To think that my contributions to our family home count for anything?

[Greenlife1]

I know that I have few rights as per current legislation but am I being unreasonable to think I have earned a segment of our next family home (I'm talking in terms of ethical principles not legality)

Living with partner of 15 years and our 4 children. He is buying a house outright which will be paid for by selling the house we have lived in for 10 years and is also owned by him. I have worked and contributed to running the household for 15 years and have, of course, sacrificed career progression to support my family and his career, not to mention, I have also grafted on the current house, helping to increase its value and spent small amounts of money on it when I have been able to.

Partner thinks I'm ludicrous to even have these thoughts as I've not put in any big amounts of money. I had hoped I might be able to aim for a small mortgage on our next home that I could pay off myself to give me some security and to just feel like I have a place in the world that I have earned but he wants to own it outright.

Marriage not on cards right now for various reasons.

Please get legal advice. There are now legal precedents which apply to common law marriage which you are in. I was in this situation 15 years ago and there have been legal precedents made. . Input into a property of any kind has legal sway. Are the 4 children belonging to both of you? If so even stronger case can be made. Please research properly.

This has changed because there have been some common law rights taken to court and successfully argued. Especially if there are children involved

Good answer!

There are no 'common law' rights to someone else's property.

See posts above about how to establish a beneficial interest in a property you do not own

If he wouldn’t be able to be in the position he is now without your contribution, then I think he’s unreasonable for wanting to own it outright without you.

His family gave him the money to own the house outright

My question is.

If he's a low earner will he be able to actually get a mortgage on a new property based solely on his income and outgoings?

Usually in situations like this you get a joint mortgage and then the amount put into the property (his contribution from the sale of the house he owns) is ringfenced as his should you sell, split or whatever.

Here is a link to read: www.qredible.co.uk/b/legal-rights-of-unmarried-couples-in-the-uk-a-complete-guide/
If this man is married and not divorced and if all the children are not yours then your own children could also be put at risk of not inheriting in the future. The main issue is that this man seems to have a plan to ensure you do not have any claim on his 'possessions' and that you are worth much more than this no matter what you have been led to feel or believe. Someone needs to let you know this more than anything and you need to really start thinking about your future right now.

You should explain to him that you need protection for the future.

The weakness of the OP's position is that there is no legal protection for her position. Protection in this sense is a zero sum game between him and her.

At the moment, he is sitting pretty and she is has no protection. Any protection she can gain is at his expense.

Which is why I said she has no power in this situation. It breaks my heart that there is a steady stream of women in this position on MN

I don't know how to spread the message so that people understand the implications of getting versus not getting married, while there is time to do something about it.

At the same time, discouraging women who are not financially dependent from marrying. Before anyone howls at unfairness: there are two completely separate cases

In one, a woman gives up her career and future earning potential to look after children and the household. Without marriage, there is no security for her.

In the other, there are no children involved. A woman marries a man who has few assets to start off with and/or doesn't earn much. After a long marriage, the starting point to split the assets of the marriage is very likely to start at 50:50.

In the absence of children, I would be very, very cautious about recommending the financially more secure women to get married.

You bore this man FOUR CHILDREN and you don’t even have a share in the home?!
Get thee to a lawyer. What kind of a man doesn’t want to provide for the mother of his children. He could fall tomorrow for some cute little trollop and throw you out and your would have NOTHING. And don’t fool yourself. OTHER MEN HAVE DONE JUST EXACTLY THAT

Please go and see a solicitor and get some advice. Personally, if he refused to marry or put something in place to create financial security I would be leaving.

Sit down a discuss this with him. If I were you I would be either looking at civil partnership or marriage or sorting out getting in the deeds. OR moving to a property that you both pay the mortgage on.
do you want to be with this man?
what about inheritance tax if he dies?

Being on the mortgage gives you no legal protections. You just agree to share the debt. You need to be on the title deeds.

Please stop paying 50:50 on household bills and childcare. Your contribution to the household is not being recognised. As PP said, use the money you don’t pay him (via subsidising his house and family) to save for a deposit and buy your own place.

Legally you have nothing to stand on so I would recommend building up your career or going 50:50 on the house or he could divorce you and you’ll have no safety net

You do have legal rights to the home.

get legal advice.

I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if I repeat anything. At first I thought you were being reasonable (contributing to the home and reaping no security from this) however, further down you say the home he owns outright due to family money. Therefore you haven't contributed to the purchase of the house per se. You say you've spent money on the home - this was a daft thing to do if you have no legal rights to any profits from the home/no contract in place to say you will get this back if it is sold - yes he's your partner and you'd think he would be fair but clearly not. I can see why he may want to keep the home to himself to keep the money in his family.

