Whats the best way when you move in with someone who owns a house?

[Bogeyface]

Musing because DS will be in this situation in the summer and he has asked me about it and I am not sure what to advise.

If you move in with someone who has recently bought a home should a) contribute on the basis that it is your home too and presumably you are not planning on splitting up? And if so, when do you insist that your name is on the deeds? Straight away, after a year, marriage? or b) pay your share of everything else but the mortgage on the basis that it is their asset and as you dont have a claim on it, why should you be helping to pay it off? or c) pay rent for the use of the house?

b) and c) would of course mean that you have no say at all over the house in anyway so it may not feel like home so personally I would want to go for a) but that is quite selfish.....!

I'm really surprised how many are saying B. Effectively the son would be living rent free...??

He wouldn't be able to do that anywhere else. Not sure why GF should subsidise that. So I think option C, and then buy a house together later on. If he wants to invest in property he should by somewhere else and rent it out to cover the mortgage.

DP moved into my home last year. He contributed to everything bar mortgage (I didn't want or expect him to) then I sold asap so we could get a place together snd be on an equal footing. It feels better now we have joint responsibility.

I've moved in with my dp. He pays bills and mortgage and I pay everything else. Doesn't give me any rights to the house but as I've only been living here a year I don't really deserve it. However it has meant that I haven't been able to save as much towards a mortgage myself which is what Id have done had I not moved in. It leaves me in a bit of a precarious position but we are selling his and buying one together.

I think it depends on various factors: earning power, future plans, previous circumstances, reason for making the move...

I live with DP in the house that he owns. I don't pay rent or mortgage contribution. I pay half of all bills, half of anything 'movable' that we buy for the house, like furniture. I don't pay half of things like plumbing repairs or boiler maintenance. I contribute to things like decorating on an ad hoc basis.

The reason for this depends on a few things:

• I moved in relatively early in our relationship, we weren't at the stage of wanting to entangle our long term financial commitments

• DP earns significantly more than me, and thanks to his parents got on the property ladder very young. I was and am not in a financial position to be a homeowner, neither in terms of salary or savings. We agreed that I would live rent free in his house so that I could save money that after a few years I could potentially use to buy a house jointly with DP. The current house certainly isn't a 'forever' home.

Its been almost 5 years now, and the arrangement is working well for us.

Gigglekicks, it all depends on how you view finances within relationships. My DH earned alot and I didn't, at the time. He also had the rationale that he would have been paying it on his own if I wasn't there and he had budgeted for that.

Now, where we currently live, I don't have a bank account and all my wages go into his bank account. To an outsider that sounds absolutely shocking but it really does work for us, we are a cohesive financial team. (Both our names are on our properties and investments) back in the UK.

I would take legal advice on this. I wouldn't personally let someone pay anything on the mortgage, but I'm sure I was told that if someone moves in and pays bills or anything towards the upkeep of the house, then they might have a claim to some payback should you split up.

If i was her I would get some good legal advice before he moves in, or it could get interesting if things take a difficult turn. Also, don't assume that the nicest, most decent partner in the world won't get a bit arsey if things get difficult. Mine did, and I just about got out of it unscathed but I'd never let anyone move in with me again

From what I remember of bogey writing about the gf before, if they do split up, I don't think that she (gf) will be at all reasonable. In fact, egged on by the mum, I think it could get quite ugly, especially financially.

Bogey I know you don't like to interfere, but what I would be telling DS is to be financially fair but also to protect his assets (or future assets). They do need to have a frank and open discussion about this and likely scenarios (eg what they will do in the event of disparity of earnings, redundancy, sickness, children etc). Best for both of them to go with their eyes open. Personally I would put it all in writing as well so there is no misunderstanding.

Jumpingjacksprat, all it has done s left you in the same,if not a better, position than if you had been renting. I don't understand the concept of people being able to live rent free! Unless they live with indulgent parents f course!

TheFabulous - I get what you're saying about the huge privilege of living rent free, but on the flip side if my DP (who owns the house) wanted me to pay rent to him, I'd be unhappy with that:

He already earns more than twice as much as me (even though we both work full time), and has a much bigger disposable income. He was able to become a homeowner very young through a combination of good salary, lucky circumstances and helpful parents. He bought and budgeted for his house before he even knew me. For him to ask me now to pay him rent, my already smaller disposable income would get even smaller while his already bigger one got even bigger. In our particular circumstances, I feel that paying half of all bills is reasonable, and I don't feel guilty about not paying him rent too.

I am lucky enough to live rent-free in a very nice house that my wife owns with other members of her family. I just pay an amount that they estimated it would cost for the increase in bills. If they say it costs more, I'll be happy to up it.

The rent I would have paid has been saved up and put into a house in the UK.

Bogey BTW, you seem to have a lovely relationship with your DS and that he feels comfortable to come to you for advice.

I was in a similar situation (bought house with my mother on a joint mortgage though for all intents and purposes it was my house, I paid the mortgage etc) and at around the same time I met my DH.
When he eventually moved in, I looked at all possibilities and considered getting an LTA, but as I knew we'd be getting engaged/married eventually, that was an expensive option for a short time period as these are more for long term cohabitees.
After talking to a solicitor she advised the easiest way was to pay some sort of 'rent', even if it was a nominal amount. Afterall as PPs have pointed out where else would you live rent free and how might this tip the balance of the relationship?

