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!

She should only be paying 50% of the bills and mortgage if that would be the going rate for rental of that accommodation.

She can't expect to own a share of someone else's flat just because she moves in and pays rent.

If she pays 50% of the mortgage and that is over and above going rental rate then she should have an argument for being acknowledged as having a stake in the property.

I think it makes the situation clearer if you imagine the property to have a very high value. Say he's buying a $4million flat. He asks her to move in.
She can contribute some rent and live with him in a flat she couldn't afford to buy, but if she starts paying 50% of the mortgage then she needs to either gain a stake in the investment or make her own investment and reap a return from that.

They are rushing into this. 6 months is not long enough. Why can't they just have fun for a while? Blimey, 6 months into a relationship and getting a mortgage together...

But she's not paying rent (with contracts re notice etc), she's paying 50% of his mortgage with no security at all! The value of the property is utterly irrelevant.

He's not asking her to move in to his place. He hasn't got a place - he's renting himself! Presumably because he can't afford to buy alone. What he's asking is that he buys somewhere on his deposit, and she then pays half the bills and half the mortgage.

If she rented a flat with him, it's most unlikely that it would cost more than half his mortgage, but in any event that really isn't the point. He's asking that he benefits from her earnings - and no, it really isn't the same as a lodger unless he's also offering her her own room. He's offering her precisely the same deal he has himself, only he ends up with a capital asset from both their earnings and she gets fuck all.

If he already owned the place, it would be different him wanting her to sign this. He'd already have paid a ton, and he might just want to see how things went before putting a more formal slant on their relationship. But that isn't the situation. He's a renter, who wants to own, and can envisage doing this literally at her expense.

I'm astonished anyone here thinks this is fair. He's talking about them buying a place together, on both their wages, only he'd be the only beneficiary of that arrangement. Do any of those who think this is fair have a yen for a bridge, at all? Hear some are being sold at knockdown prices.

They're not getting a mortgage together, bearleft, he has one in his own name, with him as sole owner. But he expects his gf to pay 50%. While having no interest in the property.

But she's not paying rent (with contracts re notice etc), she's paying 50% of his mortgage with no security at all! The value of the property is utterly irrelevant.

But like I said she shouldn't pay that amount unless that's the going market rate for the rent. i.e she should pay rent. That's kind of my whole point. If she's not getting a share then she should be paying rent based on the rental value not based on his mortgage costs.

Or more simply, WHY is it fair that they are both buying a property at the same time, both paying the same amount towards it other than that deposit (which can be ring-fenced both in terms of the capital gains and original contribution) and both equally responsible for outgoings, yet only one stands to benefit? How and why is that reasonable or fair? I just can't begin to comprehend the logic. Why isn't it glaringly apparent that two people buying a property together shouldn't benefit from their own individual contributions? Rather than one getting everything and the other nothing, from rights of occupation down to capital gains? Crazily unequal, and nothing like a lodger... unless you've ever shared a bed with the landlord, that is.

he's renting himself! Presumably because he can't afford to buy alone.

That's not the assumption I made. I assumed he was going to buy a place and was asking her to move in. Obviously she should, therefore, contribute, but if she's not getting a share then that contribution should be rent and bills not a % of his mortgage.

It should be the same arrangement, financially, as if she were a friend moving into a friend's new flat.

Sorry, Why isn't it glaringly apparent that two people buying a property together should benefit from their own individual contributions?

Then maybe read the first paragraph of the OP?

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.

If it isn't apparent that he benefits massively from this arrangement, and he is anticipating doing so from her wages while in an intimate relationship with her, then really I don't know what to say.

It's blatant exploitation and setting up the relationship as totally unequal from the very start.

I understand your point, Surfsup, but if I were paying rent on a place I'd want my own space, eg, my own room/bed. In this situation, it seems OP's friend is expected to pay 50% of the mortgage, and bills etc and not only share a room, but also a bed, and probably provide sexual sevices on top. That's not quite the going market rate...

Cherry pick some of the more informative posts from this thread and send them to her as "what happens when it goes wrong" stories.

I don't think she should be paying into the mortgage at all if she is to have no claim on the house. She could pay him some form of rent, but as a lodger, not half the bloody mortgage! And yes, fair division of the bills is fine.

But like others have said, I wouldn't be moving in with him this early on anyway, and I would be somewhat distrustful of the whole "signing my rights away" situation. In fact, I wouldn't do it.

I know, I got the mortgage things wrong. Just read as I am not sleeping. In any event they are rushing into something that neither of them seems sure about. My advice would be to take living together off the table. They are not ready for that commitment. And what he is proposing is unfair.

Hmm. I am not as outraged by this as others seem to be, but I do think if they are treating this as a dry run to becoming life partners then they need a long term strategy/agreement that is fair to them both. I also agree this would be a very different thread if it was from a woman who is feeling vulnerable about losing her 'independence' and risking something she's worked hard to save for, by letting in a guy she's only known for six months.

