Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

My name is not on the mortgage and I pay him £700 per month

395 replies

Star54 · 09/02/2022 17:56

I have been with my partner for 30 plus years, we have grown up children and I work full time in a high pressured role. I have always worked and paid towards the house and the bills. We never married although we got engaged. He is now retired and has been for circa 10 years, I give him £700 per month and pay a significant part of the food bill, I also pay when we go out for meals etc. I have left him before twice but returned in part because he refused to give me any money from the house to start anew. My name is not on the house deeds and there is no mortgage, if I raise it the issue always causes a row and he says that he is saving the family as I could walk off and take money from him. I am at the end of my tether and now fel I should leave. Am I being unreasonable given that he had a property in his own right when we first met (I was 21 and am now in my 50s). I am strong him my job but not assertive in my relationship as I have felt bad for leaving him before.

OP posts:
theremustonlybeone · 10/02/2022 07:33

YanTanTetheraPetheraPimp

Yes you can even when not on deeds.

Ringsender2 · 10/02/2022 07:34

@YanTanTetheraPetheraPimp

Yes, you can put a notification on even if you don't own

marpelier · 10/02/2022 07:41

You UK people have really grown up with the "either or" thing haven't you? You are either married or nothing. A lot of the rest of the world has realised this is unfair so has common law or de facto marriage. Usually after 2 years living together but varies.
Before you all die of shock,, no you don't get 50% of everything at 2 years and 1 day. It is just that if you cannot sort it out through mediators and lawyers then the court will look it as a divorce. So who brought what into the partnership etc.
Also, as I think I have posted at least 3 times now, you can both sigh a financial agreement at any time you are living together, that says ( after legal advice) that you have no interest in each others property.
Children under 18 are obviously looked after.
There is no need to go to court if you are just living together and then separate, unless one person is trying to make a claim against the other partner.
However, given the OP's circumstances , should she live in NSW Australia she would have a serious claim against the house for a few reasons - length of relationship ( 30 years!!) , raising children, financial contributions to the house.
I don't understand what people have against this system.

DrSbaitso · 10/02/2022 07:43

Also, as I think I have posted at least 3 times now, you can both sigh a financial agreement at any time you are living together, that says ( after legal advice) that you have no interest in each others property.

So marriage becomes opt out?

AlDanvers · 10/02/2022 07:48

Before you all die of shock,, no you don't get 50% of everything at 2 years and 1 day. It is just that if you cannot sort it out through mediators and lawyers then the court will look it as a divorce

You non UK people just don't get it do you?

Some people want to live together and don't want their, potential, split going through the courts and being treated like a divorce.

That's the whole point. If you want to join finances and not marry, you can. Put both names on the house etc.

But there's also an option for people who don't want any of that.

Nomoreusernames1244 · 10/02/2022 07:48

I don't understand what people have against this system

Nobody has said they’re for or against anything.

Comments have only been on what may or may not be possible under uk current law. Not whether we agree with it.

What the rest of the world does isn’t relevant.

DrSbaitso · 10/02/2022 07:52

I don't understand what people have against this system

I've got mixed feelings about it, is the honest truth. On the one hand, it's obviously much better for protecting women who really need to be married and aren't. On the other, I'm very wary about a life changing financial contract becoming opt out rather than opt in. I know you said that people can sign a contract if they want to cohabit without being married, but I feel major commitments like that should be something you sign to enter, not something you sign to avoid.

Don't you find yourself in a flipped situation to the long term non-proposer if someone refuses to sign OUT?

marpelier · 10/02/2022 08:01

How is signing a financial contract such a burden, but getting married isn't? Confused

Suretobe · 10/02/2022 08:10

Do you have a life insurance policy on him?
If it’s an option, consider at least doing that now, so in the event of his death you are not completely high and dry.

mdh2020 · 10/02/2022 08:20

My DS didn’t understand that she was not a joint owner of her home. Her DH had refused to change it although advised to do so by their solicitor. When he died she was left a percentage of the estate but had no claim on the house. She chose to have this included in her share but basically lost £500k.

AlDanvers · 10/02/2022 08:22

@marpelier

How is signing a financial contract such a burden, but getting married isn't? Confused
Getting married is a burden. But it's something people do because they choose to make the conscious decision to do it. There are positives and negatives.

There's no need for people to have pursue not joining finances. The only winners there are the legal professionals.

I dont believe the law has a place in romantic relationships unless invited in, by both parties. Financially and legally tying yourself to someone should always be a conscious decision, imo. Not something that just happens.

AlDanvers · 10/02/2022 08:23

@mdh2020

My DS didn’t understand that she was not a joint owner of her home. Her DH had refused to change it although advised to do so by their solicitor. When he died she was left a percentage of the estate but had no claim on the house. She chose to have this included in her share but basically lost £500k.
If he was her dh, were they married?
DrSbaitso · 10/02/2022 08:26

@marpelier

How is signing a financial contract such a burden, but getting married isn't? Confused
Yes, this.

We all know that you can do it the simple way if you want; I assume Oz doesn't have white dresses and flowers as a legal requirement. So if you're prepared to go to a legal office of some kind and sign a paper to opt out, why can't you do it to opt in?

BadLad · 10/02/2022 08:32

Getting married is a burden.

And that's a good thing. It's an important decision, with serious consequences, so it's good that people have to be aware that they're doing it, and have time to change their minds once the process starts, and are specifically asked during the ceremony if it's what they want to do. Nobody can claim they didn't realise they were getting married.

