Does anyone live in a house owned by their partner?

[RobinSnood]

Just wondering how you feel about it?

My partner bought our house outright for cash. I believe he is committed to me, and he involves me in all decisions etc (also in the decision of which house to buy), but somehow I don't feel committed to him/our home. I want him to let me buy a small proportion of it (would be about 7%, maximum) but he thinks I'm being silly. Am I?

I don't think you (or my dp) are mean Ellisandra!

At the moment I just don't feel emotionally invested in "our" home (can't get excited about decorating the spare room or the cost of new windows (shit loads)).

I also really need to get on the housing ladder for my own security which means either investing in this house or in a flat somewhere else in the country (don't think I could afford London). I think it makes more financial sense to pay for a stake in what we already have but need to do some more calculations.

The trouble here is that what makes sense for you (investing in this property, even if you need a mortgage in order to do so) is a disadvantage to your partner ( he would then own less). You need to do what works best for you. He may not want you to own a stake in the property.....

I think it makes more financial sense to pay for a stake in what we already have but need to do some more calculations.

That might be right but personally I'd rather have something of my own if I was wanting security in the event of splitting up. Having a place of your own would be much easier than getting back a particular stake of your partner's property.

Saying that, I wasn't on the mortgage for the first eight years I was with dh because we never got round to putting me on the deeds and I was a student when we got the house. It always felt like our home because we were committed and happy there-it didn't matter what the official financial situation was.

I do. But it was because I didn't want to burden him with my financial woes, our next home will be jointly owned though.

We have a joint account everything goes into and I have control over that, all the bills come out of his account. I sometimes wish I had my name on the mortgage but it doesn't stop me putting money into the house, everything we do we do jointly, usually with myself having the final say if a decision could go either way.

We get married in October and about 12 months after that we will be looking for somewhere else to buy jointly.

My mum lives in a house that her DH now owns. An inheritance from his parent paid off what was left of his mortgage. She rented before she met him.

My mum pays £500/month out of her £1100/month wage. (She works as a carer.) This contributes towards bills, council tax, food etc. She borrows money from him so that she can afford to pay her half of holidays, or pay to fix her car, and he adds it to a spreadsheet.

Her DH has a salary of £50,000. He has £££ in savings. Enough that he has just given his adult dc a £30,000 gift for a deposit.

Before they married, she signed an agreement with solicitors that said she would not claim any share of his house on his death or divorce. His house is left in his will to his dc. If he dies before she dies, she may live in the house until she dies apparently, but she must not move anyone else in there.

Basically, she's fucked.

If I were you I would invest in something separate.

those advising op to buy something separate and let it out, is this still possible? I thought buy to let lenders now generally require the borrower to be an owner occupier. I know in the past it was ok, but things have tightened up recently.

I get the need to be on the property ladder and have security of accommodation in the case of a split but I am still doubtful buying into the house is the right way to go. What happens if the OP gets the 25% but still lacks the perceived "emotional investment".

I am emotionally invested in my DP. Not where we live.

If you buy another property, you and dh as a unit are better off / more secure. If you get a mortgage on a property he already owns, the unit is worse off. It seems warped for him to give up his (or your joint if you marry) security to the bank. You can get loads of property to rent in the north of England for £75k so even if you didn't get immediate occupancy you could manage financially.

Contributing £500 per month, you can be argued that you have an 'interest' in the property from a legal POV - i.e. a right to a % of its value. Do you have paperwork showing your contribution?

He may technically pay for the upkeep and major purchases for the home, but your contribution to his finances that allows him to maintain his property.

It's possible that he knows that if you pay directly for upkeep that gives you a clear 'interest' in his property legally, and he's trying to prevent that.

I would talk to a lawyer about the specifics of your contribution, and see if you can argue interest.

I would not pay him a further penny without drawing up a cohabitation agreement or a mortgage.

The money you've been paying him could have been invested in your own property.

Depending on where op lives gloriag, she might not have been able to invest in her own property - such are prices in the south east that she might not have been able to afford a flat on her own. But I do agree with you that if op could do that it would be sensible.

There have been a few threads like this recently - op's partner owns or is buying a house, and op is paying a contribution/rent but not getting an interest in the property. The real problem in each case is that one person can afford to buy (or already owns) on his or her own; and the other can't. A cohabitation agreement may help, but only if the couple can agree on what it should say! It's the disparity in wealth/income that is the root of the problem (that and of course the richer partner's ?understandable? desire to protect his/her assets).

Yeah the £500 can be better spent elsewhere. I would not ask a partner to contribute that really on a mortgage free property. Share of the bills yes (and DP and I do it pro-rata on income not 50/50). The £500 (less bill share) is a bit financially exploitative now that I think about it a bit more but still not convinced that buying into the house is the solution.

If you buy into it you would also be liable for a share of any maintenance work too, you have already mentioned the windows need work and cost a shed load - can you afford to buy into this property?

Why do you consider £500 to be "exploitative" Scottishdiem? The OP would certainly be paying far more than that to rent a 700k house, and probably at LEAST that for a two bed flat or similar somewhere down South.

Why should her CP not expect her to contribute something to the running of the household? Were the sexes reversed I'm pretty sure nobody would be suggesting she give up her security / a stake in a house she's bought and paid for before he came along. Isn't the buzzword on this site, for that situation, a cocklodger?!

