"Maybe you should be grateful I let you live here for free"

[DefinitelyDone]

A similar thread got me thinking about my situation with OH. After what he said to me the other day I was in no doubt that he was the one being unreasonable, and I think I’m ready to end things with him over it but some perspective would be good.

We were having a discussion/disagreement over getting our children a small pet, and then he said:

“Maybe you should be grateful that I let you live here for free”

This is long so TLDR: He said I ought to be grateful for living in his house for free. I’ve contributed £15k to ‘his house;’ despite that being most of my saving and me having a mostly low income. And have done 90% of the housework and childcare for 14 years. AIBU for thinking I shouldn’t be expected to pay him?

We aren't married but have been together for 14 years and have three children, 12, eight and three.
He bought our house a few years ago but we used to rent, the house is in his name only. I did contribute £10k towards an extension and have spent at least another 5K on things such as furniture and carpets Etc. I’ve also decorated 6 of the rooms alone if that counts for anything.

I have never paid him rent. We lived together for two years before having our first child and I never paid rent then either, though wasn’t working at the time. He’s never asked for money and I’ve always bought my own things/paid my own bills and never asked for money from him.

While being together my finances have ranged from having no income to receiving £40 CTC per month, up to receiving a higher amount of CTC when he went self employed, to me earning anywhere from £100 -£1000 per week over the past few years but this has now reduced back down again over the past few months and doesn’t look to be increasing again. I’m also very unlikely to be receiving CTC next year as his income has increased again.

My point is that my financial situation is changeable but other than the past few years I’ve had a pretty low income.

He always paid the rent before he bought the house, but there is no mortgage now, he pays for most of the food and household bills, but nothing that is just mine such as my phone bill Etc.

I pay for everything for the children and always have, even when I had hardly any money when our first was born, I bought all her clothes and baby things second hand.
I buy all of their clothes, their school uniforms, activities, pay for school trips and days out, every birthday and Christmas I have bought 90% of their gifts.
I do pretty much all of the housework and childcare. He is better with our three year old than he ever was with the other two and does tend to his evening (not middle of the night) awakenings which he never did with the others. Basically, he’s just being a father there, sort of, but this was pretty amazing when he started that as I was completely on my own with the very frequent evening and night awakenings with my first two.
He never, ever gets up early to help with the children. He never, ever lets me sleep in in the mornings. He rarely gets up for work before 10am and is usually home by 5pm, often earlier.
There was a period of about a month when our second was a baby and went through a period of wanting to sleep in when it was time to get up to get my first to nursery. After much nagging he started taking our first to nursery so I could sleep in a little and let the baby sleep in too but this didn’t last long and he hasn’t helped in the morning since. Eight years since.
He occasionally collects them from school but I do all the school related things- homework, spelling, reading Etc, I did all of the home learning, even during the first lock down when he had no work. I battled a very reluctant seven year old with a very demanding toddler while he hid in his ‘office’ playing games or whatever.
I have always done pretty much all of the housework, until our three year old was born I used to do his laundry too, now he sorts his own clothes out, I do pretty much all of the cooking, cleaning, tidying.

Things got very bad during lockdown and I pretty much stopped everything. He had no excuse of being
busy with work and witnessing how he watched me fall apart and didn’t step in to help really hit home how things were, so I did the minimal laundry and pretty much stopped cooking and cleaning. The rest of the day was home schooling. He started to occasionally wash towels and load/unload the dishwasher a few times. He’s even mopped the kitchen floor and cleaned a bathroom or two a couple of times. Amazing. I wish I wasn’t joking.

So bearing in mind all I do and have done, is it unreasonable of me to think that actually, I shouldn’t have to pay him a penny to live here? I shouldn’t be grateful for living here for free like it’s an amazing kindness from him, and that actually, he’s the unreasonable asshole here and should be grateful for everything I do. It’s really shown me how he feels towards me; I’m just a lodger that doesn’t contribute in any way.

