Moral Dilemma

[freerunner75]

My partner and I have been together 12 years. Both married previously, my marriage ended horrifically, my husband blew a tonne of my savings and left me in £25k debt. My partners marriage was similar, his ex left with an extremely large settlement.

We moved in together to a rented place with a view to buying something together. His marital home was sold to settle the divorce agreement, but he had one other property in his name at the time which he kept and rented out. The house we now live in - was bought at an extremely low rate from family. I had no say in this and was not given the option to be a part of it as he classes it as his 'inheritance' and is protective over the equity given what happened with his divorce. I pay half towards the bills and we have both designed and improved the house since we have been here - i have paid for only soft furnishings and a few bits of furniture as I earn a lot less than him and most of my money goes towards the bills and my kids. The house we live in has tripled in value since we have been here and made improvements.

So, we are not married, no mortgage together, no life insurance for each other, nothing. Together 12 years.

The whole lack of financial security is a big issue to me and has caused us endless arguments over the years. But he won't budge. Recently we had a huge bust up and I was looking into my options but they are few given my current situation and budget limitations.

Am willing to take a bashing on this - however am I being unreasonable to request for him to set aside some money for me in case our relationship does break down irretrievably so that I have a safety net? I was thinking perhaps £1000 per year for every year we have lived together - signed and agreed by both and by a solicitor so we both know where we stand?

I am currently earning more than I have for a while and am starting to be able to save again - but my biggest concern is that if we do finish.. i am out on the streets with nothing to my name despite contributing for years... yet he is sitting pretty. I know it sounds bloody awful, but it would take a lot of stress off me and our relationship and I don't think I am being unreasonable.

But I am expecting to be told that I am..... thoughts please.

@Alleycat1

What she is paying is not the point. The point is she went into this relationship with the promise of marriage and equity in a jointly owned home. Her partner has reneged on that and she will be left high and dry if the relationship breaks down. If she had been married to him would you expect her to walk away with nothing after 12 years? Would the 'build together' not count if she had been a married SAHM for example as VanGoghsdog has posted?

I don't understand your point.

She isn't married so comparing her situation to what it would be if she was married is pointless. She knows she's not married (or in a CP) so she has the choice how she manages her finances given that situation.

As for the "promise" - we've all had those aspirational discussions that have not ended up happening in the way we expected. I bet his story would not be that he had promised marriage and equity in a joint home (which he actually sees as his inheritance, not a home they bought and funded together).

And she's not a SAHM, firstly she works, secondly the kids are grown up now, thirdly they are not his kids so would not be taken into account if they were married and split.

The point is she went into this relationship with the promise of marriage and equity in a jointly owned home. Her partner has reneged on that and she will be left high and dry if the relationship breaks down.

My mum used to say promises are like pie crust - made to be broken. Of course her partner reneged on that, he never had any intention of marrying her or sharing his money. Why would he when it was made so easy for him not to?

I can totally understand why he wouldn’t want to share his assets and wants to protect them for himself and his children.

I also think it’s surprising OP doesn’t have a similar attitude and hasn’t put more into saving for assets rather than buying certain luxuries and getting the kids a car each which she funds the insurance etc for.

But the whole situation regarding the DP sacking her son and his heavy drinking is, to me, a huge reason why should should be pleased she isn’t legally tied to this man in any way.

He got really burnt by his first wife and won't marry you or make you financially secure as that would be detrimental to him. I understand his feeling this way, but it's mean to lead you on with false hope.
It's too late now, but you should have been squirreling away savings over the past 12 years and given yourself a net.
Do you still want to be with him? You do have everything you need but without the comfort of security.

I'd love to be able to pay £200 a month for my bills. And pay no rent

Wouldn't we all - and no doubt this, at least in part, is what's kept OP there

But it's not working for her any more; he's given a lot financially and clearly doesn't intend to put himself in a position of having to pay any more, and frankly I don't blame him when the DCs aren't even his
It's not much use saying "If we were married ..." 12 years down the line; they're not married, almost certainly won't be, and further pressure about "12,000" (what's that all about anyway?) might just push him into a decision OP may not like

As for the apprenticeship/sacking - yes, that was a disgrace if it all happened exactly as said. However I'd want to have been there before slating the DP, so I could be sure the DS didn't just want an easy ride

