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.

@freerunner75

Thank you all.

I do now have a better paid job and as the kids are more independent I am finally in a position to start putting some money away for me.

I do resent the fact that people have said I am living ‘rent free’ .. as I see it both people pay into a pot to enable us all to live under one roof regardless of what that money physically pays.

The house was bought at a small fraction of the market value.. hence his inheritance being the equity that it had straight away. With all the work that has been done since.. the value has trebled. I have had a lot of involvement and say in that work, even if I haven’t been able to physically pay for much of it myself.

I understand totally his protectiveness over his equity. But how is it fair that if we were married, and we divorced I could technically (if I wanted to) claim x amount of pounds and walk away, yet as we are not.. I can’t. Despite for the most part.. being in exactly the same relationship. That’s my point.

I get everyone’s opinions from both sides and I appreciate it, that’s why I posted here. Not to talk ‘bollox’ as someone suggested just to hear the answers I wanted.

I’m not a bad person, or a gold digger, or anything like that.

I just feel a little bit crap and frustrated.

Thanks all again!

Being married gives you some security up to a point Living together doesn't That's the difference. If you want the security that marriage brings then get married. Where would you draw the line with living together in terms of entitlement? A month? A year? Two years? Because you said yourself you've had involvement but not physically paid for it. So why are you entitled? If you'd been renting for the last 12 years you'd have been entitled to nothing. As it is you've not paid rent and you're not entitled to anything so as many posters have pointed out you should be financially better off

*I do now have a better paid job and as the kids are more independent I am finally in a position to start putting some money away for me.

I do resent the fact that people have said I am living ‘rent free’ .. as I see it both people pay into a pot to enable us all to live under one roof regardless of what that money physically pays*

The children have been high school aged since you moved in so no reason you couldn’t work more or change career.
There’s no mortgage or rent so you aren’t paying that however you try and dress it up. £500/£600 a month contribution for three adults won’t likely cover council tax, food, clothes and utilities much less anything else.
What happened to the money you saved from having no rent and claiming to be independent and able to cover the loving costs of three? You should have a great deal in savings after six years if that was the case.

But how is it fair that if we were married, and we divorced I could technically (if I wanted to) claim x amount of pounds and walk away, yet as we are not.. I can’t. Despite for the most part.. being in exactly the same relationship. That’s my point.

But you're not and he won't marry you. So it's a moot point. You made another mistake by moving in and enabling him so much by playing wifey without the legal contract.

You can claim nothing. He protected himself and his assets, as you should have done by never moving in with him unless you were married first or just continuing the relationship without living together.

All the rest is on you, the moving in, doing the lifework, paying the bills and not mortgage, getting involved in work on a property that wasn't yours, providing free labour with no contract to him, not saving any money when your bills were low, etc etc

Stop giving up your agency and start living your life on your own terms the way he's done all along, hopefully having learned the lesson of putting yourself first rather than the men in your life because it seems you have a pattern of allowing yourself to be taken advantage of, which will always lead to unhappiness.

I said you were talking bollocks because you are changing your figures. Your kids are older, maybe they contribute, maybe they don’t but they should be less expense there that when they were kids. You used to pay £600 a month, £100 more than your DP at the time so unless that has gone up in the last 2 years, given that you have a better income, you should be doing much better.

If you were renting, you would buy soft furnishings etc and there would be no financial gain just like if you owner the house. You also may have to be around when the landlord had organised for work to be done or a boiler fixed etc and no financial gain there. Some even have to take a day off for it.

I don’t think you are really viewing this accurately. I do think you have been talking bollocks with your number flitting.

What you should do is save money for a deposit, even if it’s jus enough for a flat to let out. Have it in your name and it can get you more income plus something to fall back on.

I don’t see any reason for him to pay you. Your issue was with your ex and that he didn’t help after you split. That’s the only bit that wasn’t fair on you.