I realise all this is grounds to LTB and after several similar threads and being told to, I think I’m finally ready to call it a day, but right now I want to focus on who’s being unreasonable here and if I’m deluded.

It does not sound like he’s the type of person to agree to marriage now, with the OP’s sole purpose to them divorce him ASAP just so the OP can get at least half of his assets!

I'd be trying it though. Pretend everything is fine and then in a few months suggest a registry office marriage with the kids and a couple of witnesses because you want the same name as him. Just trick the stingy bastard, who cares if he gets annoyed by it, it's not like he's treating her any better.

Trying to ‘trap’ someone else into financially supporting you for the rest of your life is the problem here.

Some couples want this, which is absolutely fine for them. Trying to force someone into this set up is the problem. Especially when the financially responsible person has had enough and decides to kick the other person to the curb.

Women - keep your money up, so you will never be in this situation.

Some people (including women) do not want to get married for a myriad of reasons.

Not all women are happy to give up their jobs/careers, independence, earning power, etc to become SAHP’s.

@ClarkeGriffin
‘I'd be trying it though. Pretend everything is fine and then in a few months suggest a registry office marriage with the kids and a couple of witnesses because you want the same name as him. Just trick the stingy bastard, who cares if he gets annoyed by it, it's not like he's treating her any better.’

😂
I agree, but I doubt he’d agree to it at this stage.

And to think there was recently another thread filled with SAHMs crowing about how much more wonderful their lives are that they've given up work to be unpaid help at home. When I think about what's in their future, I shudder. Men can't be relied on to do the right thing and that's the truth.

The law needs to change so that there is recognition of ‘common law’ partnerships IMO

It already did. It’s called a civil partnership.

@RUOKHon. That’s what a prenup is for.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

It’s not that prenups aren’t legal in the UK, it’s just that during the divorce settlement or whatever, the judge has final say on whether it’s valid, and as long as you’ve had it professionally drawn up and it can’t be seen as unfairly biased then you should be OK. UK judges will usually uphold a prenup where it’s been drawn up to protect property owned/future inheritance before the relationship or marriage began.

The law needs to change so that there is recognition of ‘common law’ partnerships IMO.

I really don’t want to ever get married. I stand to inherit quite a substantial amount from my side of the family and frankly I’ll be fucked if there’s even the slightest chance DP might bugger off with half of what’s mine and let some OW benefit from it.

I really don’t think that marriage or financial vulnerability should be the only two options for women who want a family.

@RUOKHon I'm confused by your post because on one hand you're saying you don't ever want to get married and you'd be fucked if your DP could bugger off with half of your inheritance, but you seem to want to recognise common law partnerships, so isn't that exactly what would happen?

Unless there was a formatting fail and the first part was actually another poster and the response was yours, in which case I absolutely agree with you

The law needs to change so that there is recognition of ‘common law’ partnerships IMO.

Ummm absolutely not. I've worked my arse off for what I've got and a man will take it from me (and my children) over my cold dead body.

I really don’t think that marriage or financial vulnerability should be the only two options for women who want a family.

To be fair though, it isn't the only two options. There must be hundreds of thousands of unmarried women who have a family and are not financially vulnerable.

It's very clear, get married or don't why should the law change? What's the barrier to marriage, nothing stops people getting married at all.

Marriage and civil partnerships are both available. Failure to avail yourself of either option before having children with someone is just mad if you're putting yourself at a disadvantage economically if you're planning to take time out to look after them.

@waitingforthenextseason

Marriage and civil partnerships are both available. Failure to avail yourself of either option before having children with someone is just mad if you're putting yourself at a disadvantage economically if you're planning to take time out to look after them.

It’s not obvious that OP has put herself out financially. She wasn’t earning for two years before having children.

[quote HadEnoughofOtherThreads]@ClarkeGriffin
‘I'd be trying it though. Pretend everything is fine and then in a few months suggest a registry office marriage with the kids and a couple of witnesses because you want the same name as him. Just trick the stingy bastard, who cares if he gets annoyed by it, it's not like he's treating her any better.’