I have commented on this thread and have been following it with fascination largely born, I think, out of a complete inability to understand why someone would be entitled to assets in this instance. They do not share kids, the OP's info about her contribution and where her money goes, makes it clear that she has only spent money on things which she would have needed to if she were living on her own anyway. She appears to have suffered no disadvantage other than having chosen to work for OH for free (which I expect she regrets) and indeed she has been able to live a lifestyle which her income would not usually support (e.g. being able to buy and run a car for each of her children as well as for herself). His assets were not built up together, they were inherited assets and clearly left to him and not to both him and OP. If the genders were reversed would people really expect a woman to share with her male partner in this scenario? On what basis would that be reasonable? It actually really scares me to think that if I was in the OP's position, just by the very fact of living with someone, they would be entitled to take the assets I had build up before meeting them. What am I not understanding here? I am leaving aside the issue of the DPs drinking and firing of the son, not as I don't see the as worrying, just as I don't see them as relevant to the financial question.

@Blossomtoes

The point is she went into this relationship with the promise of marriage and equity in a jointly owned home. Her partner has reneged on that and she will be left high and dry if the relationship breaks down.

My mum used to say promises are like pie crust - made to be broken. Of course her partner reneged on that, he never had any intention of marrying her or sharing his money. Why would he when it was made so easy for him not to?

Regardless of what the man did/did not say or do, the OP is a grown woman who should have taken charge of her own financial and legal security all these years, not lingered about spending all her earnings buying consumables for all (including cars!) and hoping to be thrown a bone.

I honestly wonder if women collectively will ever figure this out.

@MiddleClassProblem

I can totally understand why he wouldn’t want to share his assets and wants to protect them for himself and his children.

I also think it’s surprising OP doesn’t have a similar attitude and hasn’t put more into saving for assets rather than buying certain luxuries and getting the kids a car each which she funds the insurance etc for.

But the whole situation regarding the DP sacking her son and his heavy drinking is, to me, a huge reason why should should be pleased she isn’t legally tied to this man in any way.

^ Absolutely this!

OP, he probably wants his children to inherit his house and so would I. Would you rather her inherited your property (if you had one) and then by laws of inheritance it went to HIS children or your children did?

Of course you feel that he has lied to you over many years and has not shown commitment but he is not going to change. I would personally say screw the pets (he can afford them, he can pay) and the third car. He can pay for visiting guests too if you want to save. You should have been able to save during all those years. If he drops dead you will end up paying for rent until you die and having a small, basic, state pension will not help. Pets and extra cars will be of no help then. I also would try to do everything to help my adult children and I admire you for that and I really can't understand people who just want them out as soon as they reach 16 but make some compromises as soon as their finances allow it. ALL 3 of you should take advantage of living rent free and save up as much as you can.

Also, it is easy for people to say that you should just walk away but isn't it sensible to stay as long as you can save but without any relationship/marriage expectations from him? Sit him down and say that you want nothing from him but would appreciate it if he could help you save up some more. Unless he is an irrational alcoholic in which case you should leave.

Op
Im totally gobsmacked reading this, You have spent all your money on supporting your adult children which of course is your choice, You live rent free in your partners house and think that he should give you at least 12k just because....
He would be totally bonkers to get married in these circumstances and if a women posted here, shed be told under no circumstances marry the man who lives beyond his means and feels his partner should support him.

@MiddleClassProblem

I do think your children are incredibly lucky to have a car each that you pay for, plus your own car. I don’t know many families like that particular on a low income, even with two working parents. Plenty of kids share the family car or if they are lucky share a car between them. Many pay for their own.

I do think having 3 cars (potentially 4 in the household) is a luxury and what I would assume to be a wealthy family from the outside.

And live rent free with their mum's boyfriend. But he's the bad guy.

All this focus is on him, him, him and legally what can I get and he should want to fund me even more etc etc instead of 'What can I do to start putting my own needs first like him?'

This guy's no fool, he's set it all up to where the OP won't have a claim in hell.

She still doesn't appear to see this and is clinging onto this idea he'll suddenly marry her so she can carry on funding her adult kids to have cars, live rent free, not contribute.

They're not on the same page.

but would appreciate it if he could help you save up some more

She and her 2 adult children are already living very cheaply in his house... what more should he do to help her financially?

Tbh, it sounds like he's a dick and she should leave him for other reasons (the drinking, not paying her for work, sacking the OP's child etc.), but it is not his fault that she has no savings. That's on her.

