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.

But that needs to be offset by the living there rent-free.

Is there any relevant case law to support your view when there was no expectation of acquiring ownership and no rent was paid?

Most people do seem to think that you are not being unreasonable by the poll vote.

I don’t know what the motivation is amongst posters who have labelled the OP

• entitled


• foolish


• to blame


• to be grateful he even ‘gave’ her and the kids a home


• lazy

Women blaming other women. Rather than the man. It’s sad to see.

Some have replied to my posts to say that blaming the man is wrong. Why? That is not to say the OP should not fight for her moral equality, of course she should. There is more than the legal system. We normally don’t cheat on our husbands or wives, not because of legalities, but because of morals. Why the reticence from posters to not want to say clearly that it is morally wrong for her partner, not to make her an equal parter and to instead hoard all the power?

We normally don’t cheat on our husbands or wives, not because of legalities, but because of morals. Why the reticence from posters to not want to say clearly that it is morally wrong for her partner, not to make her an equal parter and to instead hoard all the power?

Yeah but this is more comparable with ‘my partner cheated on me five times before we got married, now we’re married and he’s cheated on me again a sixth time. AIBU in thinking he should stop cheating on me?’

The cheating has become irrelevant, because the OP is a muppet for marrying him in the first place. This was foreseeable and the OP needs to take some personal responsibility for her choices.

Here, the OP has lived for years with someone she isn’t married to, who doesn’t want to marry her, in a house that is not in her name. In that whole time, a conversation about joint home ownership never seems to have been had. It’s irresponsible. Whether the OPs DH has morals or not has become irrelevant. You don’t have control over someone else’s morals, you do have control over your own choices and decisions.

I don’t want to be dependent on someone financially either. So I didn’t get married either. But I worked full time and built my career. And I’m now a single mum but financially successful.

You made a choice not to work full time and to spend time with your kids instead. That’s great. But of course that will financially disadvantage you.

however it’s not all bad - it does sound like he has financially supported you so you are in a better position than if he had no money or you were on your own.

How he got the house also matters. Everyone on here would be screaming that you should protect your asset if he had lived in your house for more than a decade. Not many would tell you he had a right to anything. He protected himself, you need to do the same.

A minor point, I know, but ethics don’t come into this. Ethics is generally referring to an actual codified set of rules that a group (doctors, lawyers etc.) need to abide by which are in addition to laws. Ethics have little room for argument, everyone agrees what the rules are, they are written down and enforced by an official body.

This isn’t just a semantic point; a question like this one is about morals, which aren’t so set in stone. There’s plenty of room for disagreement about what the right thing to do morally is here.

We normally don’t cheat on our husbands or wives, not because of legalities, but because of morals. Why the reticence from posters to not want to say clearly that it is morally wrong for her partner, not to make her an equal parter and to instead hoard all the power?

Couldn't agree more, which is why I said upthread that the OP’s beef should not be with the system.

It should be with her shitty partner.

But 🤷🏻‍♀️ he now has exactly what he wants, and isn’t obligated to anyone (least of all the OP).

So why - when he is clearly of questionable morals - would he change now?

This reply should be posted on each thread of this nature. Op you and you alone are solely responsible and accountable for your choices. You have a brain, a voice and agency. Stop hiding behind this mentality where men are these powerful, untouchables and you are a victim. Even now, you still have choices to make. You had 4, 4!! Kids before this occurred to you? That is on you.

Perfectly said. Why is there no accountability these days? Absolutely everything is a victim mentality. You sleepwalked through having 4 kids? Op has a career so presumably she can engage her own mind at work.

OP, you say you have the potential to be the higher earner. Go back to work full time and buy yourself a house and make him share the parenting load. Fill up your pension and feather your own nest.

Don't marry him now, it's probably too late and he clearly doesn't want to. If you will make more than him, you may do better not marrying him as any divorce will cost you (once you have assets). I'd probably leave him too but maybe he has some redeeming qualities that you haven't shared...

Me too.

