"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.

Winched is right. If women stopped playing the victim and started owning the situation I wonder what would happen then....

Moonstone 1234 what does "owning the situation" mean? and what does "playing the victim" mean;

Deciding what is right for you? This is your life and you need to own what you choose to do. Don’t make poor decisions for years on end.

Please seek legal advice to clarify your rights regarding your home and parental responsibilities before you do anything.

This link will help:
www.teeslaw.com/insights/legal-rights-unmarried-couples/

Good luck!

MOONSTONE 1234 Life is full of mistakes, you know nothing of the reasoning behind any of the OPs decisions. If she's made poor decisions she's paying a high price now isn't she. Maybe look at your own life and wonder why you write deeply unhelpful comments to a stranger at a low ebb who has sought help.

@wewereliars

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.

This is so helpful to clarify my understanding, thank you for taking the time to explain.

I can see why people would find Land and Trust law deadly dull, but then I spend my life reading and arse deep in Tax Law, so maybe I'm one of the weirdos who finds this interesting

So, in the Ops case as she is not married and/or is not a joint tenant/tenant in common on the title deeds, her partner is the legal owner of the home.

So unless the OP has lot of evidence and a lot of money, her recourse for a share in the property is essentially nil.
All she can really hope for is child maintenance.

I hope I'm not coming across as kicking the OP when she is down.

I just find find fact, rather than opinion, more useful in these situations.

We can all wish for the law to be fairer or different, but this doesn't help the OP or other women.

@winched

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.

This is true too. The guy in this situation is a shit too, but op also didn't have to spend 15k on a house that isn't hers legally. I mean would you spend 15k on a house you rent? I'd hope not. She may as well have just flushed it down the toilet for all the good it's done her.

She had that moment where she held the cards. I'd have said to him 'sure you can have the money, but I want my name on the title of the house with 50% ownership'. Nothing less would have made me hand over that money.

Best she might get now is her 15k back, if she can prove she gave it. But it could also be treated as a gift, so she's fucked then.

When the only framework and context women have to make decisions within is a patriarchal structure designed by men to benefit men, then they will never win. The system is rigged against mothers in particular.

There shouldn’t be anything ‘stupid’ or ‘naive’ about deciding to have a family with a man you love, to chip in on the cost of your property together, to divide and conquer the labour of childcare and the labour of paid work in order to make things work best for your family.

It’s not the ‘stupidity’ or ‘naivety’ of women to blame for them getting shafted when it all goes wrong. It’s that men shafting them who are enabled to be complete cunts by a legal system that penalises the most vulnerable person in a partnership for being vulnerable.

Why is that do you think? Because more often than not the man has the lion’s share or all of the house, on account of the fact that he probably has the better-paid career, on account of the fact that he has never had to to childcare or take a day off to cover a sick day, or organise ballet and football club admin, etc; and also just because he’s a man.

Meanwhile, if the woman works, she’s almost certainly doing twice as much work both in and out of the home, for half the consideration. Because she almost certainly earns less than him she is the one who has to take time off for sick days, etc. His higher paying job trumps all.

If he turns out to be a cheating abusive cunt, he’ll leave her with the majority of solo parenting responsibilities to juggle with a full time job, along with a pittance of CMS.

If they’re married, maybe she’ll get half of whatever equity is left after the house is sold. (If there even is any equity.)

Or if she doesn’t work, he’ll leave her doing the majority of solo parenting responsibilities and reliant on benefits plus a pittance of CMS.

It’s lose/lose for women.

And all I see on here is women judging other women for making choices that, no matter what, leave them stranded between a rock and a hard place if the man turns out to be a wrong’un.

When the common denominators in these worst case scenario situations are the wrong’uns and the system that never properly holds them to account.

That the law can regard a woman who has spent her prime earning potential years looking after a man’s children and contributing to the upkeep of his house as no more legally significant than a random stranger, is disgusting misogyny.

Her legal significance is totally contingent on the legal status of her relationship to him. Never mind she’s a person in her own right and her contribution has been the same, marriage or no marriage.

Hi Minou 123, you are correct. I try to post an explainer of this area of law where I can because a lot of women seem in dire need of it.

The OP is not legal owner, and as she is not married there is no statute that will override that to give her a share , eg Family law provision. Nothing in what she's said suggests a beneficial interest could be established. People without legal training struggle I think with the reality that any legal remedy depends on a law that you can use to achieve it. So you need a statute ie law passed by parliament, or case law, which is created by judge's decisons which is where equity comes from. No law no remedy in effect.There is no generic anti bastard law sadly, because there's no way it could work.

@RUOKHon

RU going for the record for how much sexist claptrap you can fit into the space of one post?