I said contributing to the bills - yes the OP should. But the OP called this £500 all but rent in an earlier post. Who, exactly, pays rent to a DP when the property is already mortgage free. Doesnt matter if she can or cannot pay for a £700k property on her own. She is in a relationship and is not asking someone else to pay for the roof over her head as it has already been paid for. If there was a mortgage then I would expect some kind of contribution and agreement but paying rent for the privilege of living with your partner is exploitative because there is no need to enrich the owner when there is no financial penalty for moving in. May as well advertise it for rent then - some kind of tenant with benefits arrangement.

If you read my earlier posts I dont think that the DP should allow the OP to buy into the house. Doesnt matter what sex each person is. To put a mortgage free roof over your head at risk to someone else's financial position is, I'd argue, not advisable.

Thank all.

Just to be clear: there is no way my dp is being exploitative. Market rent on the house would probably be about £2k a month and even a room in a shared flat would be over £500 round here. He has no income atm and the house upkeep costs a fortune (if I ever buy somewhere of my own it will be a modern box and not a lovely 'period property' aka money pit!) so he is not being unreasonable in wanting a contribution. We just need to find some way of working things out that satisfies both our needs.

You are in a vulnerable position at the moment op. You are doing the right thing in trying to get some financial security - don't let anyone persuade you otherwise!!

In that case you are contributing to the upkeep, so you have an 'interest' in the property, legally.

It's a house he can't afford without your contribution, you are basically subsiding him staying there. If you weren't, he'd have to get a lodger who would have tenancy rights that you don't have, or he'd have to downsize.

The mortgage on our home is all DP's. We both pay the same amount into the joint account which the mortgage and all the bills come out of. It was weird at first, especially as when we moved in I had come into some money, (£1500) so I paid for new carpets & a new bathroom. But, it's much better really now, as we'll be looking to move in the next few years and I am still a first time buyer. I have a help to buy isa, and will hopefully get better deals etc because of this. It might be his house, but it's our home together.

Perspective you too could establish a legal interest in the property - first you're making equal payments into the account that the mortgage and bills come out of and secondly you've paid for renovations. Keep all the receipts for that.

You can say it's your home, but he could throw you out onto the street tomorrow - if you were a tenant you would at least have tenancy rights.

First thing you do in the new year, is go to a lawyer and set a cohabitation agreement with your partner, acknowledging your contribution.

I'll admit I don't know what the exact legal position would be, in regards to accruing an "interest" in the house by contributing to the upkeep, but at best I think any "right" to that would be moral rather than legal, but I'm more than willing to admit I may be wrong.

Regardless, if the OP went into the situation with her eyes open (and it sounds like she did) then her partner is not being at all unreasonable.

It does sound, OP, like the place may be bigger than he/the two of you need. What is tying him to the place? Is it because it's particularly adapted for his needs? If he doesn't currently have an income, and isn't likely to be able to start earning again, then selling it would seem to make sense because otherwise he's spending over the odds on upkeep and the money / equity in it isn't very liquid - what happens if he needs cash in an emergency?

If I were you, I'd save hard for the foreseeable future and then invest it in a property of my own.

You seem so obsessed with buying into the house he already acquired before you met. Why op? Don't use emotional sentiments to justify your motive.

£500 contributions towards living costs, bills etc in a 700k house is very reasonable. Would you not contribute you both rented? What % would you own if you lived in rented accommodation?

I'd be very worried if I were in his shoes! Don't keep pushing this as you may send the wrong message OP.

You can both buy a cheap (fix upper) rental, if you want to be financially tied. But trying to buy 1% into his 700k house (money he doesn't need) doesn't make sense. A financially astute individual (man or woman) won't do that based on emotional sentiments

Establishing a beneficial interest in a property is a legal rather than a moral issue.

A financially astute individual wouldn't pay £500 a month with nothing to show for it, not even tenancy rights, and no cohabitation agreement.

TBH in my situation the house is in negative equity, so if anything did happen between us I could quite easily walk away with no responsibility for the debt. There's honestly nothing to be gain from my having any interest in the house at all! Additionally I'm the higher earner (not by a huge amount, but still) so I'd be able to set up on my own easily if it came to it.

I do agree though OP in your situation I'd be looking at the beneficial interest option at the very least. If your DP is decent you should be able to talk it through and figure something out.

Those advocating marriage as a solution: my understanding is that it would make very little difference to our financial situation. He earned the vast majority of his money prior to meeting me and no longer works (he's disabled). We don't have children but if we did it's unlikely I'd be a sahp for very long at all. From what I've read, in the event of a divorce I could delay him selling the house but would have no actual claim on its value. Am I wrong about this?

It's considerably more complicated than that, and the length of the marriage may be a factor. Not something you can plan for now. You also need to consider what happens on death, which is the other way a marriage could end. He could leave the place to the dog's home, without even telling you, and you'd find it very difficult to challenge the will.

With the greatest of respect, making decisions on such matters based on 'your understanding' is flawed, unless you're a professional with expertise in the relevant area. You sound like you aren't. Pay one to advise you.

And do the same for someone who could tell you how best to invest that £500 a month you reckon you could run to. You said you could probably pay 1k a month to purchase a share of the property, and you pay £500 to your DP now, so I presume that £500 is available for other investments. Which could but doesn't have to be another property.