Am I being tight or is he?

[Flymeaway4]

My fiancé and I are expecting our first child. We live in my fiancé’s house and I pay him rent of £300/month.

He also rents out 2 rooms of the house to a friend for £515, but because the baby is coming we’ve decided it’s best for him to move out. So, my question is about what my rent should be now.

I suggested he work out the cost of his mortgage and all bills and split it down the middle, which would come to £390. He thinks it should be more......

Together we have purchased a derelict farmhouse, which we intend to refurbish into our forever home - we paid in cash and the refurb should start in about 6-9 months. We’re both fairly well off, earn about the same salary, but he has other houses that he rents out, so he has more cash savings than me. When we purchased the farmhouse, he put in a larger proportion of cash than I did (I’ve so far provided just over 25%) and the intention is that it’ll even out when I pay off the mortgage that we’ll need for the refurb.

I’ll add here that I was a first time buyer and had he been as well we’d have had no stamp duty to pay. But because he owns more than 1 house it put it up to just over £8k. To keep the peace I just paid half.

Since then, he has managed to save all the cash he needs to provide towards the refurb, c. £100k. But he is saying, instead of keeping it as cash and earning nothing from it, he could use it to pay off the mortgage on one of his rental houses now. If he doesn’t do this, we can use the cash for the refurb first, then I could delay getting the refurb mortgage that I need, thereby saving me money (it’s more expensive than a normal mortgage). It would be delayed by about 4 months, but this would mean I can get one with a 1yr term instead of 2 yrs, before remortgaging. So, to compensate for him not paying off his rental property mortgage now, he thinks I should pay half of it as additional rent (an extra £160/month). But, I argued that if he were to pay off his rental mortgage now, then he would also need an expensive refurb mortgage too, so keeping the cash is saving him money as well, not just me.

As an aside, I am not allowed to do my regular job whilst pregnant (not corona related, it’s just how it is) and am working from home, but my take home pay is reduced by about £500/month. So I’m also losing about £4K in total each time I’m pregnant with our child.

Complicated I know, which is why I can’t tell who is being tight/unreasonable.

EarPhones I think anyone would baulk at ‘rent’ but it would be fair for you to propose that he pays 50% of outgoings such as council tax, insurance and utilities and food and agree to review the situation should the relationship change. If you need more to pay the mortgage without a lodger to help then have an open conversation about how this can be managed. But I think you are right to avoid him ‘contributing to the mortgage’ unless you are planning to make a life together. He’ll be saving a packet by living with you and you’ll learn a lot about him from how he uses that opportunity.

@EarPhones

Love it when they come late to a mortgage and assume it entitles them to half the house.

If you were renting he would have to pay towards it. So what's the difference.

God forbid you should benefit by him simply paying his way.

@Flymeaway4 you’ve taken quite a pasting here. Congratulations on your pregnancy!

I think it’s very important that you get married. If your relationship ended within the next few years you would have no right to live in your DP’s home or any of his other properties. The farmhouse can’t be lived in or sold easily because it’s a long term project. I know that you think your relationship is forever and hopefully it is, but the reality is that 50% of marriages end. It’s even higher for unmarried couples. Having a baby is like throwing a grenade into a romantic relationship. After a few months of sleepless nights, being covered in baby sick and talking about nappy rash your relationship will be very different to how it is now. If your DP asked you to leave because he meets someone else or doesn’t enjoy being a parent, you would only be entitled to child support, nothing else.

Your DP might step up and do 50-50 childcare so that you can work but the reality is that most men don’t after a split. Getting married is far more than a pretty dress and a fancy party. It protects the lower earner in the marriage. Nobody expects their relationship to break up but having a baby is the biggest test to even the strongest partnership. Be sensible, protect yourself and your child by getting married. Good luck!

I agree with what @timeisnotaline said. I hope he is also saving for your maternity leave, as you shouldn't be taking all the hit for that.

Something's occurred to me though. You keep saying that you should pay for your living costs, hence paying "rent", yet with the money from the lodger and you, he hasn't been paying for his share of the costs, you and the lodger have been paying that. After the lodger paid his share, the rest should have been split between you and partner (I think a pp worked out how much that would have been each, £133?).
Why doesn't he have to pay for his share?

Why doesn't he have to pay for his share?

Because he’s a freeloader who’s been very successful at making money at other people’s expense. Between the lodger and OP he’s not only lived without paying any living expenses, he’s made a profit from them. Add to that other people paying the mortgages on his property portfolio and he’s a complete parasite.

@flymeaway4

I was just wondering whether you have had a chance to chat with your partner about finances? Have you made any progress?