😂
I agree, but I doubt he’d agree to it at this stage.[/quote]
Maybe not but worth a shot.

@wewereliars

Sputnikle Successfully arguing that there is a constructive Trust to establish a beneficial interest in the property is extemely unlikely for reasons set out above.

wewereliars I see a few posters have mentioned "beneficial interest" and "constructive trust", but im I right in thinking this area of the law is so complex that the chances of being successful is very low?

I've been reading some case law to see how it works and its a minefield.

The one closest to OP situation is Dobson vs Griffey. You can google the case to see the full judgement, but this is a summary to show how difficult these cases are:

The key points of the case:
• Jacqui Dobson and Matt Griffey were unmarried and no children
• they went house hunting and found a farm. Matt Griffey paid for the deposit of house and it was in his sole name. The mortgage was in his sole name.
• Jacqui Dobson said she gave £10k towards the house, but Matt Dobson said that didn't happen
• Jaqui Dobson worked very hard on the farm for 7 years, she did the majority of the work, setting it up as a successful farm, including decorating bedrooms etc. Matt agreed this was true.
• they had an argument and Matt told Jaqui to leave, police were called and she was forced out the property. She returned, with police 1 week later to collect her personal belongings
• They separated
• Matt sold the property and e-mailed Jaqui offering her half of the profits from the sale of the house. Jaqui didn't accept this offer. Matt withdrew the offer.
• Jaqui said her and Matt had a verbal agreement before they purchased the farm that they both had equal interest in the property. Matt said there was no agreement.

Jaqui took Matt to court for half the profits from the sale of the house, stating she had a beneficial interest through common intention constructive trust.

She lost.

The judge said that Jaqui had to prove, with evidence, that Matt had the intention to share the beneficial interest in the property, either before purchasing the property or during the relationship .
She did not have enough evidence.
Even the e-mail from Matt offering half the profits of the farm after they separated was not enough evidence to prove beneficial interest.

I think this just proves this area of law is so complex and no one should rely on this area of the law for financial security

Yes, I agree with the above, registry office wedding where you only need to pay for the licence and admin fee OR you leave him.

Plus any of what you gain would likely be swallowed up in legal costs and if you lose you are liable for his costs too. Not to mention the awful stress of going to court.

There really should be some public interest adult education on all this. Marriage, pensions, inheritance, employment rights etc. Few of us seem to know as much as we need to on any of it and the law doesn't always follow logic or common sense in my view.

I have had to work bloody hard to make sure I'm ok after divorce. It happened when the dcs were tiny and it's taken me over 10 years to sort out a career and restore my income to pre maternity levels so I'll be self sufficient once maintenance finishes.

It's never easy splitting but a man and circumstances like this makes things really unpleasant- I'm really sorry you're in this position, op.

I guess I mean updating the laws around equity in property ownership and also family law around CMS.

Just caught up properly with the thread. Minou123 illustrates exactly what I mean.

More legal significance should be given to ownership ‘in consideration’ and it should be easier to prove an interest. That seems to be the thing that fucks women over the most - spending 25 years raising his kids and looking after his house while he climbs the career ladder and then she’s left with nothing.

To say she’s not entitled to anything is true to the letter of the law, but I think the spirit is incredibly misogynistic.

I can’t believe half the posters on here. It’s not difficult to see how woman are fucked no matter what they do. Career women, kid in childcare 24/7 baaaad mother...SAHM, lazy bastard, baaad mother.

Society is set up by men for men. Op I have three DCs, my husband earns six figures and I was at home for years. I now earn £18000 in a job I love but my DH isn’t a twat and I’m married. Your OH is a total cunt.

YABU for being so naive, you've paid £15k toward a house that you're not even on the deeds/mortgage for! You handed over your life savings to a man you're not even married to. If you split, could he claim the £15k was a gift from you?

