Who should really own our house?

[Littlething]

I will appreciate some advice and fresh perspective on my situation please. Sorry if it is a bit long.
Me and my partner of 15 years (two dc, 11 and 8) are about to exchange on a house that we are buying with the money I inherited from my late parents. There will be a small mortgage, paid out of rental income on my flat in London. We moved to where we are now 2 years ago from London for his job. We were renting here while we were looking for a house to buy paying rent out of the income on my London flat. I have stopped working after my youngest was born, my dp has a good job (architect), that covers our bills. My parents gifted me the flat in London, so we lived rent/mortgage free and they gave us cash for holidays, new car etc, we would not be able to afford it otherwise. We spend rather carefully, shopping in H&M and Lidl but we like to entertain, go to the theatre and children have lots of hobbies. My partner has a flat in London that he bought before we met, he pays mortgage on it and rents it out, so mortgage is covered.
The house we are buying here is small and will need extension and loft conversion, it will be paid for with what’s left out of the money my parents left me. For context, we decided to buy a small house (in a not very ideal location) because it is all we can afford without selling mine or his flats and he is strongly against selling since “it is our pension”.
I agreed to put both our names on the title. I want to make it clear that he is a kind and loving person, he is my best friend and the children adore him. I do not want to upset him by spelling out that it is my money that we are spending on the purchase and renovation. However when I said the other day that I expect to have an upper hand when it comes to decisions to do with renovating (and maybe selling when the children are off to Uni) he got very upset. He feels that he will “pour all his energy, time and skills into the house and will be left with nothing”. He also said he feels his contribution to our finances is major because all his salary is spent every months, he provides for us and this needs to be recognised. AIBU to expect him to see it from my perspective?
Many thanks for reading and sharing what you think.

I guess I wonder how you would feel if he said that you had no say in when the heating goes because he's paying for it. It would make sense to me to own the new house as tenants in common with an ownership split based on your original investment as it is your joint income that allows the mortgage and bills to be paid.

I've only read the first few posts, so apologies if I'm repeating.

I know from your pov that you're not married and it's your inheritance etc, but from his he's going to fund everything day to day while you don't work (not disparaging SAHP, my mum was one and she worked hard). If you split, you would have two properties you own outright and he would have one that's mortgaged.

I think a share would be fair to him, maybe 25%?

I would ringfence the inheritance in the house and then share the rest as tenants in common as that seems fairest

Get married

And dont think of having the upper hand in this ust because you have been lucky

Just being sensible 🙄

There is nothing sensible about his money being family money but her money being hers alone.

If it was the other way around people would be screaming financial abuse.

If he didn’t have to pay for 100% of the day to day bills for the past 10 years then he would have a hell of a lot more to contribute to the new house.

He has his own flat and renting it out pays his mortgage. You have London flat and it's mortgage free. Your rental income has been paying for you both to rent house to live in put of London. Your partner earns money for other bills. Your parents left the house to you alone? If so put the house you are buying in your name. If you are having a small mortgage and using your income to pay the mortgage on the house. You are investing the rest of your money in an extension. Then you are providing accommodation for you both. Your partner is providing by paying bills. Consider this how much could you rent out new house for once it is renovated? Is it a similar amount to how much your partner pays in bills? If so you are making an equal contribution. Definately have house in your name. You are not married so he could at a later date walk away with half your home if his name is put on the deeds. That is money your parents wanted you to have. Seek legal advice before signing over half your inheritance. I am married and I kept mine separate from joint money. I would let him have equal say over decor though if he is living there.

This is a very complicated set up that perhaps need some retrospective granular break down of who's paid what since the relationship began to agree on what's fair going forward. Without marriage, finances and assets are separate.

From the post, it would appear that the Op has been financially supported by both her partner AND parents for at least 8 years.

In return the partner has enjoyed free accommodation for a minimum of 2 years and possibly for as long as the Op has been given her parents' flat. If he had to pay his share of rent/mortgage in that period, what would it be? How does that equate to the household/joint expenses he has paid since the Op gave up work?

Going forward, what would it cost him to own half the new house including renovation costs, plus half household/joint expenses? It might give this couple a realistic idea of their actual contributions. Some consideration also needs to be given regarding the Ops contribution to childcare by not working.

I don't think an unmarried partner should expect to be housed for free but expect to be remmunerated for any work they do on the house. You can't have it both ways.

The easiest solution to this would be to get married and pool all assets.

A small point maybe but you may have offended him slightly by suggesting you lead the renovations when it’s his profession.

Brilliant to have "my money and our money" in a relationship.

Absolutely incredible luck that the "my money" part takes care of acquiring assets and the "our money" goes on monthly expenses.

What are the chances

Many PPs are writing about how the DH is paying "100% of "bills", but that is actually "100% of bills except for rent. London rents are expensive!