Sorry I should add I agree you shouldn’t be working for him for free so I hope you have knocked that on the head as you don’t mention whether you are paid now or still unpaid. That bit is unfair.

I do resent the fact that people have said I am living ‘rent free’ .. as I see it both people pay into a pot to enable us all to live under one roof regardless of what that money physically pays

But you are living rent free. You are paying a proportion of the bills and food etc but you are not paying rent. If you were living somewhere else you would have to pay rent AND the bills.
Both of you are paying into a pot to pay bills.
DP is paying the mortgage as well.
You are not paying rent or a mortgage therefore you are living rent free.

The house was bought at a small fraction of the market value.. hence his inheritance being the equity that it had straight away. With all the work that has been done since.. the value has trebled. I have had a lot of involvement and say in that work, even if I haven’t been able to physically pay for much of it myself

This does not entitle you to any part of that house when you split. You could take your soft furnishings with you when you leave.

I understand totally his protectiveness over his equity. But how is it fair that if we were married, and we divorced I could technically (if I wanted to) claim x amount of pounds and walk away, yet as we are not.. I can’t. Despite for the most part.. being in exactly the same relationship. That’s my point

That's the way the cookie crumbles. You're not married so you're not entitled to anything.
You should have realized long ago the way this was going once DP changed the plan of buying a place together and made it very clear that he was buying a house which was going to remain his house and you were not going to be paying towards the deposit or mortgage. Therefore you must have thought at that point "Hey, that means I'll not be entitled to anything if we split and he's obviously planning a future financially independent of me so maybe I should make plans to secure my own financial future".
But no... instead you keep on about how you are not living rent free and somehow still have no money left over.
If you still don't understand that you are living rent free and the money you are saving by not paying rent should be going towards securing your future then there's no hope for you at all.
I hope you realize though that you won't be getting a penny out of him in the event of a split - he's made absolutely sure of that...

If you are paying towards bills and a few soft furnishings you haven't contributed to the house just to your day to day living so you have no equity in the house.

@freerunner75

Thank you all.

I do now have a better paid job and as the kids are more independent I am finally in a position to start putting some money away for me.

I do resent the fact that people have said I am living ‘rent free’ .. as I see it both people pay into a pot to enable us all to live under one roof regardless of what that money physically pays.

The house was bought at a small fraction of the market value.. hence his inheritance being the equity that it had straight away. With all the work that has been done since.. the value has trebled. I have had a lot of involvement and say in that work, even if I haven’t been able to physically pay for much of it myself.

I understand totally his protectiveness over his equity. But how is it fair that if we were married, and we divorced I could technically (if I wanted to) claim x amount of pounds and walk away, yet as we are not.. I can’t. Despite for the most part.. being in exactly the same relationship. That’s my point.

I get everyone’s opinions from both sides and I appreciate it, that’s why I posted here. Not to talk ‘bollox’ as someone suggested just to hear the answers I wanted.

I’m not a bad person, or a gold digger, or anything like that.

I just feel a little bit crap and frustrated.

Thanks all again!

Honestly I'm not sure why you put up with this for so long. Being as 'committed' despite being unmarried only happens when both parties have done the necessary legal paperwork or are on a more equal footing. If you really wanted to be his wife in every way you should have insisted on marriage. However it now appears that your position is no different to that of a GF he met yesterday. From his POV if he has been upfront about what he wanted he has been fair to you. A rent-free home for you and both your children.

The ship of sharing has sailed. Now you need to plow everything you can into your own savings as things get better.

Also a lot of things are easy to see with hindsight...when you're just living it's very hard to change the default.

You’re not in the same legal relationship though.

The law allows you both to choose what financial commitment you want to make to each other, in the event of a divorce. You both chose: none.

You could have refused to move in with someone you weren’t married to. You didn’t though - because he’s been subsidising you and your kids for years. You’ve had your money out of him.

You fight because you don't have financial stability? After living rent free for 12 years!? 1) make more money 2) save your money.

