AIBU to feel undervalued when my husband keeps score financially?

[PinkCatStripes]

I remarried a couple of years ago, have 2 lovely children from 1st marriage, finally bought a house with OH that is ours together. We bought as tenants in common as I had bigger share of deposit.
OH is paying majority of household bills and mortgage. OH has an income 6x larger than me.
OH is getting p*ssy because I asked him to check on the dinner when I went to pick up DS for 10 mins. I asked OH if he could pick up kids from clubs one day next week- to which he has stated is a chore.
I work part time, spend all of my income on groceries/ petrol/ things for children/ my own bills eg phone/ car/ activities etc I have non left at the end of the month. My contributions appear to be of no value, because they are not as financial as those made by the OH. I’m always being reminded of the financial contributions that he makes. I am thankful for this, but I have made a very significant financial contribution already which seems to be forgotten.
I hate the way I am being treated in this respect, AIBU? My DC are not his and he plays a big part in their life, I feel like I cannot expect everything from him, and as he says, they are not his responsibility. Is it even possible to be appreciated fully by the man I married? I often feel that I have a teenager rather than a partner.

Surely you and the children are a package and you all come as a team, that’s what marriage is.

sounds like at present you own more of your home because you paid the deposit but each month the mortgage is paid your dh owns a bit more of the home so that in the future you will both own the same amount?

my dh has always paid our mortgage but never grumbles that he owns more of the house than me as we are married and everything is joint owned.

Yep, this.
I get it too. He's being a little too petty about it but it's not like it isn't understandable.

I think the way that your finances are set up are contributing to the problem and I don’t see this ending well

Yes he pays more but part of those payments are buying equity in the house he lives.

To try and get my head round this arrangement, Did you buy the house for eg £600,000
You paid in £300,000 and his half was funded by a mortgage of £300,000. So when mortgage is paid off he will own 50% of the house

What happens to the equity if you sell prior to mortgage being paid off

I would hope you have very good contracts in place prior to marriage setting out equity of the house etc

@HelenHywater

What the OP is saying (from what I can work out), is she put in most of the deposit. Let's say she paid 100% of the deposit. She talks about it being hefty, so let's assume that means much more than 10% down. Let's say the house cost 500k, she put in 200k . Mortgage of 300k.

The way their deal works, on day 1 she is entitled to 100% of the house. Over time, his mortgage contributions give him equity. It's not clear how they've structured this, but let's assume that he didn't completely roll over and give her the best deal in the world meaning that when she talks about his mortgage contributions it's the repayment plus interest payment rather than just the repayment.

Assume he pays 20k a year in mortgage.

At the end of year 1, she has put in 200k, he has put in 20k. Collectively the house has cost them 220k so far. He's paid 9% of that, she's paid 91%. So the deal then is she's entitled to 91% of equity and he's entity to 9% of equity. She may or may not have her deposit ring fenced, or they may be equally at risk if house price goes down.

Now over a 20 year mortgage, if there isn't something to say that he doesn't ever get more than 50:50 there's a risk her ownership share goes below 50%. It's not definitively unfair but with inflation etc that's not something that would have been a great deal for her and I'd have expected a lawyer to advise against. Although if the deposit is ringfenced as well then it's still a decent deal. All depends quite how big the deposit and mortgage are and what happens with house prices.

Assume no ringfencing. Suppose house prices go up 10% in year 1 and they end up splitting. House is worth 550k. Mortgage (once you take account of costs of selling etc) let's just say is still 300k. Equity is now 250k. She gets back 227.5k (13% increase on her capital). He gets back 22.5 k (12.5% increase on his capital). She's made more than him out of the deal AND she's had a free place to live for her and her two kids for a year - I don't know where they are but presumably that's saved her at least 1k a month.

There are lots of ways to cut how the structure works and a lot of assumptions in the above. Short term I can't see how this is in any way an unfair deal for her. If it doesn't stop at 50:50 then it is risky long term, but we're talking maybe 15 years before that's a real issue and she's not had to pay the mortgage that whole time.

Im curious if you lived together before buying a house together as Surely these differences would have been apparent and less impactful on the kids who are now going to be exposed to conflict/unhappiness? Popping out and asking someone to check on dinner isn’t a big deal in healthy relationships but yours sound toxic

Yes why are you working part time, id be annoyed if i was him look at it from his side, hes paying the mortgage but you are entitled to half the house and hes paying all the bills for you and your 2 children, i think things need to be more equal, hes effecticly keeping you and your children and if you have a mortgage why are you working part time, imagine if you paid all the mortgage but knew if your partner left they would be entitled to half the house its not fair,

More standard would be that the deal is that her 200k is ringfenced and she gets that back and then any other equity is split 50:50 from day 1, with his mortgage contributions acting to reduce that 200k over time (so once he's paid 200k off on the mortgage it's just straight 50:50). That would be completely reasonable and better for him. At the end of year 1 that would have her getting back 215k (still 7.5% and with a free place to live) and him getting back 35k (also 7.5%).

