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.

no I wouldn't do 50/50.

you and your partner have paid rent over the last 14 years. That wasn't a mortgage, it was rent.

you chose to do some works - again that was your choice and in no way entitled you to ownership of the property.

your relative now want to gift you the property - that's their call.

nothing to stop your partner staying with you in your property.

but if you split, joint ownership would force a sale.

Rent paid and works done do have importance here considering OP says: I am being gifted the house because we have paid so much in rent and what we have done to it.

My fault couldn't get a mortgage, was left with a lot of debt after a messy divorce.

I am she, DP is a man. We have raised our children from prev relationship together, we do not have a child together.

The relative has said I can do what I want with the house. I am thinking 50/50 I just wanted opinions. We have effectively paid for the house with the rental payments, which was originally bought with cash by relative, so no mortgage.

I think I might have to drag him up the aisle! 😂

Would you? Renting a property gives you zero right to ownership.

We don't know the sex of the OP or partner. (cross posted - we do now)

And I am not 'MN' I am me, but my answer would not be different, UNLESS the Dp has ceased / compromised their career and earnings capacity and pension in order to raise shared children , in which case they need and deserve the same security as the OP.

If I was a female partner in this position I would be glad of the rent-free future and save my resulting extra money towards my own security

Put it in your own name. It is security for you. You are not married.

I would definitely look at a tenancy in common 25/75 or 70/30 to reflect what has being put in it is easy to do and isn’t affected by marriage and makes sense given what you have said

The person gifting the house can put anyone on the deeds - ie they can give it to anyone at all. The are giving you the house, not 50/50 you and partner. If grandparent gave granddaughter a diamond tiara, the parent wouldn't be entitled to half its value.

Because you're not married, I would keep it only in your own name but obviously not expect partner to contribute to it in future. I'd also figure out a way to compensate partner for the money, time, and effort put in to improving the property in the past. I'm assuming you don't pool all your money etc.

I can't decide based on the information you've given what's for the best.

Who's made the bad financial decisions that make you ineligible for a mortgage, do you have any debts between you, do you plan to get married and do you have kids?

The house is a gift to you from your family. If you were my family member and you weren't married I'd expect you to keep it in your name as I'd want to keep the house in the family.

Also what was the rent? Was it discounted family rate or market rate?

If he's been sensible with money and invested in the house I don't think he should get nothing, however 50/50 is maybe a bit too much maybe 75/25. However if his finances are worrying I would keep it in my name so I didn't eventually lose the house!

Then morally you need to put it 50:50 and I think maybe get married too. Why not?

Hmmm. He has been disadvantaged a bit due to your shit credit meaning you couldn’t buy somewhere for a very long time. He stayed regardless and now you get a house for free that he’s made major contributions to. Morally I’d feel uncomfortable with doing this to my partner.

Well it's not exactly Mills and Boon, but would you both consider getting married? You've been together longer than some marriages last!

It's a gift to you so it is yours. I don't know what your relationship is like, are you likely to split up in the future? This house is your security do you trust your partner enough to risk losing half of it? Neither of you earned it, I don't know if you were paying market rate rent or if it was a low rent, the deal being you did the repairs. If your partner left would you be able to support yourself or is he the main bread winner? Think about it before making a decision, perhaps get married, then you will have a share of his money, pension, etc, which would make things fairer if you did separate.

I’d be putting it 100% in my name. Your relative can choose to do whatever they want with the house but they’re giving it to you. If your partner had rented a house from a stranger he wouldn’t be getting anything back, so don’t see that it’s any different.

Ah considering your update I think he definitely should be cut in. Maybe 75/25 or 70/30 and if you get married it will be 50/50 won't it. 😉

This!

My hard line was that I wouldn’t own a house jointly with someone I wasn’t married to - and so we married at about the same time we bought our first property.

Either you’re married and a legally recognised partnership, or you have separate affairs and it’s up to your relative whether she gifts it to just you or both of you. But I wouldn’t be tangling finances with someone I’m not married to - so I appreciate I might have a skewed view on this.

I wouldn’t split it 50:50 because if you split you will lose your home that your relative has gifted to you.

If you split how much of a mortgage could you raise to buy them out?

I would keep a large enough share that you could keep it on your own.

How do your pensions compare? Is one of you in danger of financially struggling if you ever split?

So I'm even more behind my original answer.

He's stayed with you in this rented accomodation despite not being able to set up a secure future for himself and DC by buying a home because of your poor credit.

If your partner isn’t getting half ownership, you will have to take on all ownership related bills (like insurance), and costs of maintenance and upgrades. It’s not fair to expect them to pay half a new kitchen or roof repair.

You should also look at wills to make sure they aren’t left homeless if you pre-decease them.

I assume you were paying market or below market rent, in which case you should put it in your name only. It is a gift to you. The fact that you've paid rent over the years means nothing really as there's no promise of a free house at the end of it and there wouldn't be if you weren't related. I wouldn't charge him rent going forward since the house is free - i think that is enough of a bonus for your partner if unmarried.

Sorry if this has been said already, but aren't there big tax repercussions when gifting a property, especially to a non relative. (Your dp?) Would it make more sense financially to keep it your name?

He’s been held back by this relationship. Had he been with someone with less financial trouble he would probably have bought somewhere on his own rather than rented for this long. As I said, it’s a moral thing. If I were the partner I’d probably reconsider things.

Imagine if the sexes were reversed. OP is a woman living with a man whose credit history means they can’t get a mortgage so are forced to rent but there’s some vague hint that it might be given to them (and OP naively thinks it would be given to them both). OP contributes her own money to doing the property up as well. Then boom, the house is given only to her financially precarious partner who doesn’t want to share it. I think the consensus would be that OP has been treated badly here. I don’t see why it’s different because he’s a man.

I really wouldn't be making it a 50/50 thing when you are not married. If you were married, I'd say go for it in terms of putting it in both your names, but the reality is that you never know what is going to happen. Why are you going to reward your partner with half a house when he refuses to marry you? In practical terms, if you ever did split (no matter how unlikely it may seem right now), you are going to massively resentful that you gave away half a house you would likely have to move out of because how would you afford to buy your partner out? Just don't do it. If he wants to get married, it can be a joint asset. If he doesn't want to, he still gets to live there - rent free if you like, which is a HUGE gift in itself - but the house remains your property. Just don't complicate your life with this. Living rent free for potentially decades in your house is adequate compensation for the work and money he has contributed to the property over the years, he does not need to be co-owner.

So he was unable to buy due to your poor credit?

You have jointly invested in improvements to the property.

And you assumed from the outset that the ownership of the property would eventually transfer to you?

Morally, I think you owe him a fair share of the property, personally.