But how is it fair that if we were married, and we divorced I could technically (if I wanted to) claim x amount of pounds and walk away, yet as we are not.. I can’t. Despite for the most part.. being in exactly the same relationship. That’s my point.

Because that was a choice you made. You knew he wasn’t interested in marriage, precisely for the above reason - having been divorced before and paying a big settlement he didn’t want to be in that position again.

You are living rent-free because you do not pay rent. This is the situation- and it is deliberate so that you have no claim. Your money is specifically NOT ‘all in one pot’ because your partner has set it up so that you do not have shared finances.

No one is saying you haven’t contributed to living costs. But if you also had to pay for rent/mortgage you’d be paying out more, obviously. As you weren’t, you should have saved that money or insisted on being paid for the work you do in your DP’s business or otherwise considered the future.

‘Being involved in the work’ on the house counts for nothing if you didn’t contribute monetarily.

Your partner has been clear all along and so you should have listened, not assumed he’d change his mind or that miraculously he would support you financially just because you support him domestically. If you’re not married then you need to be clear that it’s not ‘just like a marriage’.

he pays his mortgage and we split the bills with me paying 75% and him 25%

Why on earth would you agree to this????

I can understand him wanting to pay the mortgage himself so that it is his house if it is part of an inheritance arrangement, but you should have been splitting the "living costs" 50:50 and using some of your money to build your own safety net!

There’s three of them vs the DP so 75/25 seems very fair given the children aren’t his.

but you should have been splitting the "living costs" 50:50

Not if her kids live there they shouldn't, she should pay her kids living costs as well as her own.

It’s ‘fair’ because that’s exactly the point in marriage

Stop paying 75%, pay 50% and save the rest

@FrangipaniBlue

he pays his mortgage and we split the bills with me paying 75% and him 25%

Why on earth would you agree to this????

I can understand him wanting to pay the mortgage himself so that it is his house if it is part of an inheritance arrangement, but you should have been splitting the "living costs" 50:50 and using some of your money to build your own safety net!

She’s getting a terrific deal.

He is paying for accommodation for him plus three adults, and his share of the bills.

She is paying bills for herself and her two adult children, and no housing costs

She and her children are living rent free thanks to her boyfriend.

Op, I think the real problem is that you didn't really think this all through so you could have an up-front discussion about it early on. I think that's natural, often people play these things by ear and so there are assumptions on both sides, or problems don't get clarified and addressed.

But really, you should have made a decision when you moved in together.
Either:

a) you are joining your households and you should marry and put your money together (not necessarily literally.) Or,

b) You are basically in a friendly house-share, where he owns the house, and you get to live there without paying housing costs in return for paying some expenses and doing some work/upkeep on the house.

In the second scenario it would have been wise to put aside some money into savings in order to have some sort of nest-egg in case of relationship breakdown.

I am sympathetic to the idea that you deserve some consideration given that you have basically been a wife in other ways. In some places relationships like this have almost the same rights as a marriage, in order to prevent one partner taking advantage. However that arrangement forces other choices, so it has downsides too.

Personally, while I can understand why your partner was hesitant to marry again, I think I'd have insisted, maybe along with some sort of pre-nup if you wanted a particular arrangement in case of a split.

Just to clarify.. the £600 is just towards most house bills.. not all of them.., aside from that I pay for lots of other things - a lot related to the house/bills/joint interests, and the rest for my children and I. I haven’t had a lot of spare cash to save.. through no fault of my own. It’s just been tough. (Not my partners fault either before the haters jump in)

I paid the debts from my ex before I moved in with my partner. I came debt free, but with no savings having lost my previous house and savings before (again not my partners problem). Raising two children on your own with no help and having to pay off massive debts, doesn’t allow for any savings. I have since been unable to save as per first paragraph.

As far as I am concerned we were entering a joint partnership on relatively equal terms with a view to getting a mortgage together, struggling together and building a future together. That hasn’t happened... not through my choice either.. marriage hasn’t happened.. again not through my choice.

