Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

What is reasonable and fair? To buy 'in' or not to buy 'in'?

129 replies

BlueAnchor · 26/05/2018 18:41

Really impartial advice needed hence the impartial bullet points below.

So...Two adults have lived together (not married) for the last 6 years.

  • Adult 1 - owns the house, following divorce, pays small mortgage & running costs of house. Equity in the house of £230,000. Has lived in the house for 15 years. Has 2 adult DC's, who lived in the house as children, now at uni.
  • Adult 2 - pays food costs and 'treats'; tv packages, holidays, trips out, weekends away. Has 4 adult DC's.

The house is being renovated.
*Adult 1 wants to remortgage in one name, to do the refurb.
*Adult 2 wants to pay for the refurb and be legally entitled to a share of the house (proportionate to contribution)

  • The value of the house will increase once refurb is complete.

*Adult 1 is concerned about security and independence; horrible divorce (a long time ago) not sure of jointly owning the house even in small proportions
*Adult 2 wants to feel the house is shared, with joint decisions taken. Adult 2 wants this to be a family house for all DC's and GC's.

  • Adult 1 is unsure of adult 2's DC's and their attitudes to money.

Adult 1 and 2 love each other very much and are very happy!

Wow! Happy to answer any questions in return for your thoughts on resolving this.

OP posts:
SevenStones · 26/05/2018 19:38

I think Adult 2 could find themselves not exactly in a mess, but heading that way, if they don't secure themselves a property investment of their own if Adult 1 is adamant that Adult 2 will not have any kind of ownership of the current property.

Ideally, both Adult 1 and 2 should have stuck with the plan to sell up and jointly buy a new property because the current situation - particularly with their being no marriage, leaves Adult 2 more vulnerable.

Yes, Adult 2 could buy a property in the future if things don't go well, but a similar property to the one Adult 2 could buy today is likely to be more expensive and Adult 2 older which may or may not affect the length of mortgage.

Adult 1 can be seen as being sensible in protecting the house, but Adult 2 also needs to be sensible here and not just continue to contribute to another person's household expenditure, particularly because there is no marriage.

Sugarpiehoneyeye · 26/05/2018 19:40

Adult 1, is watching his/her own back, which, under the previous circumstances is understandable. Adult 1, isn't yet ready to commit.
Adult 2, either walks, or understands Adult 1's thinking.
Being in love and happy, doesn't necessarily equal marriage.

Tawdrylocalbrouhaha · 26/05/2018 19:42

If I were Adult 1 I definitely would not be putting Adult 2's name on the mortgage. I also would not be wanting to remarry, however happy the relationship.

The house was property of the previous marriage, and has been paid for by Adult 1, and should in due course (if possible) be left to Adult 1's children.

I understand Adult 2's wish for security and I think they would be wise to invest either in another property or some other form of investment. I would also be slightly wondering why they have not done so at their age, but obviously that depends on the background.

LaGattaNera · 26/05/2018 19:44

Adult 1 keeps total security and all their outgoings are in relation to the house
Adult 2 has no security and all their outgoings are on food, nice TV packages, treats, trips and holidays.

If they split, Adult 1 keeps (refurbished) house and is no worse off and has benefited from a nice standard of living and holidays whereas Adult 2 has no home and merely memories of nice TV and nice holidays.

Adult 2 is carrying all the risk here. They are in love now but as Adult 1's divorce proves, things can change and people who were once in love split up.

SeriousSass · 26/05/2018 19:45

Hehe, I’m getting surer and surer that you are Adult 1 😋

theycallmebabydriver · 26/05/2018 19:46

I'm with adult 1. Unless they are getting married I think it wise to keep things separate.

I think adult 2 should buy a house as an investment and rent it out.

Original poster
BlueAnchor · 26/05/2018 19:51

If calculations are right if adult 2 contributed, adult 2 would own 8% of the house.

OP posts:
AHedgehogCanNeverBeBuggered · 26/05/2018 19:54

If i were adult 1 there's no way I'd give another person a stake in my home, no matter how small. Adult 2 has had 6 years rent-free, he or she should have saved this money to spend on an asset of his/her own rather than spend it on swanky holidays and eating out. From now on Adult 2 needs to save the money saved by not paying rent in order to provide for old age or in case of a split.

Troels · 26/05/2018 20:06

Adult 2 should buy another house and rent it out, giving themselves some security. I can understand why Adult 1 doesn't want adult 2 to contribute and have a share.

mydietstartsmonday · 26/05/2018 20:13

Adult 1 should keep what is hers and do it in her own nMe. Adult 2 should be a separate investment house.
Each can leave their bit to their dc.

Angryosaurus · 26/05/2018 20:16

Such a tricky and common situation.

If I was adult 1 I would keep the house as mine, and it would be passed down to my kids but not adult 2 when I died. I would not marry adult 2.

