What do you think would be fair in this situation?

[skipalongnow]

I'm looking for opinions on what would be considered fair in the following situation please.

Sue and Paul have been together for many years and are getting married next year. Sue owns her own house outright and Paul will be moving into this house after the wedding. But for a few months of the year Paul will be living abroad and will be paying rent at this overseas address. Paul does not own a property but does have cash in the bank. Both Sue and Paul have made wills which leave all their goods to each other. There will come a time in the future (but it could be many years from now) when Sue and Paul will actually live together permanently in the same house. Which of these would be fair and reasonable to both partners?

1. Paul only contributes equally to all the utility bills for the time he is living at the address.
2. Paul contributes equally/partly to any upgrading of the house such as new windows, central heating, new kitchen.
3. Paul only contributes to any upgrading of the house once he is living in the house permanently. Up until then Sue should pay for new windows etc.
4. Paul pays Sue for half the value of the house and the house is put in both names from the start.

I'm not asking for opinions on the living arrangements. These are not changeable and both Sue and Paul are happy with this set up. I'd just like to know what would be fair to both parties please.

Oh my god. If this was DH and I, we'd both pay half the costs of all bills and upkeep and consider DH's rent as part of our joint outgoings!

The house would be owned equally by both of us. So Paul should probably pay Sue half the value of the house and they should split everything cost-wise equally...both pay bills.

1. Everything split 50%

Although not until they move in together.

Hhmmmm well first reaction: 4 would be best with 3 being what should def not happen

You haven’t mentioned any children etc- what happens if one of you dies?
If 4 doesn’t happen and 1 does, I would feel that Sue’s house should all go to her kids if Paul has contributed nothing but all his money is sitting in a bank getting dusty.

If Paul has enough to buy into half of the house, he def should. This is fair and equal.
Or they sell and buy another house which will be shared equally.
The rent abroad should just be like an outgoing or whatever.

They sound like an older couple?
Are they planning to have children together?
Why are they getting married if it's a semi-permanent long distant relationship?

I agree.
Option 4 plus equal sharing of all bills.

As @BillHadersNewWife said. Split bills from the start including the tent. Are they fairly equal earners? They should have a joint account for all household bills that they contribute a percentage of their wages too.

No children. Older couple, yes, so there won't be any kids in the future either.

I agree with most above. Paul should transfer Sue half the value of the house. Then they would have a joint account with rent, bills and house maintainance comes out of.

4

1. Sue should speak with a family solicitor before marrying and consider whether she should marry especially considering he won't even be in the country with her. Sue should see the colour of Paul's money before even entertaining the notion of transferring any title in exchange for it - and any transfer should be done through solicitors with cash cleared before title transfer finalised. If she proceeds with this, she should keep that cash separate permanently as a fuck off fund.

With the benefit of experience, I would advise that she's making a mistake and should not marry, keep the house legally separate, keep working and ensure that no man can ever make her and any children homeless and broke. 🤷‍♀️

4 is best. Failing that, 1. IMO, 2 & 3 are not fair when Paul has no ownership of the property and is effectively a lodger.

4

What are Sue and Paul's incomes? The same or does one earn more than the other?

Does Paul have other assets?

Option 4.
If there is a mortgage in the property Paul's cash is used to reduce this. Also, all bills for rental plus house get combined and split 50/50. All upgrading to house split the same. Then if they divorce, they each get half of the equity. How much is the house worth and how much equity's is in it already?

She should keep the house in her name, and see a Solictor to protect what she has if she wants to marry, he should pay towards the bills he should pay rent which she should save, any major upgrade to the house she should pay, and decorating they should pay between them.

Paul really doesn't seem to want to be part of this relationship ...

OTOH, Sue is taking a risk with her property. Paul should be paying 50% of all costs.

Actually I agree with @PicsInRed I'd be quite wary of Paul, frankly.

4

Plus equal share of all bills & joint bank account.

(Or 5, just live separately and enjoy each other's company when you want to without getting snarled up in financial arrangements). Seriously, as an older woman I would never choose to live with anyone again.

Sue and Paul should remain unmarried with Sue keeping her own assets and Paul his savings. I can see no good reason for Paul to invest in ownership of Sue's house if he has never wanted to own property before, but by getting married Sue is handing over shared ownership of the property in many senses so if they insist on marriage he should buy half from her.

OP asked for an opinion on the fairness of a split of short and long term assets, not whether or not she should get married (assuming this is about her).
It’s so sad that some people use these reasonable questions as a way of venting their vitriol.
Making assumptions about whether Paul is committed based on a set of individual living circumstances? Ridiculous.

Anyway, option 4, @skipalongnow, or as @BillHadersNewWife said. And I hope Paul and Sue continue to be happy, and enjoy their marriage.

Sue should see a lawyer and ring fence her property in the event that they split she retains full ownership.

Get the property ring fenced. Otherwise if they split after a few years, its half his, despite paying nothing towards it.

Even if he pays her half the value in cash, this cash is also marital property so if they split after a few years, it's also half his.

4
And Paul pays half all house costs.

Sue invests her money from this wisely in her name.

It's not 'vitriol' to suggest that a woman with a substantial financial asset should avoid getting married as it may place that asset at risk