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 5

Original poster

Don't want shared equity in a property with my bf -- am I unfair and hypocritical?

114 replies

changetherecord71 · 18/05/2021 13:47

This is more of a moral scruple/dilemma question than something I'm actively worried about and its not on the immediate horizon... just wonder if I am thinking about this the right way.

I've been with my bf for nearly three years and love him to bits. Have a nearly 11 year old DD from a previous marriage. DD and bf get on well and I would like over time to think about moving in with him. I've always wanted to take this very slowly for DD's sake and not rush it and for a long time thought it might not ever happen. I'd still be fine if it didn't happen.

I'm about to inherit some money, which will be enough to upgrade my flat and hopefully get a bigger place with more bedrooms. The logical step in this scenario would obviously be for me and bf to pool savings and buy a property jointly.

Trouble is I really don't want to share equity in a property or finances with anyone. I lost out in my divorce and its taken me a while to build back up. I'm now reasonably solvent and my flat is in my name only and I love the security this gives me. I want it to be my daughter's inheritance solely and not for anyone else to have a claim on our family home.

On the other hand, if I were planning to cohabit with someone who in this scenario and they didn't want to pool finances with me I imagine I'd be a bit miffed. And I know he wants to buy property rather than chucking money away on rent and that he would struggle to get anything of a decent size where were are (London).

Would it be hypocritical to suggest an arrangement where he paid me rent rather than paying into the mortgage? It sounds a bit mean in some respects but I feel I have to protect myself and my daughter and tbh my biggest fear is having shared finances with someone - I can't think of anything worse than being financially entangled again. I have no reason to think he wouldn't be entirely trustworthy etc and he's good with money so its not him its me, if that makes sense. I just don't want to give up my hard-won freedom.

OP posts:

nellly · 18/05/2021 13:49

I think you're not unreasonable to want this but happens down the line if you get married?

What about jointly owned but tenants in common rather than joint tenants?

That way you can ring fence your share and leave it to your daughter?

HollowTalk · 18/05/2021 13:51

What about buying somewhere between you, with equal deposits, payments and shares, but also investing your money in another property which is legally just for you and your daughter - you could rent that out or have it as a holiday home.

VettiyaIruken · 18/05/2021 13:53

You aren't married and don't have children together, I think that's perfectly reasonable.

Maybe not rent though. Half of all bills certainly.

Not that anyone should expect a roof over their head for no charge ever but people can be weird as fuck about the idea of rent and paying towards something that you don't own blah blah. Like a roof over your head month to month isn't what you're paying for 🙄 rant over 😁

Original poster

changetherecord71 · 18/05/2021 13:55

@nellly

I think you're not unreasonable to want this but happens down the line if you get married?

What about jointly owned but tenants in common rather than joint tenants?

That way you can ring fence your share and leave it to your daughter?

Hell would freeze over before I'd get married again. Too much to lose.

What does the tenants in common point mean? How does that work? I've had this explained to be before but have forgotten...

OP posts:

Original poster

changetherecord71 · 18/05/2021 13:56

@HollowTalk

That's not a bad idea: I suppose the thing is the "family home" would be the bigger and thus more expensive property. I want my DD to get the lion's share if not all of my inheritance.

OP posts:

twiggytwoo · 18/05/2021 13:57

If he lived with you, id make sure he was only paying interest or half the interest on the mortgage - assuming it isn't an interest only mortgage and you were just paying the equity. This would be significantly less than rent so he could save up the rest but couldn't argue he owned part of your house.

nellly · 18/05/2021 13:58

When you buy property and two (or more) go on the title register you can hold it in two ways

Joint tenants: you each equally own all of the property shared. If one dies it automatically passes to the other, common for husband and wife.

Tenants in common: can be used by friends or family etc you each own a distinct and legally identifiable 'share' of the property and it can be split any way you want , 50/50 or 70/30 etc.
Bf would have no automatic claim on your share and you could leave it in a will to your daughter. It's also good if you're putting in a bigger share

TH22 · 18/05/2021 13:59

If you're not getting married, then why don't you draw up a deed of trust. You will both get out what you put in each and then split all profit (if you sell) 50/50 when the time comes. That way you protect your assets, your partner is getting a fair share and you will likely be able to get a bigger/better property as together you'll be able to provide a larger deposit and borrow more on the mortgage...

nellly · 18/05/2021 13:59

@twiggytwoo suggestion also good because it leaves him free to save up for his own property and his own security so he's not feeling like he's throwing away money on paying your mortgage in 'rent' but getting nothing back

twiggytwoo · 18/05/2021 14:01

If you bought together you could ring fence your deposit by way of a declaration of trust i.e. if the purchase price was £500k and you put in £100k (20%), you agree that if it is sold 20% of sale price is set aside for you and the remainder is split equally.

This protects your inheritance for your daughter assuming prices go up but would still be messy if you broke up.

I like this way though as it's fair and you are still moving forward together

twiggytwoo · 18/05/2021 14:03

Cross post with @TH22 - basically same principle!

