Where do you even start with this?

[Tanaria]

As the title says. I'm feeling quite overwhelmed before we've even started and need an independent eye or two on this.

How do you merge two households where both are homeowners, need to buy somewhere new, but the situation and initial budgets are so different?

Background: DP has no children, I have 2 (one at university, so still needs a place to stay, and there is a big age gap between first and second).

He bought his house a long time ago, it has significantly increased in value and he has almost paid it off. It is worth close to double what mine is worth.

I bought after my divorce a few years back and my ex left me with barely anything to my name. It wasn't fair, but I did not have the energy for a drawn-out legal fight. I rented for a while, then (when the rental market was threatening collapse to the state it is in now) bought a shitty doer-upper for the security it brought. So I have far less equity in my house than he has in his.

We are now looking to buy together. Renting together first is not an option (the current market, the fact I'm bound to local schools, the decline in our capital), neither is renting either of our houses out due to the recent changes in legislation. Neither of us have the time to invest in being a small landlord. We have spent long enough in prolonged company with each other to know it works.

For mine and my children's security, I won't accept any less than a 50% share of the house. I know that this will mean he will pay off his share very quickly, if not instantly, and I will still be paying my share of the mortgage off. It will limit my day-to-day spending more than his, but that would not have been any different if we both stayed apart. I will earn more than him soon by about 7k, but won't see much of an increase in day to day money due to deductions.

So here are my questions:

How does this practically work? Neither of us have ever sold a house, let alone two while buying at the same time. Talk me through actual steps in this situation like I'm completely clueless (I am).

How will this likely impact us day to day? We're both adamant that bills will remain 50/50 split. That will end off with him likely worse off, but he will have more money available as he will not have a mortgage. Can this even work? I'm worried I will resent him, even though it is not his fault he happened to have bought years before I did.

I have had to rebuild my life several times before, from nothing. Part of me is very scared for that reason, even though this is by far the best relationship I've ever had and the man is, while not perfect, everything I can ask for in a partner.

Does it really make sense to sell his house, since it's almost paid off and doubled in price? That means you will probably be buying when the market is high, if you're purchasing something together. I'm assuming you two want to buy a house together so that the both of you are on equal footing financially so that in case of a split or death, that you won't be homeless and that your children will get their due inheritance when the both of you die.

If possible, and you consult a good financial advisor, could his house be refinanced with you being placed as a co-owner? Perhaps there could be put into place a financial agreement that you pay a particular amount per month, even when the mortgage is paid off, that the both of you consider is fair until that financial goal is met. Such as an amount going into his personal account, which doesn't have to be half of what it was worth when he paid for it, but an amount that has you investing a fair share.

I'm just throwing that idea out as a possibility. But again, I'd be speaking to experts in property/real estate financial advisors to take advantage of their knowledge. And if you've never lived together as a family, you might consider doing that for a time in his house before any major decisions are made concerning buying a house together.

His house is smaller than mine, with fewer bedrooms, but in much better condition and in a much more desirable area. So moving into his isn't possible, but his house is worth a lot more.

We are moving in with each other because we currently live a 45min drive away from each other, and with two demanding jobs it's becoming a bit much to add the travel and inconvenience of not having each other's stuff around all the time. And from an emotional point of view, we don't like spending time apart when things come up (like building work being done on either house we need to supervise).

My children are from a previous marriage, so I need the stability for them and the security of knowing that they will not be left homeless in the event of a split (or without inheritance when I die). On a 50/50 ownership I'd be able to get a large enough deposit together to not have to worry again about being unable to afford somewhere in the event of a split, because any future mortgage would be so much smaller. The potential for equity would be much less if the split was uneven, so that's a no from my side.

We are going to get some legal advice, of course, but this being mumsnet I figured it's not that unusual in this day and age to be in a situation like this for partners who meet later in life and merge unequal households. I'm hoping to hear some stories from people who have been through this, or seen friends/ relatives do this.

Why are you insisting on 50:50? Provided that your share is protected via a deed of trust and that your contribution is ring fenced for your children what is the advantage of 50:50?

if he owns 90% he still has no more right to sell it without your permission than at 50%.

Because the equity I get out of the house in the case we split and sell it would be bigger.

If we buy a house worth 500k and he owns 80%, my share would be limited to 100k. At my age, not enough to start again given the mortgage I'd have to take on. But if I have 250k available from the sale, I'll end up being able to buy somewhere.

