How to divide costs: new relationship, but my house!

[Skylark9]

I lost my DH in 2020 age only 55 and now that both kids have left home, am in process of downsizing to a house I'll own with no mortgage. I'm grateful to be ok financially, and also to have recently met a wonderful man. We want to move in together, but I'm very stuck on the finances when cohabiting? He contributed financially to his 2 exes' mortgages, yet when things broke down, walked away with nothing, bless. So while he's keen to do DIY work on the house as well as pay daily living costs, I want to make sure he's safe in the event that things don't work out, because otherwise he'll be back to square one. We both work, similar modest salaries. I'd love advice on our options: 1) I pay for ALL the home improvements - it remains my house and any increase in value is also mine, should we separate. He chips in just for living expenses. 2) I let him pay 50% of DIY costs, if we broke up he'd get 50% of any increase in value (regardless of whether I sell or not - I'd just calculate it for him).

Are there other options? I want to be pragmatic for both our sakes . Any other pitfalls I haven't thought of? Of course, if it all goes well we're heading towards marriage and a whole different set of questions re: wills, inheritance etc.

Yes, where was he? Was he living with a friend or family member?

It’s just so hard to read isn’t it.

this bloke is saving on rent, financially unstable and blaming the ex’s, when we all know that’s bullshit, and within 8 months the ops moved him in and even now thinking of giving him equity in exchange for a bit of diy.

he’s found a lonely widow, who doesn’t wish to be alone and got his feet right under the table and his hand out.

Ok.

So if he's such a lovely man, why are you even asking the question?

It's a no-brainer. He lives with you, he benefits from the no mortgage situation which allows him to save and build non-property assets.

Your house remains 100% yours. I'm not sure why you'd even consider giving someone you've known for a relatively short period of time 50% of your assets.

Bills, day to day are split 50/50 in your circumstances.

You both benefit from this arrangement.

Win/win, surely?

If he wasn't living with you he'd be renting. So he needs to pay rent and his share of the bills. The 'rent' he says you will cover bits like DIY and will be cheaper than full market rent on a place of his own, he should save the difference.
You're not his mother you don't need to look after him, he should've been looking after his own financial interests and hasn't.

@Skylark9 surely get him to pay half the bills, gas, electric, council tax, food etc
Any home improvements are yours to pay for
You need to sort a cohabitation agreement to say he has no claim on your property, imagine being retirement age and splitting up allowing him to claim part of your house, where would you find the money to remortgage, would you have to downsize again?
He would only have half the expenses of the house, he could then save his disposable income to allow him to feel financially secure and you would also have financial security. Win-win

At your age, you are in no rush! Why marry? You have kids, not planning on any more.

Ive been burned by a cocklodger so listen to me- marriage only benefits the person with fewer assets. You do not need to marry.

For you, it is a potentially very expensive piece of paper that could see you having to downsize again, or take in a mortgage to buy him out of what will become the matrimonial home. It wil also deny your children a nest egg when you die.

im late 40’s and I can’t believe someone likely to be a similar age is talking about being soulmates with someone they’ve known a year.

it takes a lifetime before you can call someone a soulmate.

Really interesting that women on mumsnet are told to never move in unless they’re on the deeds, and any man not willing to do that is right and an arse.

It's being realistic. Women are the ones left holding the baby with no assets.
I'm sure men's sites tell men the same.

Way to fast. Hes fallen on his feet with you .

This has got run in the other direction all over it. He moved in after eight months?! He's a fast mover. I hope you took legal advice beforehand.

A house left to a wife who has children may have been a full and final settlement during a divorce where it had been agreed that the wife would be a SAHP and has no claim on other stuff like his pension pot / savings/ other assets. If he didnt have the kids very often either, this could be why she got the house. Or maybe she took over the mortgage payments on that house and he signed the deeds over to her at that point - depending upon the age of the kids / how long they had been married / how much the mortgage was and what deposits either had contributed - all these things would have been taken into account during the financial settlement. Its very very unlikely, however much these men like to say so, that they have basically 'given the house', and by implication the full value of it, to the ex wife.

The next girlfriend. Well Im assuming its the same situation as he was hoping for here, but without the payout. She owned the house. She charged him some rent and a contribution to bills, and as she was paying the mortgage on a property, he has framed that as 'paying her mortgage'. She did it right. Its unlikely that he paid full market rent - so depending how long he lived there - why wasnt he saving the excess to put towards a place for himself? Why would he think he was owed some of her house just because he was her boyfriend?

Where was he living before he moved in with you? What is he paying now? How much is he saving? Has he got ANYTHING to put down as a deposit?

You need to protect yourself not him! You're likely to be his next Ex and you need to ensure you don’t compromise your security at your age and also that of your adult children.
No wonder he’s keen to move in so soon - it’s part of a pattern where he doesn’t really have to support himself.

