Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Original poster

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

250 replies

Flingmoo · 15/10/2014 23:02

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!

OP posts:
Chunderella · 16/10/2014 18:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PiperIsOrange · 16/10/2014 18:54

Friends did this, all my 1 friends money she saved went into a savings account.

After being together for 5 years it was a lot of savings and then bought a house together and got married.

If it went pear shaped then she had the cash available to rent/buy her own place.

Chunderella · 16/10/2014 19:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

slithytove · 16/10/2014 20:23

So twinkle, just the same as she would be renting privately?

There is no alternative unless she has her own deposit and income to qualify for a mortgage instead of riding on someone else's coattails.

slithytove · 16/10/2014 20:25

The payment isn't necessarily a mortgage payment. It's half of the amount he is paying as a mortgage. It's just a descriptive term.

slithytove · 16/10/2014 20:28

Honestly, he should buy alone and they should look at her moving in as a flatmate 6 months later. Loads of people do it and I don't see why being a girlfriend entitles her to be anything more than a flatmate legally.

I really couldn't see the thread going the same way if the genders were reversed.

Twinklestein · 16/10/2014 20:39

Renting privately is a waste of money and should only be a short term measure until she's got enough for a deposit if she doesn't have one now.

If I were going to move in with someone who supposedly loved me, I would not expect them to profit from the arrangement at my expense. It doesn't bode well for the relationship particularly with regard to finances.

'Riding on someone else's coattails' Really? You're coming as somewhat bitter now slithy and I really can't be arsed to argue with you further.

slithytove · 16/10/2014 21:20

Its hardly bitter. Odd interpretation there. What's the alternative if you can't buy? Social housing? Seems like there might be some issues providing enough for everyone who can't afford a deposit.

Chances are, by moving in with him, both parties will benefit from each other. He could of course tell her not to move in. But no doubt you would interpret that as him preventing her getting on the property ladder too.

6 months of shagging doesn't mean it makes sense to give someone half your flat when they have no deposit or ability to qualify for a mortgage.

enriquetheringbearinglizard · 16/10/2014 21:34

6 months of shagging doesn't mean it makes sense to give someone half your flat when they have no deposit or ability to qualify for a mortgage.

But the the whole point is that absolutely NO ONE is suggesting that anyone gives someone else anything that they haven't contributed to.

But that has to work in equal parts that if someone does contribute, unless they're a legal tenant or lodger, with attributed rights, then their contribution IS recognized fairly.

Fairness.
That's the issue.

It's either a commercial contract or a relationship one.
It's not a relationship one based on commercial boundaries only. Or, it shouldn't be.

Surfsup1 · 16/10/2014 21:57

So many assumptions being made still!

The flat might very well be 2 bedrooms (although I haven't caught up on ALL the posts so forgive me if I missed something) and the boyfriends may very well be foregoing the rent he could be taking from a flatmate so that he can have his girlfriend move in instead - therefore he would be out of pocket not her.

Buying a property is not alway the best thing to do. Over the long term shares regularly out perform property and don't require the initial deposit.

I'm lost, how on earth is this bloke barring her from getting on the property ladder? He's not, he may very well be giving her a big leg-up.

Do we actually know that the 50% figure was the bf's idea and not the gof's idea?

Surfsup1 · 16/10/2014 21:59

If he wants someone to make payments towards the mortgage but sign away the legal rights they would normally derive from this, he's doing a bit more than wanting to protect his investment.

Or maybe she feels uncomfortable moving into his new home as a freeloader so she insisted that if she move in she should pay her share?

Surfsup1 · 16/10/2014 22:07

MArionSnippet
*I had my own house when I met XDP who moved in with me after a while. He gave me some money which I used for mortgage, bills, etc. He probably gave me the equivalent of how much it would cost to rent a very small flat in my area.

When we split up he tried to claim half of my house. Eventually I paid him a very sizable amount.

Never ever would I allow anyone to live with me without some sort of pre nup type agreement.*

And if you had posted about it on MN you would have been told very clearly to make sure your Dp paid his half but that you were still legally protected. It seems MN is getting a bit sexist in this situation. Based on assumptions over the inherent evil of the penis, it would seem.

slithytove · 16/10/2014 23:53

Very sexist.

I think it's very likely that this will be mutually beneficial. And if she has a lodgers agreement she is legally protected, and of course they can reassess if the relationship is longlasting.

But IMO, paying a rent doesn't mean one should be part owner of the property just because they are romantically involved.

I wouldn't do it for my sister, why would I a boyfriend.