Lots of people buy a place alone but anticipate the need for a lodger to help take the strain off, month by month. There is nothing wrong with that. If he has paid all of the deposit and legal costs etc then he is not 'taking advantage' of her at all, and it could be argued that it is actually the other way around.

After only six months in her first proper relationship she'd be daft to want to share a mortgage with him yet. She is probably much better off paying 50% of his mortgage and outgoings that 100% of her own rent and bills. Plus if anything goes wrong and it goes into negative equity or mortgage arrears or if the relationship sours she can walk away without a backward glance, whereas he is stuck with a huge financial commitment.

I think there needs to be a contract at the beginning that states that if after say two years, they are still together and intend to stay together, then she should be added as a 50:50 partner on the mortgage at no extra cost to her (regardless of whether the property has increased in value or not, so she's not 'buying in' at the current value as it were, but just having her commitment from the beginning formalised.) All she should pay him then is 50% of the original deposit and set up costs that he paid by himself at the time. That way her investment has been exactly the same as his and if they split she'd get her share.

If he decides at that point to renege on the agreement and kick her out she won't have a leg to stand on of course, but she won't have lost out financially either, and if she'd never have managed to buy a place on her own in that two years then she's lost nothing anyway. She should always save and keep back enough money to start again with a rental deposit of her own if she needs to.

They'd need to come to an arrangement about furniture and ad hoc expenses such as boiler repairs. Either she is a lodger and he buys everything, or they each buy separate furniture items that remain 'theirs' if they split. He should not expect her to go 50:50 on things like fixtures and fittings or one off maintenance expenses which she would not get any benefit from if they split.

Under the current arrangement, he would be the owner and she is the tenant in effect, so he must pay all that sort of thing until she is on the mortgage, with no retrospective charge to her. That is the price he must pay for having autonomy from the beginning.

And all you people getting het up about him expecting her to pay 50% of his mortgage, as though it's a king's ransom, I imagine 50% of his mortgage is substantially less than 100% or her rent, and still less than 50% of the rent if they rented together.

I understand your point, Surfsup, but if I were paying rent on a place I'd want my own space, eg, my own room/bed. In this situation, it seems OP's friend is expected to pay 50% of the mortgage, and bills etc and not only share a room, but also a bed, and probably provide sexual sevices on top. That's not quite the going market rate…

If she's providing sexual services then surely she's also receiving sexual services? Or you under the impression that she could not possibly be actually enjoying the sex, being a woman and all?

She will have her own space. The fact that she will be paying rent on it will mean that she will have as much right to that space as the other person sharing that space. If she were not paying then she would be very much a leach on his finances and most women I know would not be happy with that arrangement!

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.

What I'm saying is that if the rent equates to 50% of the mortgage then thats fine. If it is more or less then she should pay that. That way her situation is unchanged and she is not disadvantaged.

I can only assume that he CAN pay the mortgage without her contribution as he has no guarantee that the relationship will last and he can hardly find himself a lodger to share his bed!

The thing is, this is most probably a totally innocent situation which is being misconstrued as some sort of evil on his part. Can you imagine the thread if he didn't ask her to move in?
"My new DP is buying a flat and there's plenty of room for me but he won't let me move in even though I'm happy to pay rent. Doesn't he love me enough to commit?"

Obvioulsy if the guy is a jerk (and an idiot) it's possible that he is trying to exploit her, but I can see nothing that suggests that this is obviously the case.

We have NO reason to believe that he was not going to be buying this flat anyway and just wants his girlfriend to move in!

Oh and to clarify, the rent I'm suggesting she pays would be based on 1/2 a bedroom, and a share in the rest of the flat, so I'm guessing that would be significantly less than half the mortgage unless she's somewhere with a strangely skewed rental market.

IMO he should be allowed to buy a flat and ask his GF to move in without being labelled a sex slave driver and a scab and she should pay a FAIR contribution in RENT for her own accommodation.

DontDrinkAndFacebook

Good point about the timeframe of whatever agreement they come to.
I think she should pay rent, but I agree that there should be an end date on this rental agreement to at least force them to re-address the situation in a year or two in the case that they are still together and the relationship is getting more serious. No need to make assumptions now about how that future arrangement might look.

The problem is there's no obvious fair way to work out her rent

Couldn't they just look at the rental on other comparable flats and she could pay half?

Or ask the estate agent at the time of purchase to give them a figure he could expect if he were to rent it out?

If she accepts this she needs a tenancy agreement - she will be renting, he will be her landlord. Otherwise if the is paying 50% of everything they should apply for the mortgage jointly, and the property should be in joint names.

DH and I moved in together fairly soon after we met, for logistical reasons, but I sold my flat and banked the small balance in my own name, and we rented together for a year before deciding to buy a house together - seems to me your friend and her bf should rent until they are fully confident in each other and the relationship, and buy together properly, joint names and 50/50 on paying.