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!

I think it's OK if, as many PP have said, the contribution she makes to the mortgage is the market rate for rent in that area.

People don't always decide to live together because they are planning on spending the rest of their lives as a unit. In my twenties I lived with a boyfriend I would never have wanted to make a long-term commitment to. I wouldn't have wanted him taking half my house.

She should not have to pay towards maintenance or anything else that a tenant would not pay for, and she should ensure that her rent does not go up if interest rates go up and his mortgage payments increase.

I wouldn't do this. My DH did this with his first DP and when she had an affair and left him, she kicked him out of their home.

Her home surely?

SquattingNeville which is why I keep saying she should pay rent. That way her rights would be covered in a rental agreement.

So Twinklesten, do you think Waspie was selfish and manipulative?

My spidey senses are going too particularly as I can't think of the answer to my 23.20 post and no one's suggested one.

If she's to be his lodger will he give her a contract and will he pay tax on his earnings as he should? Or if they split could she find her things on the street with no warning?

I don't think they know each other anywhere near enough.

Even as a renter she would get at least some of her deposit back should the landlord sell up.

I don' think there's been mention of him asking for a deposit has there?

She could get the deposit back from her current place and use it as the beginning of a savings plan to buy her own place or even buy a share in his place down the track if the relationship continues.

Yes, I think the main issue with the set-up as presented is that he is specifying that her contribution is for half the mortgage and bills. She needs a tenancy agreement to protect her rights, and he needs to make sure the rent is fair and non-specific. They both need to protect themselves financially and legally.

Sad set up.

Either rent together, and pay shares, and once you are more serious: buy together.

This set up is just crap, IMO, as it leaves him holding all the cards.

If she were renting properly, you see, she could not be kicked out at a moments notice, she would have RIGHTS.

I'd only do it if it was a very reduced rate which allowed her to save for her own deposit for her own flat eventually.

So not market rate, as she does not have the rights of a market place rental.

She si teh vulnerable one and the fool in this scenario, whereas he is protecting himself.

Equal? No. Not a good place to start a relationship.

I think a tenants in common agreement (I think it's called) is very sensible but not to sign the lot away. Go to a solicitor for advice as they'll have experience of what the usual is. Him just getting his deposit back if it all goes tits up makes no allowance for the interest in that capital whereas she'd be getting half the interest on his capital if she got half the value if the increase if they sold.

It makes sense to have a percentage agreement of who get what in a split but if she's paying half the mortgage and putting effort into improving the place then she shouldn't sign away.

If they can't reach agreement I'd advise renting together and him buying his own place as a buy to let so he's on the property ladder.

She should pay the equivalent of 50% of the rental value of the place, plus 50% of bills, and it should be clear that this is what she is doing. It is very early days in their relationship, so perhaps they could agree to review yearly. Keep it simple.

Chandon, but if she did have a rental agreement?

My point about getting deposit back is that as a renter, she will have paid a deposit to her landlord, so in the event of the tenancy ending she will get money back to put into her next home, she won't get that if the relationship ends with her boyfriend

No because she'll never have had to pay the money in the first place so could have put it to good use for her own financial advantage. The deposit is purely for the landlord's benefit not the tenant's.

My brother owned a flat and his girlfriend moved in with him. Before that she was living in a (really quite grotty) flat share. She pays for half the bills plus half the rent she paid on the flat share.

She saves the other half of the rent and he saves what she gives him so they are both better off than they were before by the same amount.

Now they've been doing this a couple of years they are planning on buying somewhere together.

If he is taking out a mortgage in his name only the mortgage company will ask any other adults who will be living in the property to sign a form to waive their rights of occupation.

This is in case they need to repossess in the future.

Is it this that your friend is being asked to sign?

I just can't imagine her going back to him with a straight face and saying "I'm not moving in with you unless I can get a share in your home".

That doesn't make sense to me and sounds very money grubbing! Basing her contribution on a % of the mortgage might not be the best arrangement, but that doesn't mean it's being done in a nasty way - it sounds like they just didn't think it through too much. Going back to him with an alternative suggestion seems more reasonable.

I'm amazed how many people would not ever move in with a bf unless they got to get a share of his home!

I'm in this position, but reversed. I just bought a house and my DP wants to move in. But even though his help with bills and mortgage would be SO LOVELY, I don't want to have to sell my house if we were to split up, just to repay his share. I don't. And I'd never be able to pay him back otherwise.

So I'm having a cohabitation agreement drawn up which says he's entitled to nothing if we split up. He's happy to sign it. It's ALL my money, the house, costs of buying it (over £10k!) and the responsibility of the mortgage. I'm 43, I won't be able to afford to start all over again. And I've got 2 kids!

The reason I bought by myself is so I wouldn't have to sell/divide up the money sometime down the line if we split up.

I don't feel it's fair to make him pay half the mortgage though. But rent would be fine. Anywhere else he lived he'd have to pay that.

If someone of any gender has worked and got themselves into a position to buy a property, then good for them, and in no way should they risk losing it on a new relationship which is unequal financially.

If they rented together, they would pay x amount rent split 50/50. She should pay this at a maximum. If the mortgage is less than the above, tenant should pay that as it's not right that the owner profits cash wise. Utilities and food should be split as they would in a rental home.

Home owner should pay for all decorating, furnishing and maintenance. Tenant should have a tenancy agreement with the usual terms, just as they would if not living with the homeowner.

If the tenant is unhappy, they do not have to move in. It won't prevent the home owner from owning.

I think he should buy his place, get comfortable there, get it how he likes it, and then they can discuss her becoming his tenant. Her living rent free or having a claim on his property feels very much like cock lodging and as pp have said, wouldn't be accepted if the genders were reversed.

He can afford the mortgage! If he couldn't the bank wouldn't lend it to him in his name only.

There's a big difference between having the funds to cover the mortgage and being able to live comfortably doing so.

Surfsup Waspie's partner didn't contribute to the mortgage, she did it how it should be done.

I'd tell him to fuck off to the far side of fuck
excellent advice.

I personally would not move in. Rent together for 6 months and see where they are now. It seems very unequal. Does she/ would she have funds to put into deposit?

It all seems on his terms. He gets to pick the flat dictate the terms. Plan for his future.

I do also agree with him in a way after 6 months I wouldn't want a joint mortgage either.

Tbh surf I'm amazed how naive some women are and how many get financially shafted because they didn't twig were being exploited...

If the woman rented at least she wouldn't lose her home when her relationship breaks down.

I wouldn't move in with him on this basis.