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:

VeniVidiVickiQV · 15/04/2007 00:13

He's not buying it outright for 200k though, is he blondilocks. Neither is she. The point is, over a period of time, the mortgage reduces and equity accumulates.

He is able to go out and work, because she enables him to.

A full time childminder would cost in the region of £180 per week. I'd say that she makes quite a contribution.

jules99 · 15/04/2007 00:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

twinsetandpearls · 15/04/2007 00:25

I am not a sahm now but dp earns more than me and therefore pays more of the bills and he put down a £30K deposit for our house, whereas I put in nothing and he has bought almost everything in it and dd is not his.

WE had a discussion when we moved in togther and he wanted me to keep the house if we split up as he wanted dd to stay in the same area for her school, I could not afford to buy here on my own.He put my name on the mortgage even though I did not contribute anything as he saw my role as a SAHM as vital to our family running well even though dd was not his biological family.

I disagree however and if we anything were to happen I would only take half of any equity left after he has taken out his £30K deposit.

Sakura · 15/04/2007 00:44

It reasonable I suppose...as long as he expects never to see his children again, of course.

KerryMum · 15/04/2007 02:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KerryMum · 15/04/2007 02:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

twentypence · 15/04/2007 04:20

So he'd see his own children on the streets while he lived in a house he could only afford because he had an unpaid carer for his children to enable him to go to work.

nice man.

WideWebWitch · 15/04/2007 04:36

Blimey. I think she is absolutely entitled to half of it. In her position though I wouldn't move in with him unless we were married. Because then the house would count as a marital asset and she would be entitled to half if they split up. Ah, have only read first few posts but I see others agree. He is being a twat.

Twiglett · 15/04/2007 07:51

its a moot point Blondilocks because we're married and I don't believe in pre-nups so he is entitled to half

whilst I put in the deposit it is OUR family home, so if we should ever split (which will never happen anyway) then the primary issue will be ensuring the children are cared for and secure and we and our paltry financial concerns will take second place

Twiglett · 15/04/2007 07:52

oh and as I'm a SAHM and have been for 4 years the mortgage has been paid out of our family income which he, alone, has earned .. but that's OUR money too .. because we're a family

McDreamy · 15/04/2007 08:25

OMG can't believe there are men like this!! I am certainly entitled to half of everything and DH woul not dispute that. We bought our house with money that we had both made on previous individually bought properties before we met (IYSWIM) but regardless of wether that had happened or not I would still expet half.

Before we had children we decided together that I would give up work to bring up our children. I still "work" just not paid employment. It's a partnership, just because the wage is paid to DH we have both earned it. That's the way we see it anyway.

Personally I would not buy this house with this friend you describve but that's just my opinion, and I am not in love with him so it's easy for me to say.

goodnanny · 15/04/2007 08:31

i have to say i think i agreee with the man!! sorry!! but i am currently going through the same situation... luckily i work (only part time) but i am still having to sell the house very soon because we are splitting up.
i will rent a home privately and have help with housing benefit, because obviously i dont work as many hours as dh.
i dont feel like i deserve the house as i only work 18hrs a week and dh works a hell of a lot more. i wouldnt want his charity!! but child maintenence payments are fine!

warthog · 15/04/2007 08:32

jules99, yes i think it does apply in reverse wrt assets, but i think the law favours the mother wrt children, so perhaps you'd get custody... an interesting point.

McDreamy · 15/04/2007 08:34

But why do you only work part time goodnanny? Is it because you have children? So doesn't the care you provide your children when you are not working equal DH's full time job? Is DH able to continue his career because you have gone part time to care for your children?

Apologies if this is not the case btw

goodnanny · 15/04/2007 08:38

McDreamy, yes this is true, but i am also at university part time too so everything is a juggling act with working and the dcs too!! i will get a big lump of money when the house sells as i put down half the deposit..
but i do see what you mean about looking after the children.. my dd isnt his so dh has no legal resposibility to her (although her treats her like his own) but my ds is his... and dh is quite happy for us to sell up and rent somewhere ! he is buying a luxury apartment with his sister!

edam · 15/04/2007 08:46

It's not charity, goodnanny, it's providing for HIS children. Why on earth should the state provide for his kids because he's too selfish to house them? Why does he deserve better housing than his own children?