A few options OP:

1. Forget about what you've put in to it, suck it up and move on to the next home with him but make it clear you will be contributing nothing other than bills and you will be stepping up to progress your career going forward to enable to save deposit if it's ever needed.
2. Ask him to repay the amount you spent on renovations etc to you that added value to the house and then the above.
3. If he refuses 2 and tries to put a block on 1 he doesn't give a crap about you, tell him you'll be renting your own place with the kids and his share of childcare and maintenance will be X amount.

Take some control of the situation for your own sake. You don't want to end up homeless. Also, ignore all the people going on about marriage it's not what you want and doesn't help you now, but do try to solve it another way before moving to another home with him.

How?
The only prospect is to claim a beneficial interest which is complex and expensive to pursue. Based on what OP has posted here her actions wouldn’t meet the test. I wouldn’t want to dissuade Op from taking appropriate legal advice but it’s wrong to give her false hope.

No we don’t have equivalent of de facto here in England. I suspect that adds to misunderstandings as some countries do.
Some specific legislation has been amended to enable cohabitees to claim eg Fatal Accidents Act if they can prove they meet certain criteria (2 years cohabitation and living with deceased at death)
There was also a fairly high profile court case to get widows benefits payable to cohabitees but law hasn’t been changed as yet.
Again I suspect this leads to people thinking cohabitation gives them more rights - there have been several posters adamant she’s entitled, law has changed and she’s got rights but that’s not the case.

@sue20

There are now legal precedents which apply to common law marriage which you are in.

This is absolutely no longer the case - legally it doesn't exist as a concept:

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a ‘common law marriage’. In England and Wales only people who are married, whether of the same sex or not, or those in civil partnerships can rely on the laws about dividing up finances when they divorce or dissolve their marriage.
The assumption by many unmarried couples in a long standing relationship that they have acquired rights similar to those of married couples is wrong.

For couples who rented together, if you were not named on the rental agreement you will have no automatic right to stay if they walk out or ask you to leave and you would be left to apply to court for an order giving the right to occupy, the outcome of which is uncertain. If your ex partner owned your home, and there is no other agreement in place, you have no right to stay if they ask you to leave.

For couples who are not married or in a civil partnership, if you split up your partner would not (except in certain types of cases) have to pay you maintenance even if you stayed at home to look after your children – but they would still have to pay child maintenancee_.

If your partner dies and you were not married or in a civil partnership, and they haven’t made a will, you have no automatic entitlement to inherit anything from them, including your family home, even if it's in their name or if you own it jointly as 'tenants in common'.

Yes I know all this. I was in this situation 13 years ago and at the time accepted “common law doesn’t exist blah blah” we KNOW all the legal positions. I’m not making assumptions thank you!!! You don’t need to repeat all this detail.

Everyone on here is making this point sometimes in a very old fashioned moral way. But since my time I’ve noticed and known people where a precedent was won in which a long term relationship has been argued as a mitigating factor in court cases concerning money or property issues. There has definitely been a small shift In recent years I’ve noticed and regretted I didn’t get more advice hence my urging to the OP to do so.

www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/media/am-i-entitled-to-my-partners-assets-if-were-not-married/

Yes I agree. I’m a single mum but I only have daughters. If I gifted them property I wouldn’t want their partners to be able to take or part of it. I would want it to go to my gc.

Morally and ethically if course you are entitled to something. Legally you are on thin ice though I think Ive read somewhere there is a ruling that could help you if you can prove you've contributed. You need legal advice.
Also I would be questioning my relationship with someone whom I had 4 DC with and who treated me with so little respect - sorry. Morally you're right but legally you are are probably screwed.
And tbh to "D"P who is mainly responsible for it, they could change it in a flash if they wanted to..

Really though aren’t you just telling women to marry a rich man? Even if you have children, marrying a lower earning man with less assets will leave you worse off.

I have two children with such a man. I did not marry him and so am much better off now. Otherwise my assets would have been taken to house him and provide for his needs. Instead they can go for me and my dcs.

I think to be honest it’s fair enough that op doesn’t get a share in her dh house. It was gifted by his family and she did not contribute to its purchase.

Please stop paying 50:50 on household bills and childcare.

I really don’t understand why so many people have been making comments like this. She hasn’t been paying for housing. It’s not like she’s been paying half the mortgage and he has refused her a stake! She hasn’t contributed anything to the house and the fact that his family money bought it outright means they have had much more disposable income over the past 15 years.
Why would the house even be relevant in terms of OP contributing towards the day to day bills and childcare? Those are still costs that the family have.

It’s also a stark difference between this situation and when a woman is given inheritance and they are told “keep it for yourself, it’s not family money, your parents wanted it to go to you”