His house has nothing to do with you or your silent contribution to the relationship.

That's a really big factor to miss out!

You've stated you're the higher earner, and the it's 50/50- where does your earnings on top then go? He has made it obvious he sees the property as his, and you really need to work on getting on that's yours- if that means being stricter wit h your money, you'll have to- all children expenses come out of the joint pot and your money, like his house, is yours to do with as you want

If you are the higher earner, why has your career taken a hit? If he is a lower earner, why has childcare not been organized in a way that enables you to maximize your earnings? If you have not been paying rent for 15 years, have you been saving? Do you have a pension pot?

@StillHappy not entirely correct. "Ethics" can also refer to the set of guiding principles we all live by, based on our own interpretation of morality, or rather, "what is right" (our feeling).

Which makes way for interesting debate!

So yabu wins! It is interesting but not surprising.

She’s been paying into the household (as well as the children) 50:50, depending on what that covers it could be argued to be a form of rent.

Well yes, anything could be argued, but is there any precedent of it being argued successfully under these circumstances?

I’m not a lawyer, but I do know someone who gained a beneficial interest in their partner’s property through paying rent and contributing to renovations.

A key question is whether DP in this case has always maintained he was the sole owner, or whether he has given OP informal assurance in the past that she could have an interest in it, and whether she relied on that when contributing to the house.

No you are not being unreasonable.

I'm staggered you've allowed this to happen though.

You have 4 children with this man and zero security. Fucking hell.

STOP paying a single penny into this house. Start savIng because you're going to need it.

Oh, and your "partner" is a complete shit.

I missed the bit where his family paid for the house.

If I funded a house for my son I'd want it protected from a short term relationship.

But this is 15 years and 4 children later, and that is completely different.

I think I'd want the mother of my 4 grandchildren to have a stake in the house.

More likely you'd want your 4 grandchildren to have a stake in it, but who knows if you'd even like their mother, let alone want to give her a house you paid for? Plus as they're not married, she could leave any time and make them sell the house if she has a stake in it. I think any warm impulse to give your DIL a stake in the house might soon be snapped out of in the cold light of day. Different if they're married, but OP was vague about reasons for not marrying and she might not have wanted to herself. They don't sound particularly solid as a couple so being together 15 years might well make them more likely to split than less.

Yes there is a possibility to try to establish a beneficial interest but it’s not easy and depends on evidence - law doesn’t readily give part of your home away to someone. It’s usually where someone can prove they paid for substantial renovations. It will cost thousands in legal fees so isn’t often done.

The I paid £1000 he paid £1000 into pot and that paid all bills inc his mortgage isn’t enough.

All this. 4 kids!

We need education in school, I think, to teach girls that there is no such thing as a common law wife.
If you were the higher earner, why wasn't he the stay at home dad?

But the OP herself has choosen not to have a husband, not to be a wife.

Even in marraige UK recognises the right of the individual to hold personal property.

In the UK, society has evolved to where 2 adults are free to make a decision to enter into a casual long term sexual relationship with no intent to form a permanent relationship.

With DNA testing the courts have the ability to identify who did (or did not) provid the sperm and make financial orders to provide for the upkeep of any children.
In fact all UK taxpayer provides financial support to childrens upkeep as a social good.

Marraige is a legal contract.

Society evolved into a situation where women were not legally recognised, they had almost no legal protection to hold property or retain custody of their children.

The contract was to ensure that the husband and his family had specific obligations to his wife and the children.

Marraige contracts always had clauses for the protection wife and ensuring that the childrens be provided for. Pre DNA any child born in a marraige was the legal responsibility of the husband irrespective of whos sperm was involved.

The OP and partner were also free to visit a solicitor and form a contract as a co-habiting couple.

The UK has decided that not all moral obligations should be legally enforceable.

Marraige removes the moral or ethical question.

Difficult to vote. YANBU to think your contributions should be recognised in a share of the family home. Unfortunately, legally, you don't have a leg to stand on which is sad.