I've also known it done that the 200k is ringfenced and then the mortgage contributions don't matter, but that's not fair on him - his financial investment isn't recognized at all.

If the roles were reversed people would be telling OP that she didn't have to look after her partner's children or take on extra housework because her partner had children to look after

You must be joking?! Have you ever visited the step parenting board?! Step mums are expected to do more than actual mothers. And what the hell is wrong with expecting a man to check on dinner or do some housework? Most of us work and do these things.

Point scoring in general isn’t very nice in a relationship. Imagine if you did that every time you had sex with him or cooked him dinner… he wouldn’t bloody like it! He sounds unkind.

Generally on MN there’s a bit of a double standard that says step mothers shouldn’t pay for their step children and step father's should, but I personally think if you’re going to be in a child’s life like that you should be all in.

Sounds like you protected your larger deposit when you bought the house by ensuring that it was held as tenants in common. Now, your income is spent partly on food but the rest goes on your kids, your car, your phone your petrol and your activities. He's paying all the household bills, the mortgage and no doubt money on your kids. Can't you see why he is pissed off?
What does your EH contribute? Also what are your activities that you are paying for when he is paying all the household bills? Sounds like your income is yours but his income is everyone's!

You don’t really say what it is that he says to you or does that is so regularly demeaning.
He moaned a bit when you asked him to pick up children once.
How does he remind you of the contribution he makes, and how often ?

Given you would be on means-tested benefits if you hadn’t remarried, I’m presuming you had some detailed discussions on plans for your new married life as evidenced by the ownership arrangements for your home. I presuming your lifestyle is massively different from a life on benefits - holidays, home, expendable income etc.

Is there a mismatch between expectations and reality? Did you plan on having children together? Given your son has a long commute to school, I’m presuming he is at senior school, so in ten years at least one of your children will have likely moved out to university. I think you need to sit down and have a discussion with your DH and possibly some marriage guidance / counselling. Central to everything must be that the children should not suffer from you entering into this marriage.

From what the OP has said in her updates, her husband owns several properties, that have been presumably ring-fenced as any deposit he put down for their current home, has been. The OP put a much larger deposit down, which again presumably has been ring-fenced but the mortgage her husband pays, is also helping him gain more ownership of the property.

The disparity in their salaries, should have been glaringly obvious prior to purchasing a home together. Even if the OP, went back to work full-time, she's unlikely to ever equal his salary, so will never be on equal financial terms with her husband.

To be honest, I can't see a way forward here. Her husband resents paying the mortgage and bills, with the OP contributing less because she has 2 children to pay for. He doesn't want to help on any level with her children, because it's not his responsibility. No, it isn't but if you've married a woman with children, they all come as a package. If the OP was constantly asking her husband to help with her children (as we often see with men on here), to the point he was doing more parenting than she was, then I could understand him being peeved. However, it sounds like she asks occasionally for him to pick the children up etc.

The OP's husband owns other properties, if they split, he'd potentially have a home to walk straight into, plus a proportion of the current property he's bought with the OP!!

How dare you ask that?

The OP has enabled her DH to keep not inconsiderable assets.
He earns 6x what she does.
He throws a fit at being asked to check on the dinner or to pick up kids on one day.

Those giving the OP a hard time need to wind their necks in.
OP, if I were you I'd take my share of the house and get the hell out. He doesn't demonstrate any respect or basic concern for you. That the kids are not his is no excuse; he knew that when you got together.

The OP's husband owns other properties, if they split, he'd potentially have a home to walk straight into, plus a proportion of the current property he's bought with the OP!!

So? How is the OP worse off if they split than she would have been if they hadn't married. She hasn't come back to the thread so a while so we're all on in fantasy land with many assumptions that are probably all wrong, but OP hasn't mentioned any sacrifices she has made for this relationship (well except for living with her husband who sounds like a petty arse). If she has made personal sacrifices, for example if the long school commute that means she can only work 4 days is because of her DH and where he wants to live, then there's an argument that she should financially gain from the marriage over time. If not then I don't see why she would possibly expect to only pay for part a house and get to keep it all. She will still benefit from equity increases but he's already covering the whole mortgage - why would she and her kids live rent free and expect to be gifted all of the house at the end? She hasn't paid for a whole house with her deposit, she's paid for part of one.

