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

[iwouldgoouttonight]

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?

This is a very interesting conversation, and I am particularly interested by Jules99's post.
It's a tough one, but since the child IS his I think he is being selfish and she would be a fool to sign it. Perhaps they should delay buying a house at all until they can sort this situation out and decide how important their relationship is to both of them.

I only wanted to add that if you think worst case senario then what if something happened to him which meant she would have to look after him - should something like that be put in the aggreement? I am a SAHM but have contributed in the past finically but my feeling is this is a partnership and if at anytime it became necessary for me to support the family finicailly then i would do all i could. Sometimes we look for the worst that could happen and not at the positives.
What if she had a huge lottery win or something? Bet he would want the benifits of that!!

well exactly, hurtwife. Situations change and so do finances and you adapt as a family to answer all your needs.

LOL hurtwife, I bet he would want half of that.

When I split from my hubby I got more than 50% because I had to house the children etc.
We were married but that makes no difference. I contributed by looking after the house and the children saving him money on childcare and a housekeeper etc.
SAHM's have value!!!

She should be the one hot footing it down to the solicitors to have a contract drawn up ensuring that she's entitled to half of everything so he doesn;t try to rip her off.

Blondilocks, prior to the birth of DD1 I had a good career with a good salary and fantastic future earnings potential. I also had a flat which I sold and paid off a loan, in the financial stakes I have contributed precious little to our home and lives together. However, I have (willingly) given up my career to be a stay at home mum. My contribution to our household is at least equal to that of my husband. There is no way that in the event of our splitting up I would accept less than half of what we as a couple own, or that he would consider 'offering' me less than half.
Just re read that and I think really that the point is that it doesn;t matter what you have given up or contributed to a household in fanancial terms, the contribution of the stay at home partner is just as important as the contribution of the financial provider.

Message withdrawn

Totally agree with greeny. I was only in Ikea this morning pondering who weird some couples are about money when I watched a couple with a child decide who was paying for what on their trolley. My parents are a bit like this too. DH and me just share everything irrispective of when I was working and not. We are both useless with money though.

We are both lamentably bad with money too bosscat, we never seem to learn from our mistakes - we always go mad in the first week of the month, and then end up eking it out for the last week before payday

I have to say I can totally see his point of view in all of this and don't think it's him being selfish, I think he's being sensible. Hear me out before yelling at me please!!!

If this woman hasn't put anything into the relationship financially, i.e. the house etc then why should she be entitled to half of it? She didn't work to pay for it, so why should she reap the finacial benefit of it if they were to split? Any children on the other hand should be taken care of. If they have a child together then in my opinion a share of the house or money made from it should go to that child should a split occure. I also believe that as the childs father he should fully support the child financially no matter what. But why is it his job to support her?

Now if they have both worked and both had properties etc and then bought a house and combined the money to buy it etc then absolutley everything is shared and should a split happen everything should be divided equally. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read this woman doesn't seem to have put in at all financially for anything. Therefore why should she gain anything if they were to split? The child should be taken care of regardless, but I don't understand why it should be up to this man to give up half an estate and living that he has worked hard for to somebody who hasn't contributed to it if they were to split up.

I'm not bringing in any other factors of the thread, I'm purely looking at it from a financial point of view if that makes sense. If I were to move in with a partner and we had a child together, but the house was mine and he had not contributed to it, or it was me that was paying for it all etc - why on earth should he get half if we split up? In my eyes, he wouldn't be entitled to it as it was me paying for it.

I think people are sensible to write up these sort of agreements and do pre-nups etc nowadys especially with the sheer ammount of divorces and splits that seem to happen. You can't really blame people for wanting to try and protect themselves. However they do and will cause a lot of agro and stress.

It's a tricky one, I think in certain circumstances yes everything should be shared, but in other situations then no. I think it does just depend on the individual situation.

your argument only works if out of his salary he pays her the equivalent wage of a full-time childminder throughout the time she is at home raising the children ..

childcare in this country is not free and needs to be done hence if you must look at it that way then she should be salaried by him for the service she is providing

but THAT'S NOT a family IMHO .. that's putting money over everything and not family and is a sad indictment of any human being

Our property is in my name, my mortgage, I work most hours, earn most money, contribute most financially. Due to bad financial history it was financially more prudent to have just me on it. However, we bought it together, with a commitment to each other, and to our daughter to be a family, therefore we both put equal into it, he does DIY (some!), maintains things I cant, he is part time home daddy, and is equal in everything. As such, this property is ours, and we will do the right thing by our LO if we split.

We drew up a trust deed, which makes him 50% owner-tenant (or whatever its called) so we are both equal owners legally. We dont intend to ever split up, but in case we did, its legal.

He might be 'technically' right, but what a way to have a relationship! Does he not consider being a SAHM as a 'job'

Ahh, everyone gone so can come on here to comment on this. I briefly read OP and didn't realise that the child was 'their' child. From that moment on I thought the bloke was a wanker.

I am going to start a thread on this anyway.

I mean that he was a wanker from the moment I realised that this was HIS child he was talking about.

I would have no problem with an agreement saying he gets the deposit back but to be honest I think she should be entitled to 50% minus the deposit amount.

I work from home anyway so my situation is slightly different but I did tell DH I would happily work if he did 50% of the housework, 50% school runs, baked cakes for sales and took time off when the kids were ill - we BOTH know that would not happen so I am the parent based at home.

If they split he would need to supply a home for his child - perhaps he would be happy if his partner slept in a tent at night so he didnt have to put a roof over her head too.

I can understand him being worried if he has already had a bad experience but he is misguided at best, and a complete tosser at worst.