It's ours not mine - or is it?

[ohthiscouldgetmessy]

Help. This is more for advise than AIBU really. I have rented a house from a family member with my partner for many years, we have probably paid around 50% the current value of the house in rent. We have also spent money on a few bits that needed doing.

Now, here is the tricky bit. I am being gifted the house because we have paid so much in rent and what we have done to it. What we have done, we have done together and will have added value to the house. So essentially what we have paid in rent would have covered the initial purchase price of the property when we moved in. (Due to bad financial decisions by one party we were unable to get a joint mortgage so just continued renting).

Partner is under impression the house will be ours. It is only going to be put into my name as its my family member who owns it. Should I put the house into both our names as we have paid the same into it or would you be looking at the rental paid, expenses paid, take that away from current value and work out percentage? Or just keep it 50/50.

I think 50/50 but want other opinions.

I'd have the house in your own name only OP. If you don't want your partner turfed out when you die you could always will it to him. That way he is protected if you predecease him but if you split up the house is yours. In that case though I'd be asking him to make a will leaving the house to your children and if he wasn't agreeable to that I wouldn't will it to him either.

I think the fact you rented this house for years is not relevant to the future ownership. His assumption that this property will automatically be half his would concern me.

I owned my house outright (also a family gift) when I met my 2nd husband and it remained in my name until I sold it when we'd been married for 30 years. DH accepted this and never suggested I should transfer half to him. I told him he could have it when I was dead but during my lifetime he had no rights to it. When I sold the house this year we bought a property that we both contributed to and co own.

If the gifter is giving it to you then the 50% not paid for should be in your name. The 50% "paid for" split so you have 75% and he 25% in total ... purchased as tenants in common.

Leave it in your name. Once you marry it will because a family asset.

No need to waste money on lawyers at this stage.

He's not her family, just her live in boyfriend, so she shouldn't be leaving him right of residency or anything else. It rightfully belongs to her child when OP dies.

She certainly can't trust Mr Grabby to do the right thing with any future will, once if he outlives her.

Horrible to steal that from her daughter for a man who didn't want to marry her - OP making a "joke" about having to drag him up the aisle says all we need to know. Not good enough to marry, but good enough to get grabby when the going is good.

He has already benefited enormously from a reduced rent thanks to her family. Now he gets to live rent free in HER home and can save his own money which more than compensates for anything he chipped in over the years to the house he rented cheaply because of OP.

It is her inheritance. She is only getting it because she is family. He is not their family and he is not her family.

She needs to keep it all and nail it down in a will to her own child.

I think who she wills it to is really up to her. Your children don't have any automatic right to an inheritance!

True, she can leave it to the cat and dog home if she likes.

But if she chooses her boyfriend, who wouldn't even marry her, and then got grabby with her inheritance over her own child, that's deeply pathetic behaviour.

She can do whatever she wants, but since she asked for opinions, that's mine.

Sorry I think I quoted the wrong post 😂

If you aren't paying rent though you could have a contingency fund for this, either by yourself or a joint one. Remember he will have free money now as not paying rent.

There's no written word as of yet from the OP stating why they have decided not to marry, yet in true MN fashion it's already been decided its all down to the boyfriend not wanting to.

I do agree that if this was the other way round and the boyfriend owned the property he'd have been called every name under the sun and OP told to LTB as he's a selfish twat.

Did I miss the bit where OP says he refuses to marry her?
Why is this always the assumption?
I know many women who are opposed to marriage.

Legally just yours, morally both. However if you’ve paid rent totalling about half the value I would say your DP should own 25% and you 75%, as half the overall value is the gift to you.

Just seen you’ve paid rent equal to the whole value, that you couldn’t get a mortgage due to your credit history and that your relative said ou can do what you want with it. I say 50/50.

She mentioned "dragging him up the aisle" so the implication is quite clear.

I thought that was just a turn of phrase.

A turn of phrase for someone who doesn't really want to get married, yes

The rent you have paid has no bearing on your ownership of the house.
I've paid a lot of rent and my landlord isn't gifting the house to us anytime soon!
Rather than thinking of how much you have paid, think about how much you'd have paid in interest have you bought the house then. Time is money when it comes to money.
If your family member sold the house years ago and invested the money in a stock market he or she could have made a healthy profit.

I think it does make a difference as to the reason you couldn’t get a mortgage. If it had been down to your partner’s previous poor decisions then I would have said, maybe keep in your name. But looking at it from his POV, you have been together for 15 years,
he has paid rent and for work on the house equally and under different circumstances you would have both had a joint mortgage and be joint owners of the property. I think joint names would be fairer. I don’t know enough about the legalities to say whether it would be better for you to marry before this or not.

Your name only. If you feel it'd be fair could you give him small lump sum to cover what he's put into it? Could take a small mortgage to cover his 'share' and then you'll have that to pay off.
He would be living with you rent free and have a lump sum- he couldn't argue with that!!
Saying that, you don't have to do that either. Everyone who doesn't own a house has to pay rent and they don't usually get it gifted to them in the end!

If you were a man writing this people would be calling you a pig and saying that you weren’t being fair on your female partner who had paid rent and upkeep on the house just like you for all of these years so genders put aside yes I think you should put the house in both of your names.

No. It would be exactly the same given that they'te not married and have no children together.

I disagree.

If a male had known that he would be gifted a house after paying rent on it for a set amount of time, he would be shamed for expecting the woman to pay equally towards the rent bills and upkeep of said house whilst knowing when it came to the house changing hands that the woman would have no legal claim on it.

He’d be shamed even more so if he was the reason the couple couldn’t have purchased a home years ago because of his debt and poor money decisions.

Are you new to mumsnet?
Of course people would be supporting the woman if roles were reversed.

Well, only OP knows. I'm not assuming.

Nope. Old hat here, which is why I know that someone always whines that it would be a different story of OP was a man.
Usually you can't just reverse the positions, as sex often has a large bearing on question. But on this one, it doesn't make any difference. .if you're given a house, you don't give half of it away to an unmarried partner, especially when you have children but don't share any. Its just a bad financial decision.

This. You need legal advice re capital gains too.

You have children as does he. If nothing else you need to consider equity and inheritance if it all goes well, if you split, if one of you dies.

It’s an amazing gift. Given you have been able to afford it as rent, you could also consider how you turn your current “rent” into an investment pot either joint or separate if your partner will not have equity.

In the end, you’ve already had a messy divorce but appear to have found a solid and decent individual. Do you risk being homeless again or bank on a better outcome should it happen again. Take legal advice