She is potentially putting herself in a financially vulnerable position if she stays with him long term because she is likely to need to take a significant lifestyle drop and he won't have to if they split. But that's because she's getting a lifestyle bump now that he's funding.

[If they have kids together whether or not this structure is 'fair' all changes of course. I would assume that's covered in the prenup.]

If you read all of the OP's out you'd see that the house split isn't going to be 50/50 and she works part time because a court order means the children have to go to school an hour away.
OP he married you knowing this. If you don't want to be a step parent, then don't marry someone who has children still at school, you then have a legal connection and moral responsibility towards them. I agree that you need to talk about things and ask him outright if he regrets the marriage. My DP (of only five years) Mum (84) has needed a bit of help, I've done it and I don't know anyone who wouldn't. Likewise he's heped my adult DD and grandchildren, in practical ways, including babysitting. We have less obligation to elderly relatives of our spouse, but it's the norm to help a bit (even if it's just sorting a prescription etc). Have you discussed at what age he'd want your children gone? His attitude now doesn't bode well. Posters on here are all about money. You can love children that aren't biologically your's. You can get positives from having children/young adults in your life. If he wasn't capable of tgat, he shouldn't have gone near a single parent.

@Decacaffeinatednow it sounds like he gas married her for her contribution to the home they live in.

@boingcatmavenvulture the OP was topped up by in-work benefits. She gave them up to live with him. She has less disposable income now and another person to clean up after. Plus it doesn't sound fun in their house.

I would do the same as you btw. I wouldn't be in this relationship but I suspect that in reality OP is getting a significant lifestyle bump. I don't judge her if she looks on this relationship with a business head a bit or if she's willing to put up with an arse of a DH because of it. It's not clear what her financial position was before except that she was on benefits (but managed to have a substantial deposit saved, which means she either owned her own home or the deposit was under 20k) and living in poverty is no fun. I don't live in the UK, believe me I know a lot of women who are willing to put up with a lot to be able to lift themselves and their kids out of poverty. It's just if she wants to look at it that way, she doesn't have a leg to stand on with her argument that he's undervaluing her contribution and it won't help her to take that approach.

I'm not clear how she's enabled her DH to keep assets though? He could presumably have liquidated other assets to buy the house in full if that's what he wanted to do, or even to cover the deposit amount. Then they'd probably be in the position that OP wasn't getting any equity in the house at all. This really isn't a bad financial deal for OP. Remember there are 4 people living in this house, DH is paying the whole mortgage for a house he gets 25% of the benefit. The need to purchase a bigger house might even have been because of the need for bedrooms for OP's kids.

How much do you both earn? You say his earning are 6x yours but if 60% of yours is used up on food for 2 adults and 2DC who are only with you 50% of the time, you are either very extravagant or not earning much. But then you say you work 4 days in a professional role, but also had received benefit top ups. It's hard to know if he's BU without knowing figures involved - big difference between £10k/60k versus £50k/£300k.

She hasn't said she has less disposable income. If she was on benefits then she presumably didn't have any disposable income before. She's just said she doesn't have any now (once she's covered a list of things which are 90% things she would have had to cover before ). As I've said above it seems impossible that his financial contribution isn't much higher than any in work benefits she was getting. The expenses she covers that are also for him are groceries. He covers the mortgage and all other household bills. We don't know what happens if they go out as a family, or if they go out as a couple, or if they go on holiday. She didn't mention that in her list of expenses (just activities, which I take to mean after school stuff) and she hasn't actually complained about him being tight, so I would assume at a minimum that's he's picking up the bulk of her costs, if maybe not being willing to cover family days out and holidays for her kids.

She's also not said she has to clean up after him. I agree it's likely she does but she's not mentioned it at all. He could be a slob but he's one man - that's basically just paying for a cleaner a few times a week, and a meal plan. If he's a neat freak that expects a super high standard of cleaning from her then presumably he's also not a complete slob. I'm a bit of a slob - but my standards are also much lower than my husband's so whilst he ends up picking up more cleaning than I do (which can annoy him) the reality is I'm not doing less than I would if he wasn't there!

I agree he doesn't sound like much fun! But that's her trade off.

If they are married, any assets he owns elsewhere also now belong to his wife. And vice versa.

They are not. They are included in a pre nup.

Pre nups are not legal in the UK which I assume they are. Pointless articles here.