard that is to admit).'

[DinosaursRoar]

OP - genuine question - but if you were going to buy a BTL or a second investment property - why do you think it needs to be in London? If you can't afford to buy an investment property near where you live, then have you looked elsewhere? If you are going to have a property managed by a letting agency, it could be anywhere in the country. Commutable to London or a holiday location, should protect you from houseprice falls.

I would really think long term - you are 33, at this stage you should be able to think "what would happen if he dumped me at 55?" - as in, not enough time left in your working career to find a bank that'll let you take on a 25 year mortgage when you suddenly find yourself homeless. I would recommend a BTL somewhere, so at least you are building an asset of your own (that you can later sell/borrow against the equity if you need to house yourself in the South East).

Marriage is a legal contract that gives the financially poorer partner many securities - if you aren't going to get married, then you need to make arrangments for "worse case situation" - which is he dumps you, wants you out of the house quickly, when you are older and have no assets to fall back on. I would also discuss old age, your mid-30s is the best time to plan for that.

[Splandy]

I was in a similar situation to you, though not in London. I'd decided that I didn't want to ever get married, didn't see the point other than for financial reasons and hated the thought that I'd end up having to pay money to stop myself being legally tied to somebody in the future. My partner felt the same. However, I already had a child from a previous relationship and wanted more, as did my partner. I gradually changed my mind about marriage, though I'm not sure why. My partner also changed his mind, but pretended that he hadn't, so his proposal really surprised me!

My husband was also recently left an inheritance. My mother in law bought a house for us to rent from her before we were married. We found out that she was terminally ill and he would be left enough money to own the house outright. His mother was insistent that he put it into both our names, as she wanted me to have it should something happen to him. I discussed this with him and he agreed that the house should also be put into my name, so that I wasn't disadvantaged. This is now irrelevant as we married anyway. I felt that I needed to protect my future. Even if we hadn't had more children, I didn't want to be in a position 20 or 30 years down the line where he could decide he didn't want to be with me anymore and I wouldn't be able to get a mortgage because of my age. I suppose the issue of having children made this a little different, though.