I have paid my way, supported my partner and his children in every possible way I can.

All I was asking is general opinion on if it would be unreasonable to suggest to my partner some form of ‘safety net’ for me to see me right if anything did happen to our relationship.

I am getting the general consensus is suggesting that I am an ungrateful freeloader and that I should be hugely grateful for everything (which to a massive degree I am in fact).. so that has helped and put some perspective on my thinking.

So thanks one and all..

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

There’s three of them vs the DP so 75/25 seems very fair given the children aren’t his.

But the extra costs in bills & living expenses isn’t on a per person split ratio - some things are pretty static like council tax is only the difference between single person discount, gas/electric yes a proportional increase but probably not 25% for each occupant, ditto water etc. Food is the only place you could really argue a per person split, and even then there’s discount in buying in bulk as you’re not paying a single person premium - two can live as cheaply as one etc.

I’d say 60/40 would have been fairer. The 75-25 split, especially given his much greater income, strikes me as mean and profiting off the OP. I don’t much like the sound of the DP from info on the other thread. But OP still should have seen the writing on the wall and advocated more forcefully for herself.

@freerunner75

Just to clarify.. the £600 is just towards most house bills.. not all of them.., aside from that I pay for lots of other things - a lot related to the house/bills/joint interests, and the rest for my children and I. I haven’t had a lot of spare cash to save.. through no fault of my own. It’s just been tough. (Not my partners fault either before the haters jump in)

I paid the debts from my ex before I moved in with my partner. I came debt free, but with no savings having lost my previous house and savings before (again not my partners problem). Raising two children on your own with no help and having to pay off massive debts, doesn’t allow for any savings. I have since been unable to save as per first paragraph.

As far as I am concerned we were entering a joint partnership on relatively equal terms with a view to getting a mortgage together, struggling together and building a future together. That hasn’t happened... not through my choice either.. marriage hasn’t happened.. again not through my choice.

I have paid my way, supported my partner and his children in every possible way I can.

All I was asking is general opinion on if it would be unreasonable to suggest to my partner some form of ‘safety net’ for me to see me right if anything did happen to our relationship.

I am getting the general consensus is suggesting that I am an ungrateful freeloader and that I should be hugely grateful for everything (which to a massive degree I am in fact).. so that has helped and put some perspective on my thinking.

So thanks one and all..

You seem to have rather naively paid an awful lot if living costs and extras (house/bills/joint interests) when you just plan shouldn’t have. You should have said you couldn’t afford those things if you had no security and no ability to save.

But what’s done is done. Change it, now that your children are adults.

As far as I am concerned we were entering a joint partnership on relatively equal terms with a view to getting a mortgage together, struggling together and building a future together. That hasn’t happened... not through my choice either.. marriage hasn’t happened.. again not through my choice.

You're still not owning this. This was your choice. The second you chose to move into a house that wasn't yours with an unmarried partner, give him free labour, pay more than your share but not the mortgage, do the lifework for him, etc etc.

He's never seen it the same way you did.

You can't expect him to financially protect you. That was always your own lookout and still is. You can want all you want, he won't give you a penny and sadly, you're not entitled to one.

When you say you pay a lot for other things what do you mean? What else do you pay for?

All I was asking is general opinion on if it would be unreasonable to suggest to my partner some form of ‘safety net’ for me to see me right if anything did happen to our relationship.

So yes, you are being unreasonable because he's shown you, over and over, that he's not going to do that. In fact it'll probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back and he gives you your marching orders.

What you can do is stop paying all this, stop putting out the free labour, stop being invested in a home that's not yours. He treats you the way you let him.

In some countries you would be considered in a common law relationship and indeed after that length of time and shared life together entitled to more. I suspect a SHL might be able to get more than nothing for you but the costs might be more than the benefits, especially if your aiming for 12K vs 1.2M.

In some countries but not any UK ones @fallfallfall - has the OP said she’s elsewhere?