So what happens when he can afford to go on an expensive holiday or something, but you can't? Is he going to sub you, go on his own or are you going into debt for it?

I think if there's likely to be a big disparity in your disposable incomes, it's going to be difficult.

Why would he pay 50/50 on bills if it's him, you and your two children? Seems a bit unfair IMO? He is subsidising your kids? Sorry if this sounds harsher than it's meant to come across.

What are your spending habits like (i.e. is one a Waitrose person and other a Lidl) - could there be disagreements on things like food, new furniture etc....

Also, if he has loads more money, is that an issue - i.e. he has spare cash so wants to go away and you cant afford?

Just an idea but if he bought the lions share of new house and you had say 25%, could you not invest your money in pension etc... No idea if that would perform as well as house?

It's a point I've been making.

On non-essentials like day trips he wants to do, he is happy to take on a bigger share if it means we all get to go. I am generally very good with money and we don't live extravagantly. Both our hobbies are reasonably inexpensive and we rarely holiday abroad.

The financial burden of taking in my kids isn't as big as it may seem. My ex and I have an equal split of time with them and the eldest won't be living with us for much longer even outside of term time as they're building a life in their university town.

I'm still responsible for most everyday spending on my youngest (school stuff, clothes, toys etc.) as I've always been, just increased bills for water, food and electricity are shared. Plus, my partner never had his own children, so has always wanted to quasi-adopt.

We both have a good pension that won't need messing with. I'm the higher earner in this relationship, so I won't know exactly how big the disparity will be.

I'd also mention that marriage is on the horizon after we've moved in together, so much of the above may be moot, depending on how much the house will be seen as a marital asset even if a declaration of trust is drawn up.

If you're buying together but not actually properly pooling your assets, the budget for the place should be on the lower end, based on what the person with the least can comfortably afford as their share. Otherwise if you base your budget as if resources are pooled, the poorer person ends up stretched while the other sits pretty.

Is selling his house and then him investing in yours to do it up an option?
So only one house to sell and stability for kids?
He could invest the rest of his equity from his house sale for his own protection in case of split etc and when the mortgage on yours is due for renewal, he could invest a lump sum for a share of equity (also taking jnto account whatever he'd invested in doing it up/share of mortgage since moving in etc)

But what can you afford and what can he afford?

If you can afford something at 250k and he can afford something at 500k, then you are better off buying something at 750k, living somewhere nicer and still getting your equity. If you insist on 50:50 and you can put down £250k your limiting yourselves to a property worth £500k.

either way provided your contribution is ring fenced you’ll still walk away with your 250. Unless of course you want both of you to go all in but still own 50:50- so him put in his 500 and you your 250- in which case I can’t possibly see why he’d agree to that

@Tanaria been in this situation - 2 properties to sell (one each), me with masses more equity. We sold both and basically had to wait and persuade the chain to wait for everything to line up. I put in a bigger deposit towards my half. So we wanted to own 50 50 as tenants in common and this meant we got a joint mortgage. I put in 2/3 of my half in cash whereas he put in a third towards his half. This meant I paid a third of the mortgage and he, 2/3. We had the deposit share and responsibility towards the mortgage written up in a Trust Deed.
Once his finances improved and we’d paid off more of the mortgage overall, he put in another lump sum and then we paid half of the mortgage each. When his kids were with us he paid a little more towards the bills but not crazily so, but he paid 2/3 of the food bill. Unfortunately split up later but there were no money-related arguments …

If/ when the property increases in value, my share of it - despite any improvements we'd make (say, on energy efficiency) and me paying half - would also only increase by a set percentage if we went down the unequal tenants in common route. I, and my children, would lose out in the event of a split. While unlikely, I do always consider worst case.

I wonder whether there is a way I'd be able to increase my share over a set time with increased payments? It doesn't detract from the fact there will be financial inequality in our relationship when he is paid off and I still have 15 years left, but that was always going to be the case whether or not we'd have moved in with each other.

He can't move into my house. We need an extra bedroom, mostly because he needs an office and I also do considerable work from home, so two desks are a must. And frankly, he doesn't want to live in this area (it's very dogdy) and I cannot blame him one bit. It's a temporary solution should we end up with him selling first and needing to clear out of his home if we choose to only go with one chain rather than two, but it's not a long-term option.