I think the point is that I would continue having lodgers if we weren't a couple so he just wants me to absorb all costs to provide a lifestyle for both of us because of equity. Which is understandable but an adult who is working who can afford must pay more than just 50% bills irrespective because they would either pay their landlord or their own mortgage to live somewhere. He is not my dependant and why should I subsidise him? I see rent money as them paying their way respectfully. I've made sacrifices to get here and want him to pay something. I don't need his money. It is troubling to be the person who has money and want others to show some responsibilty too. People just label you tight and mean.

But anyways going forward for OP, she should live in her main property with her fiance. Her money is tied up in another illiquid asset which is not her main residence. And he shouldn't ask her for more than 50% total costs for a property that is in his sole name. I don't ask my partner to contribute to my sole investments. But tbh for someone who has 5 or so properties and a baby on the way, whole discussion about additional £200 - £300 shows that he is extremely tight so yanbu.

I wouldn't pay him more than your fair share and focus on moving into the joint property ASAP.

@LadyFrumpington I’ll add condescending to that list too then I guess

@offandaway I guess I can see that way of thinking. But equally, keeping his investments separate doesn’t just keep his wealth away from me, it avoids me indirectly contributing toward those costs when when they should be his to bear. I also agree that life is complex enough and I would rather make it simpler if we can. And we do have a joint account, it’s just not our sole account. Plenty of couples arrange their finances this way nowadays, so that really is a different topic.

@SimonJT right? People’s lives must be incredibly dull if that’s how they get their entertainment!

@TheRosariojewels no, not yet. To be honest, between the insults, there have been a lot of valid points on this thread, many I hadn’t considered, and I’m still trying to collate them all, add up mortgage costs and figure out exactly how I feel we should move forward. I will this week though

@EarPhones 10% have said I’m the one being unreasonable, so I was actually about to ask today if there is anyone who can give a different perspective, so I’m glad you’ve posted. I agree with what you say and want to pay what is fair, which I guess is where your partner and I differ somewhat. Equally, I’m beginning to think that when we started talking seriously about finding a place together and saving for that, our dynamic changed and perhaps I shouldn’t have had £300 in expenses every month while he paid nothing (less than that in fact!). If that had been the case I’d have more in savings for our farmhouse now, but it never occurred to me at the time. I have been doing some adding up and wondered your opinion on something. I’ve now been paying £300/month ‘rent’ for 5yrs, that’s £18k in total that effectively has been used to pay off the mortgage and in that same time period he hasn’t had to use any of his money to pay it off. I don’t know exactly what his deposit/legal fees etc. were, but I believe it was in the region of £20-25k, so I could argue that we have now each contributed similar sums towards this house (especially if we add in my lost earnings during pregnancy and maternity). If this were your partners situation instead, would you feel any differently about putting his name on the deeds? I’m beginning to feel that, if we did this, it would also make me feel better about having contributed towards the £8k stamp duty on the farmhouse, that we only incurred because of his investment properties. And, as we’re not yet getting married, it would give the baby and I more financial security. Is this an unreasonable proposition?

It’s also been quite interesting to see people’s reactions to your, stereotypically, reversed situation. So far at least, there has been considerably less vitriol, name calling and rudeness! Maybe we haven’t come that far as a society after all?!

Not that you asked, but for what it’s worth, I’m sorry that you’re having similar (reversed?) issues in your relationship as well. I think he’s being a bit unreasonable to expect the entire burden to fall on you, especially as he’s aware the lodger meant it never did before. It means your costs increasing significantly and (assuming he was renting elsewhere beforehand) his costs reducing. As you have similar earnings too, your saving potential and monthly spending money will be far less than his. I would worry about losing respect for him as well (and, vice versa, my partner losing respect for me if I proposed this). @Darker makes a good suggestion about splitting the non-mortgage costs and then having a frank conversation about how you approach the cost of the mortgage and the fact it is unaffordable for you to bear alone. I’m not sure how you would feel about this, but if he doesn’t want to pay towards a mortgage that isn’t his and you don’t want to name him on the property, perhaps he could agree to putting the same sum you are paying on the mortgage into a joint savings account that you agree to use down the line to buy your next property together? Just an idea.

@KeepingPlain 1) you might not care, but I do. And it’s not like I don’t have any financial security, agreed it’s not as much as if we were married, but possibly my idea above may help that too. 2) we have a joint account for anything joint, this same plan works for a lot of other couples

@Motoko I’m now wondering the same. The ‘rent’ worked in the beginning, but our relationship and dynamic have evolved without the ‘rent’ evolving also, when perhaps it should have. Unfortunately it’s done now, but my proposal above, if we agree it’s reasonable, may counter this and would also give us more security in lieu of marriage.

@VinylDetective did your parents not teach you that it’s not nice to call people names?! You’re being rather rude! Is that how you feel about every landlord? Not everyone has the ability or even the desire to own a house, so landlords will always exist.

