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.

@CodenameVillanelle - no, that isn’t. Interesting you thought I was referring to you. I do think your comment about remaining unmarried was unnecessary.

I agree with billnader, the first response OP.

Marriage to me is a full partnership and means that everything becomes common property and all bills become common responsibility. So all income is joint income, and all bills are joint outgoings.

I don’t believe in the my money versus his money, it is all our money.

I don’t agree with retroactive requirements either. So do not think Paul should have to transfer in cash 50% of the value of Sues home.

The only exception to this would be any accounts or savings specifically held in trust for any children. (If I were marrying with children from a prior relationship).

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 hmm

I think it is. It’s exactly what a MGTOW type would tell men, only you’re doing it to women.

I don’t believe in the my money versus his money, it is all our money.

I don’t agree with retroactive requirements either. So do not think Paul should have to transfer in cash 50% of the value of Sues home.

You think Sue should just hand over half the value of her asset with no recompense?

I think it is. It’s exactly what a MGTOW type would tell men, only you’re doing it to women.

marriage is a legal and financial contract that is only useful to women in terms of protecting themselves from destitution if they have children and reduce their earning capacity. My perspective is a feminist one. Women should never hand over financial stability for the nebulous idea of a romantic partnership where there is no benefit to herself and significant benefit to the man.
To be honest that also applies to men - but I'm not really bothered about telling men to protect their assets since they are very good at doing that already. That doesn't apply to men who have children and wives who are financially compromised raising the children, since the act of having a wife to raise the children is a material benefit to the man.

Get legal advice. I don't think we're the people to ask. I'd have said 5. That the house remains Sue's, but he pays rent and bills when he's there. But I recognise that paying rent can open sue up to problems when they spilt of it can be seen as him paying towards a mortgage.

And here’s me thinking marriage is a celebration of having found the person you want to spend the rest of your life with.
There is a balance between protecting your assets and seeing everything as a cold, cynical transaction.

5

Marriage protects the poorer person in the case of divorce. That's usually the woman but it's not clear in this case and we don't know anything about their working situations, pensions, other assets etc.

Sue and Paul should have a frank conversation about money and attitudes to finances to make sure that they are on the same page money-wise. If they can't do that they shouldn't get married.

It depends on how even both sue and Paul want things to be.

The most equitable way would be that Paul buys half of sues house. Then all outgoings including overseas rent are split equally.

This only works of both partners earn roughly the same. Because if Paul earns twice the salary of sue he will have twice the disposable income left over. If he earns half of what sue does then he's the one with only half the disposable income.

So, not enough info really.

As Sue's home will become the marital home regardless of whether money changes hands Paul will likely have some claim on the property in the event of a divorce (just the same for women). As such the act of handing over cash will largely be a ceremonial one as legally it won't affect anything. Prenups are often disregarded in the UK and so I suspect that paying a lawyer for one would be money down the drain. I suggest that Paul pays his way in any case but that they have a discussion about finances and Paul dipping into his funds for home improvements and the such like for an agreed amount.

As for people suggesting Sue not get married. It is the only way to unequivocally protect her home from a claim by Paul in the event of a divorce, but it also means that should Paul die then she won't have a claim on any of his assets that she might rely on in the future.

Top post @CodenameVillanelle I totally agree with you - it's never a level playing field between women & men. Men are socialised to get what they want, to think that what they want is the rational thing, and are also treated by society in this way.

Women - not so much ...

Agree with @CodenameVillanelle

Not a chance I’d be marrying Paul in these circumstances I’m afraid....

Thanks to you all for your varied and interesting replies. I fully expected a barrage of 'I wouldn't marry Paul' to come out of this. I find this level of man-hating quite sad. In my lifetime, and I'm no spring chicken, I have seen women ripped off by men and I've seen men ripped off by women when it comes to divorce. But I've also seen plenty of happy marriages which have lasted decades. So thank you for the comments, but I wasn't asking whether Sue should marry Paul or not.

To fill in the details that have been queried. Sue and Paul are both retired and their pensions are a similar amount. There is no mortgage on Sue's house as said in the initial post, she owns it outright. There are no children from previous marriages.

@CodenameVillanelle, it wasn't said that Paul has never owned property before.

@UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea, Sue and Paul have had many discussions about money and about this situation with a view to do what is fair to both of them. This is not a whirlwind marriage and they are both going into it with both eyes open. The question was simply 'what do you think would be fair?'

As @Hopoindown31 has pointed out, there are financial benefits to be considered in the events of their deaths, which is obviously going to happen at some point.

@ELW85, thank you for seeing the question for exactly what it was.

I think it’s fairest that each party pays a share proportional to their earnings minus the costs associated with those earnings (I would assume his overseas rent is used to this purpose).

@skipalongnow - you’re more than welcome, and all the very best for the future!

Man hating
Ok

Actually laughing at man hating . If you’re not prepared to put your best interests first then no one else will.

The fact that you are on MN asking what would be fair suggests that Paul is looking after his interests at the expense of yours. I’m going to bet that he isn’t offering option D which is the only fair solution if you insist on getting married, although I cannot fathom what is the point when you won’t even live together, possibly for many years.

It’s lovely that one poster has validated that it’s ok to be screwed over. You might want to explore why you’re ok with that.

@PegasusReturns. What makes you think that Paul hasn't suggested option D? And as already mentioned, there are other financial benefits to getting married such as pension rights in the event of death, which is why Sue doesn't see marriage as getting 'screwed over' and is 'ok with that'.

If they plan to leave everything to each other if one dies then I would say 50/50 on everything. So all cash/house etc becomes joint.
However, in this situation then I would be looking at a situation of divorce. What would happen to everything then and what would be the best way for each to protect assets?
Are they both contributing equally In the first place, albeit one is property and one is cash? So in the event of a split would they pretty much walk away fairly as well?

Because he hasn’t has he?!

If he had you wouldn’t have posted this thread, because you’d be confident in your position.

If you’re ok with it you wouldn’t be second guessing yourself.

I think he should buy half thr house on marriage.

Past that pay for when he lives there. It's not really fair unless he earns a huge amount more, for him to have to pay for two homes. In addition I think sue should pay for any renovations whilst th house is solely hers.

If they plan to leave everything to each other if one dies

Meh, a wills a bit of paper than can be changed as quickly as it was first drawn up. Beneficiaries don't even need to know.

I think @PegasusReturns makes a valid point

What would be the reason for this thread at all if Paul had offered 4/D - ie to pay Sue half and put the house in joint names and then pay half for all bills

He hasn't made that offer or if he has I'm really stumped as to why Sue would need to ask anyone for advice