Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

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

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Should SAHMs be entitled to half the house if they split up?

90 replies

iwouldgoouttonight · 14/04/2007 20:32

A male friend of mine is buying a house with his partner and because she is mainly a SAHM (she works a few hours a week in PT job) he is putting down the deposit and paying the mortgage. He wants them to draw up a legal agreement before buying the house to say that if they split up she won't get the house because she hasn't paid anything towards it. She will just get half of any equity if the house goes up in value. She's obviously not happy about this partly because even though she doesn't provide money she's still contributing to the family, and partly because it seems as though he's expecting them to split up! If she wasn't there he probably wouldn't be able to afford the house because he'd have to pay for childcare.

I can see his point of view as well - he has lived with someone before and when they split up he did lose a lot of money so he's worried about it happening again. Also he said his partner spends the little money she earns on herself rather than on their child or the house.

They can't reach an agreement - he keeps asking me for advice but because I can see where they're both coming from I don't really know whether there is any answer or compromise. I just wondered what anyone else thinks?

OP posts:

Nemo2007 · 14/04/2007 20:33

are we not

SoupDragon · 14/04/2007 20:35

WTF?? Of course she's entitled to half the sodding house, he's being a twat.

"even though she doesn't provide money she's still contributing to the family" Is absolutely right. The contribution doesn't have to be a financial one.

SugaryBits · 14/04/2007 20:37

So if she doesn't get the house if they split, where does he propose the children live? Does this mean he would expect to have custody in the event of a split?

I can see where he is coming from especially if she is not responsible with money but I would not put myself in a position where I would be left with nothing after spending time raising a family. Her contibution as a SAHM is just as important as his financially.

Twiglett · 14/04/2007 20:39

your 'friend' is being a twat I agree

she's good enough to raise his kids then?

NomDePlume · 14/04/2007 20:40

what a cunt

ScoobyDooooo · 14/04/2007 20:40

I tell you what, why not let him be a stay at home dad & let her work the lets see if he would like it the other way round.

Being a SAHM is a contribution if it was not for her then hewould have to pay for childcare!

LaDiDaDi · 14/04/2007 20:41

Unless your friend is putting down a huge deposit then half of any increase in value will pretty much be equal to half the equity anyway though in principle of course a SAHM should be entitled to half the house.

It sounds to me like he might not be very happy with his partner being a SAHM and this is a way to raise it??

lulumama · 14/04/2007 20:41

legallym she is entitled to it ! as if she stays at home and supports the children, and runs the house that is legally her share of the house accounted for

would be wary of buying a house and having a longterm relationship and kids with such a selfush twunt

Dinosaur · 14/04/2007 20:41

I think the divorce laws in this country are pretty generous to the non-working partner in a marriage, but frankly I think his attitude is just unrealistic. They shouldn't move in together if he is this unhappy about it.

ScoobyDooooo · 14/04/2007 20:42

Ndp

LaDiDaDi · 14/04/2007 20:42

Legally she won't be entitled to diddly squat if they are not married. Harsh but true unfortunately.

Lulurose · 14/04/2007 20:42

I would be seriously unhappy with that arrangement(slight understatement). When dh and I found our house although we based mortgage on his earnings (and deposit was equity from his previous house) he insisted my name went on the deeds/mortgage/legal stuff as joint owner. I was pregnant at time with dd1, dd2 followed quickly after and I've found myself unable to go back to work due to childcare costs. We are a partnership, a team: I work very hard at home looking after our children!!

Greenleeves · 14/04/2007 20:43

Agree with NDP, he is a prize cunt. If she's got any brains she'll think better of it before it's too late.

lulumama · 14/04/2007 20:44

yes, you are right ladidi, if they are not married

sounds like he would want a pre nup too !

would be steering well clear of him

Blondelle · 14/04/2007 20:44

Are the kids hers or there's???
If there's then of course that is ridiculous.
If its her kids then I can kinda see where he's coming from.