Nothing said verbally works. Only what is written in contract works. You have already entered a contract with him, with the farmhouse. Now I don't know how you did that contract, but I would hope you did it 50/50. If you split it based on how much you put in, you're screwed. You'll only get the 25% value that you put in, or whatever percentage you put in.

You're entitled to nothing on the house you live in, and yet you're paying the mortgage. That remains the same once the mortgage is paid off and while you're not married. You and a lodger have been paying his mortgage for months. You're entitled to nothing on his other houses.

You're way past the romantic stage now, but it's your choice to wait for a wedding. But honestly with how he is behaving, don't be surprised if he makes excuses for why marriage is pointless for you both. If he starts doing that, you're in serious trouble.

I fall somewhere in the middle here. I agree that a lot of posters have been ott but agree that your fiancé has been unfair to you by profiting off you which is fundamentally not what should have been happening. They can tell you how awful he is for this but essentially I think you know you need to talk to him and the outcome of that is really what is crucial. You don’t sound like the fool they think you are!

My dp and I have 1 joint account but otherwise split finances, we live in his house and I transfer him money for bills (about a third of all costs). I also have my own flat though which is self sustaining as it is rented out. The idea is that we are both better off by this as paying him this brings down each of our living costs by about a third.

Personally I wouldn’t ever want to have fully shared finances with a partner either although I imagine we will share more costs moving forward. Some think it’s not romantic and holding back, I actually think that it means that whilst I could choose to leave at any point I don’t I’m never forced into anything, I want him to know every day that I’m here because I damn well want to be!

Is that how you feel about every landlord? Not everyone has the ability or even the desire to own a house, so landlords will always exist

It’s not how I feel about every landlord. I can’t believe you’re so laid back about you and the lodger having not only relieved your OH of any living costs for five years, but also handing him a profit. His being a freeloading parasite is a simple statement of fact, not name calling. I wouldn’t be so happy about subsidising him.

@KeepingPlain bought as joint tenants, not tenants in common. I don’t see why I should be entitled to any of his other houses, the baby yes, but not me.

Thanks @Trisolaris, I do know that, which is why I’m getting prepared for it. I think we need to do something similar and figure out a way to make it work fairly for us both together going forward. A very good way to put it! It also means that if anything awful did happen (illnesses, job related, deaths) we each know we can take care of ourselves and our families, which is a weight off both our minds.

@VinylDetective he is not a freeloading parasite and that is name calling

Hi Fly. I do respect the fact you have taken the time to respond thoughtfully to almost every post on here.

I think, in regard to the scenario EarPhones is in, this is quite different to yours to be fair, for the following reasons -

1. They are two unmarried adults
2. Both earn roughly the same
3. No imminent plans to get married, by the sound of it
4. He is not pregnant!
5. EarPhones wants a contribution from him - not for him to pay the entire rent because she incurred other costs previously
6. His earning potential is not going to be impacted by maternity leave etc etc

In a situation where two unmarried adults are living together with no children and both earn roughly the same, then yes, they need to come to an arrangement, obviously.

But in your case, you’re about to have a baby and you’re getting married anyway. Whether you view your money as yours or not and vice versa, legally, it will all be joint assets soon enough when you’re married. You could have separate accounts yes, but I think the loser here will inevitably be you.

I don’t know how many children you’re planning to have but I really don’t know many women who have husbands who really do 50/50 for the baby. In the early months, if you’re BF, what can they do really? The baby will want you. My DH was pretty good, but he couldn’t anticipate the baby’s needs the way I did. It’s just not the same. He didn’t wake with the baby instinctively. He didn’t start leaking milk as the baby woke up (sorry tmi). It’s different.

To be fair, from what you’ve said, he doesn’t sound like the kind of man willing to reduce his working hours without making sure you are financially compensating him in some way for doing so.

My worry is that this kind of man will see anything he buys / does for the baby, or any shift to his earning potential as a result of parenthood, as a favour to you. Can you see what I mean here?

What if you go on and have more children? What if you change your mind and want to go part-time at work? Would you be happy if he is (as usually happens) climbing his career ladder with no impact whatsoever; keeping “his” savings separate to family money and expecting you to live off whatever your part-time income and whatever you’ve saved because this is “your decision” and “your money” etc etc. Because this is how things tend to pan out with a man of this mentality. They think they can have the family and carry on as if single and the woman should just be delighted she has a roof over her head and fund herself for anything else because she’s “independent” isn’t she? Please don’t enable this and be very careful about what you could well be sleepwalking into here..

OP, glad my post helped to give some perspective. I haven't made my own mind yet about it and there are so many variables different to yours. This is my main house that I've put a lot of money into. And we don't have a baby on the way. I'm worried about losing it if things don't work out. I don't know how much equity your fiance has, I've paid almost 60% down and no amount of my partner's basic rent/contribution is worth me getting into a legal battle over it. I don't want to land in a position to buy him out from my own home.