Agree with everyone who pointed out parents who work full time while partners look after the children are only able to earn that money because they have childcare provided for free. If this man wants to keep the house for himself alone, he'd better start paying his partner a nanny's wage. Say £25k plus equivalent of employer's national insurance?

goodnanny · 15/04/2007 08:51

i think i should try and work full time now... i agree the state shouldnt have to pay for my home, hopefully if i work full time i can afford the rent somewhere or even the mortgage on the house we have now.
DD isnt my dh's child BTW..

KnayedFrot · 15/04/2007 08:52

I think having issues about money comes with the territory of being with someone who feels they have lost out in financial terms when a past relationship has failed (usually divorce but in this case sounds like this bloke was not married).

Without going into too much detail, DH has huge issues about money which relate to the fact that when he got divorced he lost his home and all the equity in it.

It has caused problems in our relationship in the past and right from the beginning we have kept some of our finances separate. It works better for us that way, although we still have a joint account for household expenses and a joint mortgage.

I'm not posting this to excuse this guy, i think his suggestion is grossly unfair - who on earth would consider this knowing their child(ren) and child's mother could be homeless if they ever split? He is an ar*e.

Alternatively you could view this as an action to put her in a position where she can't leave because she would be homeless - which in a way is even more scary.

But just wanted to offer some thoughts about why people become like this re money.

sandcastles · 15/04/2007 08:53

"i wouldnt want his charity"

So you having a roof over your children's head is charity now, is it?

We sold our family home in the UK to emigrate to Oz & hopefully soon we will buy a house here.

I am a SAHM, so will not be paying any bills/mortgage for a while. Dd is 3, but I plan to have another soon, so won't be contributing financially for at least another 5/6 years.

My name will be on the title deeds, dh wouldn't dream of refusing me this. If I have security, so will our dd. I paid 12 years into our last 2 mortgages, I will putting into the new one once I return to work. Why would I not be entitled to the house just becuase I don't bring in money?

It's not a very good basis for a relationship imo, let alone living together/marriage.

I'd be ashamed to call him my friend!

MintChocChippyMinton · 15/04/2007 08:56

I am SAHM at the moment, have been for nearly 6 years, and DH supports the family financially. We both view our contributions of equal value. And regard the house as a joint asset, which is also for the children's benefit, not only to live in, but as security for their future.

MintChocChippyMinton · 15/04/2007 08:56

Original poster

iwouldgoouttonight · 15/04/2007 09:20

KerryMum - I agree with people on here - i think he has a cheek asking her to sign something which will basically leave her with nothing after she has given up her career to raise their child. I said that I see his point of view because he was married previously and he lost a lot of money and had to basically start again from scratch - I think he's worried about his partner taking his house and child and he'll have nothing.

But like everyone says - it shouldn't be a business arrangement and it really doesn't sound like they're having a good relationship if this is the kind of thing they're talking about!

OP posts:

mrsflowerpot · 15/04/2007 09:22

I think that she should take this as a HUGE warning sign about their relationship, personally. To me it says a) he doesn't respect her, b) he is in this relationship and family but still thinks of himself as a single person and frankly c) he isn't in it for the long term.

I'm with Greeny and Hunker - I never understand relationships with children where people don't see themselves as all part of the same financial unit.

sandcastles · 15/04/2007 09:30

"I think he's worried about his partner taking his house and child and he'll have nothing"

I think I would ask him how his child would feel left with nothing, not even a roof over it's head.

Kitsilano · 15/04/2007 09:42

If he has a a difficulty when it come to money because of what happened in a past relationship and wants to safeguard himself then I feel some sympathy for him. It seems his solution is to keep their finances quite separate and protect himself. But currently he isn't looking accurately at the whole situation - he's just looking at what she doesn't provide (ie money) rather than acknowledging the financial value of what she does (childcare, cleaning, cooking, housekeeping etc).

He can't have it ALL - either they are a team with joint finances OR they are separate when it comes to finances. The only way forward that would be fair to both parties would be for him to pay her a fair salary for the work she does in raising his children and in keeping his house. She could then save this to provide security for herself in the event of a split.

Flip

1 2 3 4