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

[changetherecord71]

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.

@changetherecord71

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....

You'd also have to have the bank agree to a change in ownership of current flat and a variation or new mortgage with you both named. There may be fees to pay on the portion of ownership transferred to BF. I'd see a solicitor for legal advice.

Simplest option I think would be you buy bigger property just in your name. He moves in, you share bills, he doesn't pay rent (otherwise he may end up having a beneficial interest in the property) and he saves and buys a BTL. Zero financial untangling needed on death or seperation, BF gets to save up and buy his own place. You write a will and leave the family home, which he has zero stake in to your DD.

@IND1A i'm glad you think it's okay to date someone with the intent of dumping them in the future when they are elderly because they will be 'boring'.
I hope you don't have sons if you think this is an okay mindset.

@IND1A I also said there was nothing wrong with her wanting to keep all her assets to herself,
But she needs to discuss it with her boyfriend and also discuss the fact she plans not to be with him when he is elderly so he can decide whether he is happy with that or whether he wants someone who does want to grow old with him

And that's the same with everything in life. Men and women in relationships need to be compatible in life.
To some people, marriage is essential.
Some people, children are not essential.
Some people, shared fiannces is essential.
Some people, it is not.
But it all needs to be discussed.

If I were your bf I would absolutely not agree to moving in with you and paying you rent. This gives me the worse of all worlds - no equity and no security.

You either need to buy as tenants in common or you buy on your own and he uses what he's saving in rent to buy a property of his own.

We see loads of threads from the opposite perspective on MN - woman has moved into man's house, not on the deeds, no interest in the house, but can't save as paying out to live there. They are always royally shafted if the relationship breaks down.

This is a VERY interesting thread. Do you have to decide it all right now? Whilst you get used to cohabiting, I think I would prefer to finance the family home myself and charge him lodger rates (eg fair rate for one bedroom and shared facilities, plus share of utility bills. In this case, one thing I would NOT agree with is:

You share any repair costs on your place.

As that would not be normal for either a lodger agreement or tenancy. A lodger agreement will cover at least some of your costs (so he’s not living there for free), without him directly contributing to repairs and/or improvements, which might reasonably be considering investing in your property.

It might be that within a very short period you (or you both!) decide that the relationship is absolutely not going to work, and you can go your separate ways easily - you owe each other nothing. On the other hand, if things go well you can THEN look at what to do next. I feel that trying to tie it all up right now is going to prevent you moving forwards at all.

[quote Sundown29dn]@IND1A I also said there was nothing wrong with her wanting to keep all her assets to herself,
But she needs to discuss it with her boyfriend and also discuss the fact she plans not to be with him when he is elderly so he can decide whether he is happy with that or whether he wants someone who does want to grow old with him[/quote]
@Sundown29dn I completely agree with you. The hypocrisy on this site is staggering.

What i find abhorrent with all these types of non-commital relationships is that the man or woman with all these underhand thoughts aren't fully honest with their partner about their intentions.

It's controlling behaviour because they're denying the partner the right to make an informed critical decision about their own future. If the OP wasn't craftily keeping this man in deceit, this decision she's grappling with would almost certainly become non-existent because the man would leave the relationship of his own accord.

I doubt OP herself would be staying with this man and thinking of potentially becoming more financially joined with him if she thought he was similarly planning to ditch her when she became old. It's a terrible and cruel thing to be hiding from someone. If that's your intention, be open about it with partners and they can decide whether they want to continue investing in the relationship on that basis.

@LilyWater completely agree!

If my son (when he is older) came to me and said his girlfriend has told him sge only wants to be with him medium-term because old men are boring and no good for sex, i'd tell him to run a mile.
I would no way applaud the female for believing "women thrive better on their own" so purposely dump their husbands for no other reason than that.
Plenty of elderly women have a loving husband - but by OPs logic, are they not thriving because they are not single, independent women going alone?

And I am also a divorced woman; it doesn't give me the right to deceive my current partner because i've been 'hurt' in the past.
We have an open, honest relationship and spoke about our wants for the future early on.

OP, i'm not trying to be rude but you need to speak to your current partner about your wants for the future.
He may be happy with the fact you see him as a 'medium-term' partner or he may want someone who sees him as someone they can be with long-term.

But please please please talk with him. He deserves it.

Tenants in common would mean you would put in equal deposit with partner and pay mortgage equally. You would each own half of property. If you separated either one buys out the other or sell and each take your own half. That way you could leave your dd your half.

OP,

Delighted to read you are being proactive in protecting your daughter's inheritance.

I would work on the basis that you do not share finances in any way and that if things don't work out he could pack a bag and leave.

IMO the best solution is that he looks to purchase his own property.

He shares bills and pays a fair rent to you.
Everything is documented clearly so that he hasn't any claim on your property.

Keeping it simple and separate is wise.

I'm with you with some women positively getting a new lease of freedom when widowed, not all of course, but definitely some.

I can well imagine you feeling a bit cagey about what he will be like by his mid sixties.

Men that playba sport like gold or tennis might fair better, but some that like the quiet life at home can be very restrictive of their wives lives, meal times etc.🙄

If the OP wanted to share ownership of her home and assets with her boyfriend she could marry him. Be thankful you have the choice, in many countries if you live with your DP your finances are joined as if you had a legal marriage contract. Your government decided this for you.. Your children lose out on any inheritance you wish to pass on to them.

I wouldn’t be discussing my inheritance with my bf, they are not even living together. Who knows if their relationship will last.

This isn't difficult really - you both agree to take out what you put in if you split. You use that percentage split for any increase in value and you split living costs. (Mortgage and property in your name).
So - if you put in 100k on a 200k property - you take out 100k if you split. You'd have a 100k mortgage which you split the costs for. If the property is valued at 10% more when you split, (220k valuation) - you take your 100k plus half the increase (10k) plus your half of the mortgaged value (5k) and he takes the other half of the mortgaged percentage increase (5k)

This simple solution would mean he will have made money on the increased value while paying the mortgage in proportion to his stake.

I think you could draw up a legal document if needed.

That would be my solution anyway.

Ps - if the property lost value- (which could happen- he would walk away - but that would because while he had a stake- you are the sole owner.) If a joint mortgage he'd need to find 5k to buy out his share of the loss of value I above scenario.

@caringcarer

Tenants in common would mean you would put in equal deposit with partner and pay mortgage equally. You would each own half of property. If you separated either one buys out the other or sell and each take your own half. That way you could leave your dd your half.

It doesn't need to be equal .It can be any %.

I'd be wary of charging him rent. He could still have a claim against your property under TOLATA.

The simplest solution to your issue is to buy a property as tenants in common, with a Deed of Trust setting out how your respective shares in the property are to be split.

You could also have a Cohabitation Agreement setting out how you share finances whilst living together and what happens if you split or die.

Really you need proper legal advice.