"The man probably had the better paying career"... "He never had to do childcare"... "She's almost certainly doing twice the work"... "she almost certainly earns less than him"

It's not the 1950s for god's sake! And even my Nana (born in 1920) worked throughout her life!

Why are you trying to argue that in the 2020s we create brand NEW laws to cover what can only be described as "1950s situations without the 1950s marriage which then go wrong", when there is already legal protection there in the form of marriage?

And all I see on here is women judging other women for making choices that, no matter what, leave them stranded between a rock and a hard place if the man turns out to be a wrong’un.

If I'm coming across as judging other women then I'm really sorry and that's not my intention at all. I'd rather ALL women were protected and had complete financial security. If a woman wants to give up work and stay home (and the family has the income to support that) then it's great that she can, but I do think it's naive to make this choice without being married.

I've made a bunch of naive choices in my life, truly. Having a baby with a shit of a man at 17 years old, that was a naive choice. But we can't just create new laws to accommodate and make up for people's naive choices. Doubly so when there is already something in place to protect people who want to make the exact choice you are talking about - marriage. Triply so when there is a whole system in place to help people who have made naive choices - benefits (which of course supports people for many other reasons inc circumstances beyond their control). So even if the person did make the naive choice, they're not going to end up on the streets or starve.

Having brand new laws about unmarried partner's rights to the other partner's assets could shaft just as many women as you claim they would protect - myself included. I don't want to share my assets with any man, and currently that is my right to do so because I'm not married. What you are proposing is forcing other women to have to share their assets, all because some women want to give up work and they don't want to get married before they do it. Why does there choice to not be married trump my choice to not be involved in an informal marriage by proxy?

I am happy that it's 2020 and I can earn my own money and have my own assets and I don't need to be married to do X Y and Z. I don't want news laws in place to prop up the same "misogynistic structures" (which aren't really misogynistic, the SAHP could be either sex, or both sexes if 50/50). The old laws work just fine for people who want to have that set up.

Ok I am a man and I am telling you...he is a cunt. Find a good lawyer. I only read your first paragraph. He's a cunt. End of. Get rid. Claim your share.

What you are proposing is forcing other women to have to share their assets, all because some women want to give up work and they don't want to get married before they do it

I’m not proposing that. I’m proposing that if you are in a long term partnership with someone and you pay into a property solely in their name, then that should be legally recognised.

I would go further and argue that men who accept their partner’s money and use it to build up their equity in their property while offering nothing in consideration - or empty promises of marriage further down the line - are being fraudulent.

And I’m not describing a 1950s set up. I’m describing the very contemporary and rubbish options faced by working mothers still today I’m 2021. As the many, many threads on these boards will attest. Including this one.

Dear God, he sounds like a total pig.
I’d have to leave for the sake of my sanity.
Next - look at a Nursery and try to get a job.

So what about all the SAHPs who don't pay into a property directly? They wouldn't be protected under this new law?

OK, so then you count contributions in other ways, e.g. childcare and housework. But then you are handing shares of property up and down the country to cocklodgers who happen to have lived with their partners for the required number of years.

There are countless threads where OP says that her partner wants to be put on the deeds and she is told no way, that property is her inheritance for her kids, etc. Those men would be given that property anyway?

www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-home-rights-registration-hr1

Use this form to apply to register a notice protecting your rights to occupy the matrimonial or civil partnership home. As you've invested money in upgrading the house, fill this form in to register your rights. So if he tries to sell, you should be able to get some money back.

They aren't married, that's the whole point.

@Milkywaystars

www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-home-rights-registration-hr1

Use this form to apply to register a notice protecting your rights to occupy the matrimonial or civil partnership home. As you've invested money in upgrading the house, fill this form in to register your rights. So if he tries to sell, you should be able to get some money back.

The OP is neither married or in a civil partnership, so this isn't very useful.

It'll be rejected immediately.

@RUOKHon

Then they should have got married if they want to be legally recognised. The fact that one partner is not willing to get married puts an end to that option. At that point, women or men have the option to move on with another person who wants marriage.

The partner should not have offered the money for a property that they have no legal stake in, in the first place.

We all get whatever we put up with.
When someone shows you their true colours, believe them.
There are usually major red flags at the beginning of unhealthy relationships such as these.

As others have said, OP picked the wrong one, as he’s obviously a complete and utter shit. Not all men are like this.

@Userg1234

Ok I am a man and I am telling you...he is a cunt. Find a good lawyer. I only read your first paragraph. He's a cunt. End of. Get rid. Claim your share.

Oh look. A man!

Proudly boasting that you only read OP's first paragraph doesn't make you look clever. Maybe read the whole post, and maybe the whole thread too. If that's not beneath you...

I’m not proposing that. I’m proposing that if you are in a long term partnership with someone and you pay into a property solely in their name, then that should be legally recognised.