If the OP were instead to rent out the flat, collect a rental income, and then contribute all of the income to pay rent on a different one in which they lived, then that rent expense would be part of "bills" and the OP contribution to bills would become more visible. It would probably be a bad idea that would also result in a larger tax bill, so it makes sense to do what they are doing, but that contribution deserves to be counted.

For working out who is contributing what currently, the amount that it would cost to rent a similar flat should be considered as OPs income, and 100% of OPs income should then be considered as going to pay bills because the family is living in the flat and OP is not collecting any cash in relation to that. OP also has the unpaid job of minding the children. So basically OP makes the majority of the household economic contributions that do not get labelled with a figure in £££, which is actually a vulnerable place to be, while the DH gets to take credit for bringing in actual cash, while growing and preserving his personal earnings power and continuing to own a rental flat on his own as well.

Also, nobody has spoken about pensions. Presumable the DH is accumulating a pension through work, and since they are not married, if they split up, then presumably the DH will get to keep 100% of that pension.

Yes, OP is lucky to have received more family money than DH. But they are not married, and DH has been able to maintain and grow his personal earnings power, presumably while building up a pension, while OP has none of that. So DHs financial security comes from earnings power, and pension, and his flat, while really OPs only financial security comes from the flat and the house.

Hmmm... I've been trying to think about this from both pov and also by reversing the sexes. If I've read this properly, you're secure with all your inheritance tied up in property. The rent you make on your flat will pay the mortgage on your house. So you're covered whatever happens. He's using the rent from his flat to pay his mortgage and will be paying all the expenses for the family from his earnings while you don't work. And you're not married.

So his income will go on food, clothing, maintenance, car insurance, furniture, holidays etc for you all of you. Meanwhile your investment in property is gradually accruing in value. If it's only you on the deeds of the house, if you decide you want to split up in a few years, he will have accrued value on his rental property and you will have accrued value on two properties and also gained on all the living expenses you haven't had to pay because he's covered them. Much of his money will have gone on looking after you and the children. Do you really think that's fair? I presume that you'll expect him to use his professional skills to redesign and possibly do building work on your new house too — but it's your house. Why would you ask him to invest time, energy and effort into a project that will just add value to it for you? I wouldn't be happy in his shoes. It's not fair.

You need legal advice for sure.
You should think through what would happen if you split up.

You say he earns a good salary and pays all bills (apart from rent). Where does the rest of his money go? Is he saving it as surely there's lots leftover.

Whereabouts in the conveyancing process are you?

Was his salary taken into account when you received your mortgage offer? If so then his name will have to be on the deeds surely.

How much does he earn a year?

If you’ve not been working for 8 years and he’s been financially supporting you then the property absolutely should be half his.

I don’t understand how his money is both of your money but your money is just your money.

Your parents left an inheritance for you - so put the deeds in your name.

You're contributing to relationship costs by covering the rent on your current rental property. When you move, you'll be contributing by providing a property for you all to live in & covering the deficit small mortgage (again using the rental income money from your London flat). So he's not paying ALL the bills, but some of them - rent/mortgage takes up a huge proportion.

You've said he has benefited from the financial kindness of your parents previously - in living rent/mortgage free in London, holidays etc. You're not married, anything could happen in the future, so my advice is to protect yourself financially and your children.

This post covers what I wanted to say. All those people saying he covers all the living costs seem to have missed the fact that you've been paying the rent on your home for the last two years from the rental income from your London flat, so he has been living rent free for two years, so he has not been covering all the living costs, only some of them. You have covered the housing costs for you all for two years.

Don't put his name on the deeds, protect yourself. If you stay together or end up marrying then everything will be equally owned anyway. If he is getting stroppy and showing entitlement to half your inheritance then you have to wonder why? If his intention is to stay with you, the mother of his DC, long-term then it shouldn't matter to him. When a man acts entitled to your money, property, it is a big warning sign in my experience, so take heed Op and protect your assets.

His flat remains his.
Her flat remains hers.
The house is put into a trust with all family members beneficiaries, for as long as they remain a family. If the relationship breaks down, he forfeits the benefit. If anything happens to either parent the remaining parent lives there with the children, after that parent's demise the children can sell the house and split the proceeds - not before 25th birthdays, unless agreed by trustees.

You are a family purchasing a family home. It is not fair for one partner to decide everything in relation to that home.

Regarding ownership, perhaps protect the deposit you've put in, but the rest should be shared jointly as the mortgage and other bills are being paid from a combination of your rental income and his wages. It's totally unfair to allocate your money to the mortgage so that you fully own the place and he pays for everything else.