If however I was adult 2, I wouldn't be happy contributing to a household without any stake in it. I would be considering what would happen if we split up/adult 1 died. BTL seems a bit risky

I think a fair solution would be for adult 1 to keep the house, but pay all the maintenance and mortgage costs. Both adults then pay equally for food, energy and treats. Adult 2 should then have more income left every month to invest in a range of products to secure their future. Obviously this would not be inherited by adult 1 if adult 2 dies first, to reflect the fact adult 2 wouldn't inherit the house.

I'd be very interested what the legal advice would be in this situation though!

Leyani · 26/05/2018 20:18

I'm with those who say the risk in this relationship isn't balaced properly, if Adult 2 pays all the ongoing costs that don't translate into assets.

Either Adult 2 buys into the house, or all ongoing costs, hols etc are shared 50/50 and Adult 2 can invest in an own mortgage. Rent free is a red herring - they were willing to give up their own home to move in so that adult could keep their house. They aren't a lodger but a partner, so if the house is never to be shared they should stop contributing to its upkeep by paying food and remaining bills.

expatinscotland · 26/05/2018 20:23

'Adult 2 has no security and all their outgoings are on food, nice TV packages, treats, trips and holidays.

If they split, Adult 1 keeps (refurbished) house and is no worse off and has benefited from a nice standard of living and holidays whereas Adult 2 has no home and merely memories of nice TV and nice holidays.

Adult 2 is carrying all the risk here. They are in love now but as Adult 1's divorce proves, things can change and people who were once in love split up.'

Adult 2 is living rent free and has a cash settlement from a divorce and a good job. If Adult 1 has remortgaged in his/her own name to finance the refurb then he/she is assuming all that risk.

Jux · 26/05/2018 20:27

If the share Adult 2 were to have in the house is proportionate to what they put in, then that's not so bad, is it? It's less than 50% presumably, is it more like 20%?

MrsHathaway · 26/05/2018 20:34

8% for at least 100k? So the house should be worth over a million?

LAWYERS.

expatinscotland · 26/05/2018 20:40

I think Adult 1 should be covering the cost of his/her own upkeep, food and holidays and treats, though. That's unfair as he/she would have those expenses if single. Then Adult 2 would have more to invest.

Original poster
BlueAnchor · 26/05/2018 21:45

Just to clarify:
*Adult 2 wants to invest £50,000 which would be more like 12%

  • Adult 1 has provided all furniture and house contents and is willing to replace all of these as the refurb completes.
  • Adult 1 didn't need adult 2 to come and live in the house, adult 1 is and always has been able to run and maintain the house without help. Adult 2 doesn't contribute to upkeep or bills. ( except for most food )
  • Adult 2 still has the lump sum from the sale of this adults former home ( the £50,000) offered to invest.

I'm not sure there is a clear way through the decision, both adults are feeling hurt by this!

OP posts:
Maelstrop · 26/05/2018 21:53

Adult 1 should remain sole person who owns/is on deeds. Adult 2 should buy their own house as a long term investment/fall back.

expatinscotland · 26/05/2018 21:55
  • Adult 2 still has the lump sum from the sale of this adults former home ( the £50,000) offered to invest.

Adult 2 would be very foolish to invest that in the house. What percentage does he/she want?

Nope. If I were Adult 1 I wouldn't budge on this and if it meant the end of the relationship, then I'd be willing to sacrifice it because my financial security is paramount to me and should be, especially as both of them are not so young.

Adult 2 needs to see a financial adviser.

AllMYSmellySocks · 26/05/2018 21:59

Perhaps adult 2 could invest in a different property? Depending on the DC's financial situation he/she could use the lump sum to help them buy>

boomboom12 · 26/05/2018 22:07

Keep it separate, adult 2 should buy their own property. It may not be a fantastic investment but it’s securtiy if things go wrong.

TwitterQueen1 · 26/05/2018 22:09

If I were Adult 1 there is no way I would put A2 on the deeds. I too had a very acrimonious divorce and there is no way I would lay myself open to potentially having to sell the family home if the relationship breaks down, or to commit to giving a % of it away. The equity and the house are A1's and A1's DCs - it's their future. A2 is not entitled to a share in this the way things stand.

If I were A2 I would buy a house and rent it, as Walking suggests above. I don't really understand why A2 feels entitled to insist on a share of the house. If you can't agree, the other option is to move to a jointly owned house.

worridmum · 26/05/2018 22:15

if i was A2 i would reduce my contrubtions to only 50% of none mortgage bills and i would stop treating / funding A1 life style and whittling away my money if that meant A1 had to pay the lion share of the bills as they should since they are getting the assist they should not complain.

Original poster
BlueAnchor · 26/05/2018 22:32

worridmum
Adult 1 pays all household bills apart from food and a much wanted (by adult 2) tv package, including council tax, mortgage, all services, maintenance of house and currently £100,000 for the renovation!

OP posts:
emmyrose2000 · 27/05/2018 01:42

I'm on Adult 1's side. If I was adult 1, the house would stay solely in my name, I'd make all the payments on it, and I'd leave it to my own children when I died.

Swipe left for the next trending thread