Yes, your boyfriend is an idiot (to put it lightly) but there's nothing you can do about him other than leave him. He's had an unpaid cleaner and nanny for years, stop that straight away, get a job to give you some security and financial independence.

There are plenty of women who don’t seem to get it. They are deluded or just plain naive and put themselves into these situations time and time again.

Women aren’t ‘fucked’. It’s up to us to manage our OWN lives - not want someone else to provide for us. Don’t have children and then give up work. Certainly don’t do it and not get married. It doesn’t need to be a huge wedding if you don’t believe in marriage - do it for the protection it gives you but fgs don’t live in someone else’s house, not work, have children, don’t get married and in xx years wonder stupidly where it all went wrong.

minou123 Land and Trust law can be complex, when I was doing my law degree most people were not interested in this area of law because it is deadly dull. This issue though is not complex. The position is that land law dictates property rights. Who is the legal owner is a cut and dried issue.
The complications arise in people's lives when the non owner, usually the woman, is not a legal owner but acts as if and believes that she is because they are a de facto family, fairness will dictate that because of her contribution and the fact there are shared children, if the relationship ends 1. Her partner will be fair and reasonable. 2 If he is not, the law will protect her because of the family situation. When the man acts like a selfish arse, won't give her a share and they are not married, property law will not help her.

She will need to look to family law, which will help if she is married, and if she is not her only reourse is to the Childen Act, which she can use for maintenance/ housing for her children only. She may indirectly benefit from that. The law of equity, which is where equitable trusts and so forth come in, was an attempt by courts/ judges to step in where people have acted to their detriment, spent substantial money on a property etc on the understanding / promise they will get a stake.

Because this can upset property law it, demands a lot of evidence and it is unusual, which in law means expensive, and such claims can only be issued in the High Court, where everything costs more.

Like libel laws, trusts and equity are effectively rich people's remedies.

Good lord OP. This situation is disgraceful. Your partner is a total shit-head. Why have you allowed this to continue so long? Please find the answer so that you will never allow something like this to happen to you again. Good luck in your new life OP, away from that disgusting person.

Time to start working ft ASAP and then look at how you can plan a future for yourself. You could be replaced tomorrow with a younger model who'll smilingly do his childcare and give him more children, it happens every day.

More legal significance should be given to ownership ‘in consideration’ and it should be easier to prove an interest. That seems to be the thing that fucks women over the most - spending 25 years raising his kids and looking after his house while he climbs the career ladder and then she’s left with nothing.

Yes because us poor womenfolk as a sex can't think for ourselves and need to be saved by the law for our own completely naive choices?

If we're being fucked over it's because in most cases (i.e all except where there are crimes being committed) we are actively choosing to fuck ourselves over.

How many men choose this?

And where does it end / begin? If I move into a man's house and get pregnant do I wake up the next morning owning half, or do I have to stick around for 25 years and prove in court how many pairs of his boxers I washed? Somewhere in the middle? 3 years? 3 years is a lot of time to significantly fuck a woman if she's quit her job. If I wake up owning half, does he get half of the property I rented out when I moved in or is that still mine? Same question in 3 years and in 25 years.

When does the boyfriend who moves into my home get his rights to half? (Because this would need to work both ways). Could he just move through multiple homes impregnating women and collecting property every time he passes go? Every three years he just pops off to the next woman who was being fucked by all those misogynistic laws but has now been saved.

And why only stop at property?

Why is the wife who spent 25 years raising his kids and looking after his house entitled to half his £100,000 ex-council flat but not half of his £600,000 business or the £250k he has in the bank from an inheritance?

It sounds like what this country needs is probably a contract where both parties decide that from X date, certain rules around assets will apply. That would solve all of these problems. We could call it something like.... "marriage" maybe? Then nobody would get fucked over and everyone would be aware of what they're entitled to get and lose. Now there is a thought.