Imagine if he had the deposit and said he was paying the mortgage and you could pay the other bills, would you expect to own nothing of the family home? You're a partnership even if you're not married.

it doesn't have to be 100% yours or 50/50 it could be 70/30 or a more accurate reflection of financial contribution , i think if you are paying for extensions entirely with your assets you do get major say but if you are paying for materials and he is actually doing more of the DIY aspect then he should get a say. When it comes to decor and new furniture regardless of who is paying it should be a joint decision otherwise he feels like a lodger in your house,
he has a flat and a work's pension , you have a flat no pension but a sizeable inheritance some of that inheritance really should be to provide yourself with a pension
as you both own a property neither of you would be homeless if you split; might need to rent until your current tenants leave but needing the property to live in yourself is a valid reason to end a tenancy.
once your youngest is 12 you no longer get the credits from child benefit ( if it is in your name) towards your state pension so if you do not go to work at that point you will not get enough years for a state pension in your own right, you can check how many years you have at gov.uk you need 35 years

you need LEGAL advice to draw up a suitable document about what happens if you split how the asset is shared, and what percentages

perhaps protect the deposit you've put in, but the rest should be shared jointly as the mortgage and other bills are being paid from a combination of your rental income and his wages. It's totally unfair to allocate your money to the mortgage so that you fully own the place and he pays for everything else.

Im inclined to agree with this.

kind and loving person

Yeah. Until you split up

DON'T PUT HIS NAME ON THE DEEDS, OP

OP, what about work? Do you have plans on that front now the children are older? Just thinking in terms of your pension. Because if you don't work you won't get a state pension, let alone a private pension. What if he leaves you? You might own two properties but you wouldn't have any disposable income if he were to walk away.

(Very aware that we have no idea whether you're talking about 1-bedroom flats in Zone 4 or 3-bedders in Zone 1, and whether he's on the RIBA average of £40k or well up the ladder in a major practice earning considerably more...)

kind and loving person until he has a mid life crisis, has a fling with Andrea from
accounts and the OP heads over to the divorce and separation board saying what an idiot she’s been not ringfencing her massive deposit and being tenants in common instead of joint tenants.

And has no pension. (OK I don't know this but it's something to consider)

YABU really, as he has absolutely been supporting you 100% since you stopped working to be a SAHM and you both have flats (values after mortgage? ) which are rented out. Is there a massive difference in the values of those? There is nothing wrong with one party being a SAHP, so long the arrangements are fair to both parties.
You have been together 15 years, so if you plan to grow old together, I would suggest you get married to simplify everything from a tax point of view. There will be 3 properties involved potentially in your estate, so you should think about inheritance tax and the fact that it passes tax free from one party to the other so long as you are married.
Maybe initially just make all the properties jointly owned although getting married could achieve that indirectly.
You need to make wills if you haven't already, presumably leaving everything to each other and then to the children?
It's good that this an opportunity to regularise everything to benefit your family as a whole.

The OP does have an income, rental income from her London flat which will pay the nee mortgage. She’s also doing all the childcare.

As others have said, OP wants to put her rental income straight into an asset (despite the fact no bank would ever accept that) while his earned income goes on food and energy and taxes and clothes - as it has been for the last decade. Hardly fair is it? When OPs tenants stop paying rent for 6 months is she going to default on the family home mortgage or expect DP to step up and contribute?

Yes OP is providing childcare but lets be real the children are 8 and 11, it would be significantly cheaper and in his own interests for the DP to pay 50% of the after school club (and even 50% of a cleaner) than continue to pay 100% of the entire families expenses AS WELL AS depriving himself of a stake in the home he's going to renovate, live in, and maintain. That is literally the worlds most expensive childcare when you take into account how much the house will appreciate over what could be twenty years and the work he's going to do to it.

Clearly he is not acting in his own interests though, he's acting in the best interests of the family as a whole.

Of course SAHP make a valuable contribution but I'm sick of hearing it magically equals the playing field financially, so what's his is theirs and what's hers is hers. It can't be worth the same amount of money as a partner who's a hairdresser AND a partner who's a consultant doctor, can it? A private nursery for triplets is going to cost more than an after school club for a single ten year old. Also sick of people acting like the SAHP is saving the WP the full amount that childcare, a cleaner etc would cost - no, they're saving the WP 50% of it.

But thankfully for most families it's not about that, it's about the family as a whole.

I can't believe anybody who is posting here would put themselves into the DPs position. No savings, no stake in the family home which can be sold at OPs say-so, the sole financial responsibility for an entire family, the risk of having to pay a mortgage on a home you don't own should OPs tenants stop paying rent, and having to hold down a full time professional job while a partner who has the full benefit of the appreciating asset sits at home with school aged children all week.

All for the benefit of saving 50% on an after school club which isn't even going to be necessary in a couple of years time. Anyone happy with that needs to get their heads looked at.