AlDanvers · 10/02/2022 08:41

@BadLad

Getting married is a burden.

And that's a good thing. It's an important decision, with serious consequences, so it's good that people have to be aware that they're doing it, and have time to change their minds once the process starts, and are specifically asked during the ceremony if it's what they want to do. Nobody can claim they didn't realise they were getting married.

Exactly. Definitely should be a conscious decision.
Member869894 · 10/02/2022 08:51

Oh god I did divorce law for many years and the ignorance and advice on this thread is really shocking. Op you are basically stuffed unless you can show your money went to the mortgage or funded home improvements. The best you can do now is marry him. If you can't face that then at least find out what is in his will and talk to him about it.

lucywho123 · 10/02/2022 09:01

Blimey OP. I definitely think you need to tell him you are going to be seeking legal advice. As PP said you are up shit creek without a paddle currently. Maybe dont tell him you know you're entitled to nothing, let him believe you are and see what he says about it. Maybe he'll then agree to have you on the mortgage?

This is complete madness. Im also not married, dont necessarily believe in it but if my DP was paying that much to me a month for 30 years he would be on the mortgage

ElftonWednesday · 10/02/2022 09:03

Has he made a will?

Gowithme · 10/02/2022 09:08

What's in his will OP? If you're not down to inherit the house you could find yourself homeless at that point - better to leave now surely. You're not entitled to any cash lump sum from the house by the sounds of it and solicitors are very expensive - I'm not sure it's worth chasing something you have no claim on. Can you prove that any of what you gave him went on the house?

Do you have savings? It sounds like you're more of a lodger than a partner. You have nothing to feel bad about, you're just a cash cow to him by the sounds of it.

AllOfUsAreDead · 10/02/2022 09:15

@myusernamewastakenbyme

I'd love to read these comments if the genders were reversed and Op owned the house...im pretty sure everyone would be telling her it is her asset and her dh is entitled to nothing.
I've seen threads like that and the woman was told to not marry him, despite him paying rent and stuff towards the house as it was her asset and she must protect it for her children.

Which seems kind of odd when they share children, but people say it so that if the woman who owns the house dies first, then the man cannot marry someone else and pass it onto that new person, so the shared dc of the original couple get nothing.

In this situation, given that the man is clearly a lot older than the op, he is indeed correct to do this from what other posters have said in the past. He is protecting the house, the asset, from any new man the op may marry and make sure they'd shared dc have an asset and money when he dies.

Really there are better ways of doing this, but clearly neither of them are good at communicating and it's a wonder they've lasted this long, although they did have on/off periods (we don't know how long or how many there were). It's no surprise that they haven't communicated better for the sake of the children and for themselves and actually got this sorted.

Good luck op. Not sure you'll get anywhere but hopefully you get something from 30 years of bad decisions.

Naunet · 10/02/2022 09:21

@RandomLondoner

You could almost be my soon-to-be-ex. My flat is in my name only, mortgage paid off before she started making any contribution to join finances. She then paid £700 a month plus half of groceries for about 20 years. And a lot more on child-related stuff, which is also a joint expense.

I guess many here would think she should be entitled some equity, But according to my calculation, if I add up all joint expenditure, including what I spent on buying the flat, then deduct the housing equity I got at the end from my contribution, I still paid 75% of our joint costs.

So I would say having paid 700 a month does not necessarily prove any moral entitlement to a share of house equity. It's meaningless in isolation, we need to know everything both parties put in and got out, to come to a conclusion.

You charged rent to a woman you had children with?! This blows my mind. Did she charge you for use of her womb? Unbelievable.
AlDanvers · 10/02/2022 09:26

I do think the OP has left out some fairly relevant information.

Such as, if he has older kids.

Its also clear she has been aware of his intention to never combine assets for quite a while.

I think this situation is ridiculous, but I don't think op has shated all the information or being duped as such. I think she made a decision that she regrets. Which happens to the best of us.

Nomoreusernames1244 · 10/02/2022 09:47

You charged rent to a woman you had children with?! This blows my mind. Did she charge you for use of her womb? Unbelievable

Have you read the update? She is able to buy a 600k house with the money she saved over the course of the marriage, with a pension that will pay off the mortgage when she retires.

She hasn’t been left destitute. Of all joint costs, her £700 was 25%, he contributed the other 75%. This meant her savings and pension were healthy enough to buy her own house.

babyjellyfish · 10/02/2022 09:58

@RandomLondoner

You could almost be my soon-to-be-ex. My flat is in my name only, mortgage paid off before she started making any contribution to join finances. She then paid £700 a month plus half of groceries for about 20 years. And a lot more on child-related stuff, which is also a joint expense.

I guess many here would think she should be entitled some equity, But according to my calculation, if I add up all joint expenditure, including what I spent on buying the flat, then deduct the housing equity I got at the end from my contribution, I still paid 75% of our joint costs.

So I would say having paid 700 a month does not necessarily prove any moral entitlement to a share of house equity. It's meaningless in isolation, we need to know everything both parties put in and got out, to come to a conclusion.

I think it's a bit immoral to profit from your partner in this way.
babyjellyfish · 10/02/2022 10:00

@Chely

That's a bit expensive for a lodger
This.

£700 a month is above the legal limit for rent a room, and presumably she doesn't even have her own room.

I bet he hasn't been paying tax on that.