But you are going to having a baby. Its a total game changer. This is not the time to negotiate rent. May be prioritise getting married and moving into the joint home. What you suggested seems absolutely fine to me for now but not necessarily continue if you take a hit on earnings for maternity leave. He is unreasonable.

Ah good that's fine then.

You would be entitled to the other houses if you were married, and if you then split up, you can at least guarantee half to your child.

Right now if you split up, you have to hope that he will leave assets to your baby. But he could find someone else to marry, have children with them, and leave the assets to them only. Or his wife could inherit and your baby gets nothing at all.

You can't guarantee the future is all I'm saying, and plenty of women have thought their partners would provide forever and they didn't. Judging from this guys attitude, I think you'd be lucky to get money via csa from him. Hopefully I'm wrong, and hopefully you don't split up anyway and have a happy life together, but nothing is guaranteed.

I think you’re on the right path op, and how he reacts to your discussion is critical. It’s pretty concerning to be honest that he was happy with you paying to live with him and him profiting, so see what he thinks when you throw that into the contributions pile.

Wow, I really couldn't be in a relationship with someone like this. Some call it careful with money, but I call selfish. I wouldn't have bought a house and everything else. It sounds complicated and unpleasant. If you intend to be together long term, why does it matter whose money it is?

@offandaway I guess there are some fundamental differences, but it was still good to hear another side. I do hope to breastfeed, although I know it can’t always happen, so I know I’ll be doing the lions share initially (so he can definitely do the cooking and the washing up then!), but I know he is keen to take 6 months shared parental leave too, which I like to think will help him bond better with the baby, it’ll just depend on my job really and if I can make a home role work. He won’t take it til the baby is 6 months though, when he/she will be less reliant solely on me. He really is not that kind of man, he feels this baby is as much his as mine. I wouldn’t be happy with those things you mention, which is why I want to have a more in depth conversation with him now. And he’s not really the career ladder climbing type, I think he could have been further up now if he’d wanted to be, but the income from his houses has meant he can stay in the job he loves instead of becoming more management/office based.

@EarPhones I’m not sure his equity, but it’s definitely not 60%! Does Your partner have any savings to contribute and increase the equity further still? I’ll admit I’m not quite sure how it works and you’d need to speak to a solicitor, but if he does, then you could approach owning it together but as tenants in common. I believe you can each own a percentage then.

@KeepingPlain all things to consider, I will bring up a will as well though

@Flymeaway4 I’ve been in a very similar position to you and I also called it rent! It’s just a word to me and I understand that is why you are saying the same thing.

My now husband has a large income and now onto another property to buy and rent out. He has very successful company, and houses he rents out and as I’m a teacher on about 40k he gets a much bigger income.
I split everything 50/50 at first but I also have my own children and hated the thought of him paying for everything. As when we got together his business was lucky if it took in £2k a week... now we are looking at over £250k a week and his rental properties as well.
I was still giving 50% to everything and slowly finding it harder to manage financially.
So I left and went back to my house as it lowered my outgoings.

It defo caused an underlying annoyance that he couldn’t see I was putting in a larger proportion of my income into and I didn’t mind struggling at the start as we both were.
We went to counselling as I was ready to get divorced (many other things too but it was exacerbated by this underlying issue)
He did eventually see that if I’m putting in 50%of my salary to house and expenses etc
I still have to pay everything else I had to pay out of the rest.
Whereas his portion was a fraction of his income. He used to say that I could buy what I wanted I just had to ask! But I hated that
So we worked our seperate outgoings - away from house and family etc
Then worked out the percentage of salaries left and split all family and house expenses to a proportional Percentage. That way I still feel I’m contributing properly but is within my range.

Do you think that would work for you? It’s been a real godsend. As it’s quite hard when one income is massively different and then as your income changes due to baby etc the % can change?

@Biscuitmonster2318 really interesting to read your experiences. I think what I’ve taken away from your story is that I really don’t want money to cause any annoyance or resentment in our relationship, especially given that we have it! Although we’re not super rich, both separately and together we are more than comfortable and surely the alternative would/should cause us more angst and anxiety?! I’ll admit your comment about buying what you wanted, you just had to ask really grated on me, like you’re a child asking for pocket money! I can see why you hated it too!

I like to think something along those lines can work for us, especially given that my salary could well be significantly impacted in the short term, but in 5yrs we’ll be on an equal footing and then gradually reverse, so longer term it’ll even out. I’d never want to be in a position where I can afford a significantly better lifestyle than him, it wouldn’t be fair on either of us. I like to think when I do point this out to him, he’ll agree

How are you going to keep paying half on mat leave?
You need a chat about family money v your own money and how it'll work going forward.