Love51 · 18/05/2021 14:03

Tenants in common is an odds phrase because it makes it sound like you are renting! Joint tenants means you both own the house entirely. Tenants in common means you each own a percentage of the house eg 70:30 or 50:50. You would need to think how it would end if he wanted to leave and get his money - if you didn't want him to force a sale how would you buy him out? (presumably a mortgage - just have a thought as to if you could easily raise one).

Quitelikeacatslife · 18/05/2021 14:04

You could buy bigger house in your name and he just pays half bills, then he buys a buy to let in his name, if he is not paying towards your mortgage he should be able to afford one. Maybe once expenses for that house are paid, if there is surplus he could use that for holidays?

Forestdweller11 · 18/05/2021 14:04

If you go Tennant's in common though and you will your bit to your daughter what happens when you die. How does your daughter access her portion of the house? Would he be expected to sell up and release her equity? Life time interest? There's a lot to think about.

TheUndoingProject · 18/05/2021 14:05

If he doesn’t want to throw money away on rent what makes you think he’ll want to pay you rent? The same issue applies from his perspective - he’s not building up equity.

I think the idea of you owning a buy to let may be a better solution in the long term.

user1471457751 · 18/05/2021 14:10

If he pays you rent you run the risk of him claiming he has built up a beneficial interest in your property. You will then end up owing him some of the equity anyway.

The best way to prevent that would be you split bills 50/50 and he pays for no capital works in the property.

Zancah · 18/05/2021 14:12

Hell would freeze over before I'd get married again. Too much to lose.

I'm glad to read this! In your shoes I'd stick to solo-owning my own place, by all means go bigger and let him move in but, it's still yours and yours alone then.
If you're not married he has no claim. At least if you let him move in, he can probably save money to get his own assets then too, I wouldn't be against that in the circumstances.

Original poster

changetherecord71 · 18/05/2021 14:20

Thanks everyone some really interesting suggestions. The tenants in common idea is an interesting one: but again all sorts of tricky ramifications such as if we split up or if I died before him etc.

The other idea which crossed my mind was for him to buy a share of the flat I own now: if he put his deposit in (about £60k) and we mortgaged it would get the mortgage down to fairly low level (about £80k outstanding) with a decent amount of equity. He could just live in a "family home" I buy outright and pay rent/bills. I would still have the greater chunk of the equity in this flat but he'd have about 1/3 of the equity of a London flat, we could make a decent amount letting it out and it would be cleaner and less emotional to sell in the event of a split. And the "family home" would remain mine and my daughter's property.

The downside of this of course is that I would get less money to put into buying a bigger house....

OP posts:

justchecking1 · 18/05/2021 14:23

I wouldn't pay you rent but I'd pay half the bills or half the mortgage if it was shared. Why should I pay your mortgage for you when I won't benefit in any way? I should be able to use my rent money to put towards something that will build equity for me, not just to benefit you. If I was living alone I could get my own mortgage rather than pay rent. Your proposal feels very unfair

justchecking1 · 18/05/2021 14:24

I think your last idea sounds sensible

Dacquoise · 18/05/2021 14:25

Tenants in common seems like the best option for you if you want to protect your bigger share of the property including your deposit. If you don't intend to marry your investment is pretty secure. You would also benefit from the growth in the value of the property over time.

However, where it would get complicated is if you are together long term into old age. If you were to die before your partner would you want the property to be sold immediately to realise your child's inheritance? Would your partner be able to rehouse himself on his share? I am tenant in common with my partner 50/50 but our wills give each other a life interest in the property ie if one of us dies, the other can continue to live in the property until they die. At this point the property is sold and inheritances passed on to the beneficiaries of our will. My daughter would be okay as I have life insurance and pensions that go directly to her so she could wait for her inheritance from my house. Something to think about.

DeadlyMedally · 18/05/2021 14:29

I can understand wanting to ring-febce your assets, but charging a partner rent is a weird one if you also expect them to live with you because the expectations are not the same for a tenant.
If my landlord expected to share their bed, have sex with them and Interact positively with their child, not having to pay rent would be the least of my expectations.
The simplest ask would be a contribution to bills, groceries and/or mortgage interest.
If you don't plan to get married, I'm assuming you don't plan to have kids, so there's no real reason for you to enter into financial contracts together either.

booboo24 · 18/05/2021 14:35

Hi nothing to add but following out of interest as I am in a similar boat (house!)

Moirarose2021 · 18/05/2021 14:40

I own our house dp owns our holiday home, is something like that a possibility? maybe a btl rather than holiday. Both of us have been married before and want to ring fence our assets for our children ( none together)

Original poster

changetherecord71 · 18/05/2021 14:40

@Dacquoise

This is a really good point. I honestly hadn't thought that far ahead. I wouldn't want my daughter to have to wait for him to die or move out before she could crystallise her inheritance. On the other hand I wouldn't want to be a complete cow and force him potentially in advanced age out on the pavement.

Lots to think about but I think probably the way forward is essentially to make sure that any joint investment that takes place is not in the family home.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3 4 5