My friend's new DP wants her to sign away any future claim on their flat

[Flingmoo]

My friend has been with her new partner (first real partner actually) for about 6 months and they are going to move in together. They're currently both renting and he wants to buy a flat in only his name but have her paying 50/50 towards bills/mortgage payments. He's owned a house before but rents now.

Because he's been stung before by a girlfriend taking half the property when they split up, he wants her to sign some kind of "pre nup" style agreement that she will not be entitled to any share of the flat if they split. She was 100% happy to do this until her parents criticised that plan and has now asked me for advice on it (me being married with mortgage and a baby, she assumes I'm some sort of wise sage on relationship issues...!)

In her view, she's always rented anyway, so she doesn't feel she's any worse off by entering into this sort of agreement, to her its no different from renting, where you obviously don't have any property at the end of it.

People of mumsnet, what are your views on this...? Personally I think she should at least be entitled to whatever amount she'll have paid into the property in the event that they split up. Otherwise, if they did ever split up, it'd seem as if he's used her as a lodger to help pay his mortgage!

Totally agree Thumb - I've said pretty much exactly the same thing earlier.

For all we know he could be putting down a 60% deposit and the equivalent of 50% of the mortgage might be actually a very small figure.

The only reason I keep coming back to this thread is that people keep making assumptions about the situation and I just don't think that's fair or helpful.

If 50% is more than rent then that is unfair and she needs to address that. If it's less then she should count her lucky stars and save her money to get ahead.

It kind of did Chase.

Sorry Chase!

He's approaching it with a very hard head - she should simply do the same.

She would be renting in his house. Ok. Sharing a room? Then she states that she would expect to pay:

• her share of utilities and council tax etc.,
• the amount which would be the equivalent of HALF of a room at the going rate for the area,

She would NOT expect:

• to be expected to share the costs of purchases for the house - furniture etc.,
• to be expected to put her time, effort or money into any form of repairs or upkeep. Painting the bathroom? His asset - his problem. She's off out that day for a drink with her friends...

She would expect:

• a bog standard assured shorthold tenancy to be signed. That generally includes two months notice to quit from his side, one month for hers. So, if they split up, she would have the right to continue to live there for eight weeks while she found somewhere else. He wouldn't get to chuck her out of 'his' house...
• to provide a deposit.

And she could then use this presumably quite reduced rent to save for her own deposit more effectively, after which she'd either buy her own place and wave goodbye OR if still together they might discuss a joint mortgage.

Oh and yes if he proposes anything more than rent equal to about half of the going rate for a room in a shared house, she should shrug and say no can do!

I don't get it. Why is it equivalent to half a room in a shared house? They won't have other housemates.

Surely it's the equivalent to half the cost of them renting a flat together from a third party?

Because she'll effectively be a lodger, renting a portion of his house, rather than a joint tenant with equal rights.

So, for example, if they were a couple jointly renting from a third party, she'd have equal say in decoration, or whether they get sky tv, and most importantly, if they split SHE will have to be the one who moves out. The balance of power is totally out.

It's not a shared house, it's a person lodging with their landlord.

He has even more of an advantage in that he's sharing his place to reduce his mortgage, but he's getting to do it with a partner who he knows rather than having to advertise for a stranger. He also gets more space still 'joint' or 'free' - she isn't going to have sole use, for example, of his spare room, which he'd be giving up if he had a more traditional lodger.

Whereas on her side of the deal, if she were lodging in a random house, at least she'd have a sole use space - she presumably won't have that here.

It's a damn good deal for him and that's why I wouldn't be willing to actually pay rent at market rate for 'a room' worth. After 6 months, if that's what he's asking, I'd simply say - for that money, I might as well rent elsewhere and not have the risk of ending up starting all over again when we split - I might as well rent separately for another year and keep my own private space while we see how our relationship develops.

He wants to buy to maximise HIS position - fair enough - a better situation for her would actually be for both of them to rent or to live separately - if he wants it his way - he should be giving her a really good deal on rent.

Castlemilk says what I was trying to say, but much more clearly!

My main concern, if I were her, would be that if the relationship lasts more than, say, two to five years, they marry, or children become involved, would he be willing to revisit the tenancy and discuss making her more secure in what would be at that point 'their' family home.

Two things. First of all, since it would be essentially a renting agreement, she should insist on drawing up a proper tenancy agreement to protect her rights if she goes forward.

Secondly, I cynically see a potential longterm relationship where the partner never feels the urge to marry her, just has her live with him paying rent and when ever the relationship ends, ten or fifteen years down the line she has no assets in her name. I think this renting arrangement could easily turn into this situation as time goes by.

Oh, and he should be aware that since she will be renting from him, the rent she pays him is income to him and he better report it as such on his taxes.

Rainbunny you can receive a fair bit each month for renting part of your own home before it is considered taxable income, something over £4k per year.

I really think that if this thread were flipped round then people would be patting the woman buying her own place on the back for securing her own finances against the possibility of a cocklodger benefitting from her hard work.

As I said right at the top of the thread, DH moved in with me when I had just bought my own place for the first time. He signed a document stating that any money he paid me was purely to be considered as rent and relinquishing any claim on the property in the event of us splitting up. If he had hesitated in signing that for even a moment, then he wouldn't be my husband because I would have dumped him.

Alibaba - of course you're right in that things could work out well for them as it has for you, but maybe I'm cynical after reading so many threads here about women whose partners refuse to marry them and then the relationship breaks down.

They should rent together. No wonder he is keen to move in together so quickly when it means him getting a lodger with benefits.

If it is a one bed room as well he wouldn't get any money towards the house from a lodger. They should discuss a fair amount between them based on what money they have. I'd expect her to pay less than him as she's paying his fucking mortgage though. When I moved in with dp he had a tiny one bed flat he never expect me to pay his mortgage for him.. I contributed towards bills.

We've been friends for 14 years

On this basis, as you have known her since she was 10 yo, more than half her life, you should be able to have a helpful and meaningful conversation.

I would say that if her BF is looking to buy a property, now would be an ideal time for her to raise her aspirations and build for her future - if her BF doesn't want her to benefit from that security, then he clearly doesn't have her best interests (or a long-term vision for their relationship) in mind.

Her choice whether to continue, but at least give her the benefit of your experience!

I moved into a boyfriend's house quickly - I expected to get a job move quite far away, surprisingly I got the local branch, he said "move in!"
I paif half his small mortgage. About the same cost as when I was renting a room.
I saved my money.
We split up amicably 2 years later.
He suggested I live rent free with him whilst house hunting to boost my savings for buying. Lovely kind guy!
I don't think I was ever entitled to him house, and he shouldn't have to sub me.
If we had stayed together, I'd have bought a BTL with my deposit, or bought into his place on a % basis.

I think that in the early days of a relationship it would be crazy to potentially give away equity to a new partner.

I agree with that point, Cabrinha - I just don't agree that the woman in question should be asked to sign away any future rights to the property.
That's the bit that's sticking in my gullet.

If she wants a claim on this flat she should contribute to the flat. Paying half the mortgage is nt a big deal, she d have to pay rent where ever she lives

Which is exactly what the boyfriend wants her to sign away her rights to!

northernparent reread the Op, think you have the wrong end of the stick.

It's just semantics! Paying half the mortgage could just mean paying £300 and it's an easy way to describe it. Again, this could be much cheaper than market rate rent.