@Ohnobackagain How did the mortgage thing work for you? We can both individually port our mortgages, but obviously paying each of them off and taking on a new joint one would mean large fees. So we're mostly looking at porting our portions onto a new house. That said, doing so as tenants in common would leave him with significant "loose" capital if we go for a 50/50 split and limits our options to less than we could afford if we simply combined finances. But that would mean him losing out and I wouldn't want that.

Anything else, however, seems to end with me losing out. Something I'm not prepared to do, given how significantly I've been burned before.

@Tanaria we started with a fresh mortgage, both sold up and outside of any early redemption. So no penalties. We considered porting for convenience but it just complicated the maths really. He earned more than I, but was worse in cash flow. The trust deed stated that if we had to sell, then the outstanding mortgage had to be paid off in the relative proportions and only then was any equity to be divided 50 50. If the house value had decreased then we’d have had to payback the drop to the bank and technically he’d have had to pay 2/3 but I think had it happened we’d have agreed to split it.

Is it essential that you blend households at this minute? Could you wait until your youngest has left home? That would make things simpler - and also be better for your youngest, who I doubt is desperate to live with an adult he is unrelated to and hasn't chosen.

I am not saying split up - just keep seeing each other but remain as you are? If you still want to live together when your son leaves home, that would be a much better time to do it.

Thank you @Ohnobackagain , we will definitely consider something like that.

@Ilovelurchers Yes, it kind of is. My youngest and my partner get on like a house on fire. Long and complicated backstory regarding my ex, but there will be huge benefits for them in living with a good role model, aside from the benefits of having an extra adult at home.

And neither of us can sustain the drive and living between two houses for too much longer. We both have demanding full-time jobs, which can take up 11 hours a day alone. Given the nature of our jobs, leaving anything at home while staying over at the other's house is also a bit of a nightmare as any missing kit can lead to huge issues.

And soppy as it may seem, we simply don't want to be apart anymore.

Find a good rental in desired area.
Sell both properties.
You then have time to work out finances and what property you need going forward.
Also a compatability check just to be sure.
The loss of monies whilst renting might be worth it in the long run.
Good luck

Thank you, but as I said, rental is not an option. We've had plenty of opportunities to see what living with each other is like. Loss of any money to rent at our age is not what we want, especially in the current climate where inflation will push prices of everything up even further.

@Tanaria one thing I would say is, if you each aren’t yet sure how the other parents their kids, discuss as many scenarios as you can. My partner and I were far apart on discipline and it made things harder it might have been. I do wish I hadn’t sold my previous house as it goes!

We're very closely aligned in terms of expectations. I'm not worried on that front.

I'm not blind to future friction points (I know where they will be), but parenting won't be one of them.

Years back I had a lady who worked for me. She had an awful abusive ex husband who she had three kids with. The youngest he refused to even acknowledge.
She met a superb man who also left an abusive relationship and had one very disabled child in full time care.
He sold his house and moved in with her. She had her house from the marriage and it was almost paid off.

Several years had gone by and she was telling me he was becoming distant and had said he felt like a guest several times. Despite being the only dad her youngest had known and was always always their for anything any of her kids needed.

I suggested she put him on the deed and split the house 50/50 and if she wanted her could pay her an amount each month as a sort of personal mortgage or fund an extension.

I explained how he must feel and knowing she was very poor at thinking as he would or putting herself in his shoes.

She took this and put him on the deed, split ownership 70/30 and drew up a will that covered all their children.

He was over the moon and now years later they are still together and disgustingly happy.

Resentment can build slowly and it takes conversations and compromises to make it work.

I think I would hold off on buying together.

Can you expand on why? We have several house viewings and a mortgage advisor booked and will next look at solicitor's advice, too.

If he is contributing more than 50% to the new house and you aren’t, why should you be automatically entitled to 50%? That’s very entitled.

I don't have any direct experience of your situation, but just generally with regard to house selling.
It would be 100% easier to sell one house first, then sell the other and buy in one chain.
Negotiating 2 chains to sell plus one to buy is going to be a nightmare.

You buy and your % share of the property depends on how much you put in surely? If you want 50/50 then you go for a property in what you can both afford. If he pays 50/50 with bills then you are gaining as he is partially paying for your children. I don't see what your problems are other than how to sell a house and that's out there on Google.