Hassled · 14/04/2007 20:45

He wouldn't just have to pay for childcare - there's the endless list of cleaner, cook, housekeeper, etc, etc - what a breath-takingly awful twat! I'm currently a SAHM, and would have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about taking half the value of the house should we ever split up, because without my SAHM-hood, DH would not be as successful as he is - I've enabled him to have a career and kids. I'm seriously and you friend's partner has every right to be bloody livid.

yomellamoHelly · 14/04/2007 20:45

I think this is bang out of order (but I am a SAHM!).
Is the sub-text that he doesn't care who brings his children up and would be totally happy if they were "farmed out" week-in week-out so that his wife can pursue a career that'll see her earning the equivalent salary to his, whilst being happy to do half his share of all the housework / household jobs etc. and covering equally when the kids are ill / on holiday etc. ? Does he not value what she is contributing now? He needs to recognise how she is enabling him his current lifestyle.
If he really is scared of putting down roots by buying etc. (and therefore risking losing it all again) he should just carry on renting. By the sound of it he could lose everything now if he persists rather than potentially lose it x number of years down the line. Am with the wife.

chocolateface · 14/04/2007 20:45

He's a w$*£er.

Will she have her name on the morgage?

KnayedFrot · 14/04/2007 20:45

At one point in our relationship before marriage & DS, DH bought a house which i then moved into, and we drew up an agreement to the effect that I would not contribute to the mortgage and have no claim on the house should we split up.

I was totally financially independent at that time, worked full-time, had a good salary, and owned a property of my own which i rented out.

Dh had reasons to want to do this (previous marriage etc), and I fully supported him.

However, when we got married that agreement was void and obv now we have DS and the situation is completely different.

If i was a sahm - married or not, even if working p/t but not earning enough to support myself & children independently - I would want to know that I would be entitled to 50% of any house and other assets jointly owned.

I would never expect to get the whole house (i.e. 100% of the the equity) if Dh & I split up - unless he was taking out other assets of equal value. How is that fair?

However, i can understand why she is upset because entering in to an agreement like this does make you feel a bit odd about your relationship.

Oxygen · 14/04/2007 20:47

Nodding emphatically with Nemo & Soupy!

AttilaTheMeerkat · 14/04/2007 20:48

Some things for her to bear in mind:-

The ex doesn?t have to pay you any maintenance for your own benefit, even if you've given up work to look after the kids or your home (although they will still have to pay child support for their children).

If you rent your home and the tenancy is in your ex's name only, you will have no automatic right to stay if your ex asks you to leave or walks out.

If your ex owns the home, and there's no other agreement or understanding in place, you will have no automatic right to stay if your ex asks you to leave.

If there's no other agreement in place, your ex will walk away with all the savings and possessions they built up out of their own money. Where you bought things together but each contributed different amounts to the price, you own it in the shares in which you contributed.

She needs to see a Solicitor sharpish and get a properly signed agreement re the property drawn up. She needs to be aware as well that as she is unmarried she is not legally related to him and thus has hardly little legal rights (the term common law wife does not exist) in the event that they separate.

Basically what is his is his, what's hers is hers and the rest is divided up.

Blondilocks · 14/04/2007 20:50

I can see where he's coming from. If I'd bought a house with my ex-OH I would've been in a position to put down more deposit & I would have wanted to be sure that I got all of my money back should we split up as that was MY money.

I do think that it is an important thing to consider. I also think that it is a different situation to if both parties buy a house while working & then one become a stay at home parent as both would be paying for it initially.

What are they doing at the moment then?

Is there not a way of working out a fairer portion of the value she'd get if they were to split up? Don't think she should be entitled to half really, although I suppose it would depend on how much it cost.

KnayedFrot · 14/04/2007 20:50

Hang on, do you mean he's saying she will get 50% of all the equity, or only 50% of any increase in value?

I understood the former, if it's the latter, then he is a complete w*nker.

Anyway I think she needs to seek ehr own legal advice as they are not married.

mollymawk · 14/04/2007 20:51

I am assuming that your friend and his partner are not married and that the child(ren) she looks after are theirs, not just hers. In which case, I understand he is your friend but I don't think what he is asking for is at all fair (and I am not an SAHM myself). If I were her I wouldn't do it.

SoupDragon · 14/04/2007 20:55

Prsonally I think she should ditch him. "he said his partner spends the little money she earns on herself rather than on their child or the house." WTF?? Does he not spend any money on himself?

Flip

1 2 3 4