To get married when I earn more/own property?

[ellbigggb]

just that really. Have always wanted to get married to my partner of 10 years, we have 2 children together so I’d like the same last name. However, I own the house we live in solely and he is not in a good position financially- debt, won’t be able to buy a house together for a very long time etc…

Yes it's profiteering because the asset is only going to benefit one party. Whether rent would cost more elsewhere is irrelevant. If you are in a partnership but one party isn't able or willing to buy a fair share into the property then they should use the opportunity to save (rather than give it to their partner to reduce their partner's mortgage payments, out of which only the partner with property benefits) and when they are able to, invest in either the joint property or some other investment of their own. Otherwise the financial situation is extremely unbalanced.

This.

Unmarried, you are able to protect your children's home. Marry him and he could wrack up debt gambling or on some daft get-rich scheme, and you could be forced to sell.

Just change your name. Much safer.

I'm in a somewhat similar position to you OP.
I am the sole person on my mortgage (owned before my fiance moved in), we have a child together but he's never contributed towards any home improvements or the mortgage, but does pay half of the bills/shopping and more recently any goods for the house. Whilst my partner doesn't have any debts he did have an IVA when we first met and due to poor financial decision making had no tangible assets.

In not paying towards the mortgage he's built up some savings to allow for some financial security should our relationship go south.

We do plan to marry but not before we've sought legal advice as I'd potentially stand to lose my/our home which has a relatively small amount owing on it.

That is very, very bad. And you only have a year since the discovery of his financial incontinence or financial infidelity. In other words— after he fucked around you are only just at the startnof the finding out period. I wouldn’t risk it because he has demonstrated that when the chips are down, he is “in a bad place” or he is not treating his bipolar and is in a manic state that he will blow up the family finances. Either he will eventually drag you down and destroy the family finances or you will give up and try to divorce him to preserve your future and at that point, if you are married, he will take half the house and half your pension. At that point he is also stealing your children’s inheritance. I wouldn’t risk advise against marrying him as you have a lot to lose and he is a very bad risk.

Good grief ! Marriage will not solve all your problems ! It will only add to them if you split up.

and why did you give the children his name when you weren't married ? you should have given them your name
and that would have solved the problem of you having the same name as your children.

That’s a bit of a wild statement.

In those situations women are advised to marry because overwhelmingly they significantly reduce paid work to take on the bulk of unpaid labour. This supports the family but threatens her future in the case of divorce. And it is the financially weaker spouse asking.

We don’t know that this man is agreeing to be the primary domestic partner so offering that advice is silly without that context.

Also if you bothered to read OPs further comments he actually earns more than she does.

So really not the same situation.

Well you could have a lodger agreement and he'd have no claim on the house.

Seems a big price to pay (literally) just to wear a 'nice white wedding dress'.

Exactly marriage is recommended before children because of the huge impact it can have on a women’s earnings both in the short and longer term. Plus it is securing it all for the children and their future

here it is not

and if a man was asking about blending families I would give the same advice because it is about the impact of maternity leave and childcare

I would not merge myself legal with a partner who displayed such a fundamental poor mismanagement of his finances.

It’s not as if he was going to be a househusband / primary carer. In your example he outearns you but is just bad with money. I would be keeping things separate until he sorts himself out (if he wants too.)

(I don’t think I would have kids with anybody who was financially irresponsible and heavily indebted but that’s another story).

I never understood the need to share a name with your kids but if it was massively important I would just have made sure my kids had my surname or change it by deed poll.

I haven't read the full thread so I don't know if it's already been mentioned but I'm concerned that you're considering marriage when, less that 2 weeks ago, you were asking how you know when a relationship is over.

Don't make any rash decisions and get some legal advice!

But this wouldn't hold up in court because if you are in a long term relationship and have children together he's not a lodger.

@TomorrowTodayYesterday

Actually there was a post recently from a male poster who was asking if he should marry his partner who was insistent on marriage but refused to consider a prenup (no kids together and would not be having any).

The overwhelming consensus was to tell him not to do it and call her a golddigger. So your allegation is provably false.

I am pretty sure unmarried couples in England and wales have no claim on their partner’s property.

If they can prove they have paid towards the mortgage or repairs then yes they can.

It's a completely different scenario. Presumably you missed the part where OP said her partner actually earns more than her?

He's just monumentally crap with money.

@Supssups

Its come about because of social change,people no longer think marriage is important and because there are no longer the same social consequences of unprotected sex and conceiving children with men who have no intention of maintaining a supportive loving relationship.

That's partially true. But the approach to it is very one-sided depending on your sex. Men have benefited from the fact marriage has fallen out of fashion because not being married gives them a lot more financial freedom. So they resist it when it doesn't make sense from a financial perspective, which we may find morally reprehensible but it is financially logical.

But a lot of women in particular cling to the idea that marriage is a good thing by default when often its financially damaging and behave against their own economic interests. For a solvent woman who isn't planning to stop work there's no financial rationale for getting married these days (unless the man she is marrying is much wealthier than she is). But still women do it in their droves.

Until recently people were more or less forced to get married as the cost of having sex because religions frowned upon sex outside marriage. That may seem outdated nowadays but it at least had a coherent rationale and it had the benefit of meaning "respectable" women would not be left because "respectable" men got bored (though working class women tended to benefit less from this).

Nowadays its an a la carte approach in which men protect themselves and women often don't. If you are planning not to work it makes sense to get married but for the large numbers of women who rush into it because it's just what you do I can't think of any other reason why they do it other than "love". This thread has examples aplenty of women doing it because they feel it somehow sanctifies their relationship or strengthens their love. Men rarely labour under this illusion. They are self-interested and rightly understand that it's about money.

Oh yes sorry I meant in cases where they paid nothing.

Your with a man for 10 year's. You had 2 children with him. You bought a house in your name only because he was in debt and he is giving you money each month towards this.
Does his bank statement show him paying half this mortgage each month?
You're aware that he is bad with money. This could be due to have champagne tastes on lemonade money, having a drug or gambling problem. I know people that got into debt say due to losing a job or been unable to work for a while due to family issues but that's not the case with him.

You have also told us that your relationship is currently not great. So why would you marry him? Marrying him gives him access to value of this home and your pension.

It could have a major impact on you and your kids both now and in the future. Also getting married does not suddenly improve a relationship that was not great to begin with.

Now he is paying back this debit but he kept this secret for year's. I get legal advice about how to protect the house in your name in this situation. If he was not with you he would be living with his parents or have to pay rent elsewhere. You need to consider your life and your children's future going forward and protecting what you currently have now and in the future.

The person paying rent is profiting by living there. I would never let anyone live in my property for free. I would make them pay a contribution and get them to sign a document stating they will not gain any rights to my property. I had to sign one when I was paying towards my mother's mortgage when I was living with her.

A signed form isn't worth the paper it's written on. And no they aren't 'profiting'. They are your partner. If you want to cohabit with a partner then you should have shared financial goals. Taking their money to pay off your own asset is depriving them of the opportunity to save their own capital to put towards shared financial goals.

No, someone who lives for free in another's house is a cock / cunt lodger

I think they would.

As I said, the goal is that the person who doesn't benefit from the asset uses the opportunity to save so that they can become more financially equitable and share the financial load. If that person chooses to waste their money rather than be a responsible adult then they both have bigger problems.

It sounds like he pays a minimal contribution. Also the waters are muddied by them having children together. If he paid nothing at all towards the mortgage, should op be solely responsible for housing their children?

Op, this guy sounds like a nightmare with money. You'd be foolish to get married to him. It feels like you'd be marrying the person you want him to be rather than the person he is.