Surfsup1 · 16/10/2014 23:58

I think the wording of the OP has made a few people jump to conclusions that are not actually backed up by the information provided, but I certainly think that people would have jumped in a different direction if the genders were reversed. In fact there are plenty of threads that prove my point!

BeCool · 17/10/2014 00:50

DP after 6 months?

If I was buying a flat, and my BF of 6 months was coming to live with me, I'd feel the flat was mine, and he would pay rent, bills etc.

I might want to live with him, but not feel after only 6 months, that we were in a position to buy together or I was ready for this. I would be pissed off if he wanted me to continue to rent and not buy because of this.

What I would be looking at from the OP's friends POV is how he feels about sharing a property/mortgage etc if the relationship does keep working out and they end up being more committed/serious. Does he see jointly owing property in their future. Is this an example of what he feels about property ownership full stop, or just early in a relationship.

Perhaps he isn't that committed at this stage, he has previous joint ownership entanglement issues, he has every right to buy a flat. It's a difficult situation and perhaps he could have handled it a bit better. I certainly wouldn't be talking about my P paying 50% of the mortgage in this scenario. Also I would want to know I could afford 100% of the mortgage if the relationship didn't last. The friend here could continue to rent elsewhere, and not live with her BF in his new flat.

perfectstorm · 17/10/2014 00:59

If he already owned the place then asking for a contribution and a legal commitment would be one thing - but they don't. That changes things one hell of a lot. It's the difference between protecting what you already own, and asking someone to contribute to you buying something without offering any sort of a share. It's not legit whoever suggests it and I have some contempt for the notion I'd think any more kindly of a woman doing it. I would not.

Having said that, OP says now that he would buy anyway, which does again alter things. I'd suggest they talk a lot more, because this situation does not sound an ideal start to cohabitation for a range of reasons - if this works, and they get serious, then they will always have started out in his place, not their place. Why can't they rent together and then, if it works, buy together? Wouldn't that make more sense, really, anyway?

Surfsup1 · 17/10/2014 01:59

Assuming things we don't know again Storm.

Thumbwitch · 17/10/2014 04:45

Moving on from Becool's post - is he going to be basing his house/flat purchase on her contribution to the mortgage, i.e. buying a bigger property than he could afford on his own?

If that's so, I wouldn't be facilitating that; I'd let him buy his own flat, based on his own ability to pay, stay in my own rented accommodation for another while yet and maybe then consider moving in, perhaps in another few months.

But if he's trying to use her projected contribution to buy a bigger place than he can afford by himself, then fuck that.

perfectstorm · 17/10/2014 05:23

I know you are, surfsup. I've got bored of reminding you, though. :)

Surfsup1 · 17/10/2014 05:35

What have I assumed?

Surfsup1 · 17/10/2014 05:42

I doubt the bank would allow the gf's contribution to be taken into account would they?

We certainly have no info that would lead us to assume that. He seems to be being pretty sensible about not tying their finances together too early in their relationship, so I would doubt he'd be so silly?

I'm not saying any of you nay-sayers are necessarily wrong. This guy could be an absolute money-grubbing, sex-enslaving, tyrannical scrooge - it is possible. I'm just saying that none of the information we've been given actually makes this more likely than a lovely bloke who loves his gf and wants her to move into his flat and is willing to give her a huge discount on rent thereby allowing her to save and get her foot on the property ladder with her own property. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I just don't understand why so many people are so keen to assume the absolute worst about this guy, especially when what he's doing is the standard MN advice given to women in his position.

Surfsup1 · 17/10/2014 05:43

The truth is somewhere in the middle.
I meant to say "probably somewhere in the middle."

angeltulips · 17/10/2014 05:51

She's 24 and they've been together for 6 months. Let's face it, it's unlikely to last. Why would she want to entangle herself in that kind of thing? Pay the market rent and be done with it. (Just make sure that he pays all the costs of fixing things round the house - he is the landlord.)

Thumbwitch · 17/10/2014 06:25

It rather depends on the actual amounts involved though, surfsup.
If she would be paying substantially more as half the mortgage than she would for standard lodgings, then it's unfair. If, otoh, half the mortgage would be substantially less than standard lodgings, then she's getting a good deal, I suppose.
Where my house in the UK is, half the mortage would be definitely higher than standard lodgings; but it may be different in other areas of the UK.

MexicanSpringtime · 17/10/2014 06:43

Haven't read all the thread, but it strikes me that they could draw up some kind of an agreement whereby if they are still together after two years, the value of the property is divided up between the percentage of his deposit and fifty/fifty the rest. If they split up before two years, there is no point and she can treat it as rent, but him being the only property owner in a longer-time relationship is just not fair.