Just to clarify the above re the family home. If it was mortgaged, he may not have had that much invested in it - dont forget early days mortgage payments are mostly interest, and depending on when they bought, how much of mortgage had been paid, how much deposit he put in, it could really only be a few thousand or tens of thousands, not the full value of the house.

many men like to say 'she took the house off me' but in reality the wife has taken over the mortgage payments, he didnt put any deposit down, and left 3 years into a 25 year deal, leaving her to juggle almost full time childcare and work to pay the balance

Depends on the situation, if the woman is likely to give up career or take a hit on their level of income or progression and raise a child while the man continues as normal, then yes it wouldn't be wise to leave yourself so vulnerable as a woman who lets face it, will probably end up with 95% custody of the children with very little CMS and unable to earn a decent income due to childcare responsibilities

However if no joint children are likely to arrive in a relationship, then I see no reason for finances to be entangled regardless of who has the most and regardless of the sex of the people involved. Sharing general living expenses whilst under the same roof, fine. Anything else is down to them to save/spend accordingly

A similar situation happened to a friend of mine, she went all in with the guy, she passed very suddenly, and they were a couple of years into the relationship. He’s refusing to leave the house or have it sold, meaning rhe kids can’t get their inheritance, and he’s kept all of her money, as she went all in to a joint savings account. She even did a will protecting him, of course not even considering she’d die young and so soon. The whole thing has been utterly horrific.

the op has been very foolish moving someone she barely knows in so soon, especially someone who has nothing and blames his ex;s. But the least she can do now she’s done it is make sure she protects herself and her children. He needs to pay his way, and he doesn’t get any of her house.

I would only advise a woman to get married if they were going to have kids and there was a chance she may end up losing on her career and pension by doing childcare. If it were a woman who wasn’t intending to have children then I’d expect her to support herself and not be the female equivalent of a cocklodger.

Ooof that's very fast moving indeed OP. I'd be really worried about you if you were my mate.

The fact that he's mentioned paying his exes' mortgage and got "nothing"- he didn't get nothing, he had a home. Rent is more expensive than a mortgage so he probably saved money by shaking up with them. I know he probably seems lovely and laid back, but I'd be wary of a man who feels that they've been consistently outfoxed by women. Please protect yourself, your money and the assets that you and your late husband worked so hard for. If your new man is truly lovely and is in it for the long haul, he will want to pay half of your bills and a fair rent.

He wasn’t paying off his ex’s mortgage. He was making a financial contribution to live in her house which was likely much less than if he was privately renting. I don’t think that we can make the assumption that he’s a horrible person and after your money, but that doesn’t mean you don’t protect yourself and your children.

The fact that your mortgage is paid means that you and your children will be financially secure for life.

I’m in a similar position and own the house I share with DP. It feels against the grain not to share with your finances but it’s completely okay when you have children from previous relationships. If he wants assets or investments then paying half of the bills and a small rent contribution won’t stop him from doing that.

A lawyer would think you’re out of your mind to consider option 2

No. You misrepresent.

Women who have children with a man that is reluctant to marry them or share finances whilst they hoard assets are told to wise the fuck up, because they're being shafted. They are throwing their future security away on a man that will not commit.

ANYONE who has assets and no shared children, are advised to protect their assets, man or woman. That's the sane and sensible position.

So don't play that 'what about the menz' game.

Op when you said ‘bless’ about him ‘losing’ two houses were you being sarcastic?

You know the divorce settlement would have been agreed between him and the ex and presumably their solicitors? Did the ex-wife stay in the house with the children? Maybe he kept his pension or she would have bought him out or whatever the arrangements were that he agreed. Honestly there will be more to that story.

Same for the girlfriend. He chose not to get a mortgage with her but just moved in. Again free choice. No idea why you feel so sorry for him!

Option 1. If he isn't paying a mortgage, only half the bills and a contribution to wear & tear, this should allow him to save a significant amount every month which he needs to put away in a high interest ISA.

His finances are not your responsibility.

Please OP, get someone who is not emotionally involved to act for you, or you risk impoverishing your old age.

Take care.

This.

FGS do not give him any equity in the property.

Personally I would not live together either. Date for companionship but make him maintain a separate residence. I don't believe his tales of woe.

Yep.

Why "bless"?? Either he's a moocher, financially incompetent or he never contributed cash to his those residences.

Did you meet him online?

OP it would be madness to marry this man! You are putting your DC’s inheritance at risk.

You’ve moved in with him very quickly, and have swallowed his pity me tale about his exes. Does a landlord “rip off” a tenant by charging rent? Why should his ex have allowed him to live rent free in her house, when the alternative would be paying a landlord? Why should you?

He should be paying you rent for the use of your asset, otherwise he is financially advantaged by the move and what do you get? Not even some DIY by the sounds of it!

I can only think your friends are equally deluded or don’t want you to shoot the messenger.