It depends on the situation.

Generally, I would say paying rent is the way to go. However, there can be other considerations. When DH and I got together, I still owned a house with my ex (not that I wanted to- ex refused to sell or move out for a long time). He earned over twice what I did, so he very kindly told me I didn't need to pay rent while I was still paying a mortgage. I did pay all the food bill plus all dates, holidays etc though.

I would say paying rent as well. I've been in the position of the home owner, however, and unless handled up front and openly, it can lead to some frustrating dynamics. My ex used to bring it up repeatedly after I refused for the millionth time to put his name on it - "oh, can I hang up this picture - after all it's not MY house, it's YOURS" and "I suppose if you get angry with me you can kick me out, after all it's not MY house, it's YOURS" and so on. It was ridiculous, as I never made an issue of who "owned" the home - I just wasn't willing to put his name on it as I'd worked damn hard to get that house and had already been paying on it for a number of years. After having one disastrous relationship, I wasn't about to leave myself in a vulnerable position again. (turned out that was a good decision, by the way)

Now clearly he had issues but I would be happy to be either partner in the "renting" set up. After all, he'd be paying rent SOMEWHERE wouldn't he? So it's not like he's out money that he wouldn't have been paying were he living elsewhere. And he wouldn't be building up equity if he were renting elsewhere either. So for all intents and purposes, I think the "paying rent" set up is the most fair.

As far as her mother is concerned, he can at least take heart in the fact that she hated ALL her boyfriends - so it's not specifically him, right?

Interesting thread Bogey and I think your DS needs to worry about a lot more than how much rent to offer!

I am about to buy a house with DP and we are both putting in equity from our own houses. I will pay in about three times what he does, and I earn about three times his pension. The solicitor has advised we should be Tenants in Common to protect our shares, and write a Declaration of Trust to cover everything when one of us dies. Once we move in I expect to pay at least 2/3 of the bills so we have a bit more equality in spending money. In return he will probably do more maintenance while I am out at work (he is retired).

The key is that we trust each other totally and we can discuss money easily.

When XH moved into my house, he paid half of all bills apart from the mortgage as I didn't want him to have any claim on my house. We had only been seeing each other for five months by that point but he had to get out of his rented house as it was being sold. He paid for Sky as he wanted it installed.

He was in debt and I wanted to help him out, but he effectively lived with me rent free for four years. It was "our home" though.

Our neighbour owned her house and her boyfriend actually had a rent book and paid her £50 a week. I didn't want to do that though.

When we married and moved, we mortgaged together and owned the house equally, despite me having paid 1/3 outright. (A decision I could have later regretted if he had claimed half the equity as he was legally entitled to, despite it all being my money.....).

I would never do anything to put my house in jeapordy in any future relationship.

If your son has no claim on the house there's no way he should be paying towards the mortgage.

C
And she should keep a rent/receipt book + utility bills to prove how bills and rent were paid.

Definitely not a. Marriage would formalise this anyway, wouldn't it?

They continue to pay the mortgage, you pay all the bills and food.

You're living rent free. It's only fair you pay your share this way.

Once the relationship is established (ie, you marry or have a child) then remortgage putting the other person on the deeds.

If you choose not to marry or have children, continue with the first option above. Or if that's deemed unacceptable, get a rent book.

Simples.

The idea of paying off someone's mortgage with no gain at the end is not a good idea.
I think a variation of 'b' is sensible, but with the money that would have been paid in rent going into a savings account. If the relationship works out and the couple decide to go joint on the house, a nice bit of mortgage can be paid off. If not, the non-owning half of the couple won't have paid off someone else's mortgage and then left the relationship empty handed.

Partner's DM is just being cautious and looking out for her DC. Nothing wrong with that. After all its no more than you are doing is it, OP? Your DS doesn't own the house hasn't even set foot in it yet and as his DM you are already looking for a way for him to have a 1/2 share. & presumably based on answers/info on this thread, you will go to him and tell him what he should do. & why do you think he may have to 'insist' his name be on the deeds? I think your DS' partner & her DM have good reason to be cautious! Based on the way you've worded your thread.

They are adults, its to be hoped they'll work it out themselves in good time.

This question confuses me. I'm never quite sure.

worth remembering that the home owner direct actually own it if there is a mortgage.

Either take no rent from the mover inner, then they can save rent money for themselves. Or the mover inner takes over some if the mortgage payments and the owner can save that amount.

In the first instance if they split the mover outer walks away with no claim but a savings pot.

In the second they either sell the property and the mover outer gets a proportionate cut or the owner buys them out of their proportion. This includes any increase in value.

Our they rent that out and live elsewhere.

It the mover inner buys aproperty of their own to rent out.

Or whatever they agree between them.

It is improve they consider the pros and cons if each together and agree before moving in.

Improve? Imperative.

The mover inner, should only pay half of food and utilities. Otherwise its just paying the mortgage by the back door.

If the couple rented together and split the bills 50/50 that would include rent.

Just because one person owns the house, why does that preclude the mover-inner from paying equivalent market rate for rent? If they aren't contributing towards that, then they are just a cock lodger or free loader.

It just isn't financially fair to put the burden on one person.