Buying a house with partner. He's paying deposit. We have 2 children.

Mojisola wrote: »

Or he could have agreed to the pressure of being the main wage-earner because the OP didn't want to go back to work full-time but is now feeling that he'd prefer to ringfence his inheritance.

We don't know how the present situation came about.

Indeed, that could have been the agreement. However, women need to protect their futures, too.

pollypenny wrote: »

Indeed, that could have been the agreement. However, women need to protect their futures, too.

I would rephrase that - both parents need to protect the future of their children, and getting married is possibly the most effective legal way of doing that. OP and her partner, for whatever reasons, have chosen not to get married before having their children and, surely, both of them know the possible implications of this, and both of them have made willing and unforced decisions about how to look after their family in whatever way suited them.

I'm having difficulty figuring out why some folks seem to think OP should end this relationship and/or think that her partner is not committed to their future together. He has chosen to use his inheritance as a lever to buy the family a property which, presumably, would otherwise have not been a possibility. Everyone is going to benefit, including OP, even if their relationship ended because he has chosen/agreed to be the bigger earner, will be making the bigger contribution towards the mortgage and is offering to give her 25% of the deposit. So he is making a willing decision to provide some protection for OP as well in the future should their relationship end, and acknowledging OP's valuable contribution to their family set-up. He could, of course, have simply stuffed the money into a bank account and kept it there (or spent it on himself) and he would have been entitled to do that - but he hasn't.

catkins wrote: »

Would you think this if they were married? What if they had been together for 20 years?

I ask because my DH inherited quite a large sum of money last year and it enabled us to buy a house outright (we were renting). If we were to split up we would divide the proceeds of the house sale 50/50.

Admittedly we have been married over 30 years and it pretty unlikely we will split up but you never know.

We have always shared all money that comes into the house and it has always been our money.

I don't think it's so much about the likelihood of you splitting up as what you've brought to the relationship over the past 30 years. Obviously as you are married then different rules apply but in this case the OP isn't married and hasn't managed to save her 'half' of a deposit so, one assumes they've spent any money contributed (even assuming that was broadly equal over the years) on services and consumables. The money in question is a gift directly from father to son.


I accept that some couples choose to see everything that comes in as 'our' money but there have been many threads that show this isn't a universally held view. Sadly many people have learned the hard way that it's often better to stay in control of your own finances and keep a distinction between his/hers/ours.