That's exactly what you are proposing. So because of these new laws (created to benefit people who for some unknown reason don't want to get married)... If I want to keep my property, my partner either cannot move in with me, OR he can move in but he can't contribute at all. Even if him living with me is saving him £1000 a month in rent and bills, and my bills are increasing?

He gets to live rent free in my house just so I can continue to own what is legally mine?

How exactly is this not forcing me to share my assets? He's either living rent free and getting a share that way, or he's contributing towards bills and getting a share when we split up down the line?

If I wanted this hypothetical "him" to be entitled to my property I would have just married him.

I would go further and argue that men who accept their partner’s money and use it to build up their equity in their property while offering nothing in consideration - or empty promises of marriage further down the line - are being fraudulent.

Now you want to do me (in the hypothetical situation above) for fraud all because I want to keep what is rightfully mine.

So it's either getting dragged to court for fraud OR subsidise a cocklodger. That's the two choices these laws give women who have existing assets and what to keep them.

Even if the cocklodger doesn't want to be a cocklodger and is happy to contribute because he's saving X hundreds of pounds a month on rent.

Or.... we could just give people who actually want to share assets fairly a way to do that which is recognised in law. For the fifteenth time: marriage.

RU isn’t thinking this through. What is a long term partner? 1 year, 5 years, what if they break up a number of times? Does the clock start again? And all because people don’t want to commit to a civil party or marriage.

It is well known that marriage gives both sides protection. If you choose not to do it that’s fine but you surely cannot expect another law to protect you. Also who gives £15k to someone for a house that doesn’t belong to them?

I don’t think RU likes men very much.

@RUOKHon

I think I get what you are trying to say, but you're still wrong. There is no need for any new laws, just for people to use a bit of common sense and think things through.

Would you pay 15k to add an extension and do upgrades on a house you are renting? No, you wouldn't. That is essentially what op has done. At that point, she could easily have turned around and said 'sure we can spend MY 15k on the house, as long as you put my name on the deeds now'. She didn't have to willingly hand it over while knowing full well she had no claim on the house. She blindingly trusted a man who was using her.

I didn't do that when my partner and I bought a house. We got gifted the deposit by his lovely parents (although we are paying them back, it had to be called a gift on the mortgage to avoid problems). The solicitor suggested that we ring-fence the money to my partners side so he would get more out of the sale of the house if we split up. I immediately said no to that, by stating that we are both paying his parents back as we share finances, so I certainly wasn't going to lose out on something I was also paying for. Of course, he may lose out at that point if we split and I refused to pay the rest back to his parents, but that's his gamble to take. Technically, he lost out there legally. I have also said no to children until we are married. It is possible to do these things, people choose not to. That's their choice, but I want the legal protection incase he decides to try and screw me over.

Doesn't have to be for men all the time. We do have the ability to use our brains and speak words, say no once in a while. Problem is people don't bother thinking it through, they just assume everything will be OK and they have nothing to worry about. And that's how you end up in situations like this. Your attitude towards it is basically saying that women should just be protected so they don't have to think things through and can just rely on getting the upper hand all the time, simply because they are women. We don't need it, we aren't stupid. We can actually do things on our own and not end up in bad situations.

You have legal protection already. It's called marriage. Doesn't cost a lot to get and is very easy to get. Just get it, saves all of this hassle. Too late for op probably but others out there should take note.

You do have rights. You have children! There is something called the schedule one children act and there is also something called Trusts of Land. Yes they can be expensive but worth exploring. Meet with a good solicitor, see where you stand.

I don’t think RU likes men very much

I don’t like patriarchy very much.

This site depresses me sometimes. There’s so much internalised misogyny on this thread.

OP ‘picked the wrong one’. It’s not her fault he’s a scumbag who can financially shaft her with impunity. Stop putting it on her like she should have known.

I was thinking more about this last night and wondered if maybe there could be a change in property law so that no one is able to make somewhere their permanent residence (put themselves on the electoral register at an address for eg) without some sort of formal legal agreement in place that they are either a lodger, a tenant, or co-owner.

Then, when you have the moving in convo with your partner, you’ll be forced to formalise it one way or the other and everyone understands what they’re signing up for.

I just think there ought to be a way to prevent men (or women - but it happens far less often) from persuading a woman to feather his nest and raise his children, with no security, all on the promise of never never. It’s so cruel and unfair.

“Yeah sure we’ll get married when the time’s right...”

Women fall for it all the time. But often the stark reality is that they see what they perceive as their one shot at happiness and to have a family and so they proceed on good faith.

It’s so emotive. And when emotions are involved, people don’t always make the best decisions. Amending the law in a way that I’ve suggested would be a safeguard against that. People don’t know what they’d not know. But this would force people to find out and confront how they want to formalise the arrangement.
.