The kids are adults - they need to get jobs and pay their way or move out. Most people earning £20k per year cannot afford to fund a car and insurance for their two adult children. The OP wants to do it, fine, but that's her choice, not his.

Also - the idea that the OP would have been in a position to build joint assets with this man is a pipe dream. What money would she have put into a joint property? What would her contribution have been?

OP - please start looking after yourself first. Your kids can buy cars when they get jobs and save up. Your partner clearly doesn't want to commit in the way you thought he did, so sod him. Stop waiting for someone else to fix things for you (because it won't happen), get out there and take ownership of your life.

What I meant was if her partner still wants pets but the OP doesn't (I bet the OP does) he could pay for them because the OP needs to save, nothing much. Or anything else that is a luxury anjoyed by BOTH partners and not needed and so she doesn't want to contribute towards it. Either it is dropped by both sides or he pays if he still needs it. For example the cars are up to the OP and her children to pay.

It seems that the OP already pays all of hers and her children's expenses so the children could share more when their finances allow it and still everyone save up since they are paying no rent.

I don't think the OP does already pay all of her and her DCs expenses.... £600 per month doesn't sound a lot for rent/utilities/food for 3 adults (unless I've misunderstood the amount).

No, she doesn't pay rent because he doesn't want her to pay his mortgage, he didn't want to buy with her but she said that out of the remaining £900 she pays even more for food and toiletries. Depsite this she and her children seem to have a good deal so far and should try to save as much as possible.

I think the mumsnet word is fannylodger.

@chocorabbit

No, she doesn't pay rent because he doesn't want her to pay his mortgage, he didn't want to buy with her but she said that out of the remaining £900 she pays even more for food and toiletries. Depsite this she and her children seem to have a good deal so far and should try to save as much as possible.

Agreed, although I don't think she would ever have been able to buy with him. She had no deposit, and no spare money for mortgage payments, so what would her contribution have been?

The average monthly spend on utilities in the UK is £194.02. OP would have had to fund all of this if living alone with her DC. Average spend on food per person is £175 per month - this equates to £525 for 3 people. So assuming that OP would have received housing allowance to cover her full rent, she'd have spent c. £600-£700 a month on food and utilities if living alone. It sounds like he's paid for all holidays, and most furniture etc.

Ignoring the work she's done for him for free (but that appears to be her choice, unclear about the detail of this?) she hasn't been ripped off here. And if she didn't have spare money to save in this situation, then she would have had even less if she'd been on her own.

The amount his equity has gone up by while they've been together is utterly irrelevant. It was his inheritance, he has paid the mortgage, and he's paid the renovation costs.

I have every sympathy with the fact that the OP feels she's been cheated out of her dream of a shared future, but she has had 12 years to do something about it.

The average monthly spend on utilities in the UK is £194.02

Wow, as little as that? Our council tax alone is more than that.

I know - it did seem low to me too. But that's what Google said.

I’ve just had a look to see what it covers and it’s calculated as an average for each of these categories. Obviously there maybe people in a one bed flats, people who don’t watch tv, people with solar panels etc in these that sway things a little.

That figure comes from here and excludes council tax www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/blog/how-much-do-you-spend-on-your-household-bills#:~:text=The%20average%20monthly%20spend%20on,telecommunications%20making%20up%20the%20rest. It seems to be just power, water, comms and TV.

So if you add council tax, and assume it's paid one of the lowest bandings, with the 25% single adult discount, that would probably be an extra £60-100 per mth.

Whichever way you look at it, £600 plus the cost of some additional food and toiletries is not more than the OP would have had to pay to live on her own. If the OP hasn't been able to save, then she wouldn't have been able to afford to pay into a mortgage. The dream of a shared property together was nothing but a pipe dream from the start. Pie in the sky.

it is easy for people to say that you should just walk away but isn't it sensible to stay as long as you can save but without any relationship/marriage expectations from him?

This is okay in theory, but if OP starts pulling back there's every chance she'd be out; after all what would be in it for him then?

As for OP spending "her own money" on the DCs, this could be seen in the light of her only being able to afford it because she's being heavily subsidised ... were that not the case, the cars and all the rest may not have been possible

@Blossomtoes

The average monthly spend on utilities in the UK is £194.02

Wow, as little as that? Our council tax alone is more than that.

Council tax isn't a utility.

By utilities they will mean gas, electric, water and maybe broadband.

Mine is nothing like as high as that. It's only just over £100. Council tax is another £112