Partner Rent Disagreement

123468

Comments

  • I always find these discussions interesting.

    I think the government should look at clearing up the legislation here. Beneficial interest is hard to prove and requires a court to determine. If you want to be completely protected you can't even put money to one side to use a holiday fund at that can be taken into account with beneficial interest.

    Ultimately someone living rent free whilst the other partner pays the mortgage is bound to breed resentment, as a few posters have pointed out its the only situation where you don't have to pay anything for the roof over your head.

    Whilst I understand the argument about paying off the equity on someones else mortgage, it doesn't fairly reflect the risk and responsibility the mortgage payer has taken on to provide a home for them both. In almost any other situation I can think of you would be expected to pay something for your accommodation.

    If adult children where living at home no one would say anything about them paying room & board to their parents.
  • justme111
    justme111 Posts: 3,508
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker I've been Money Tipped!
    Forumite
    Looking at original post again a man pays at present minimal rent because he lives with family. The fact that he wants to continue being subsidised, moving from family to her would not sit well with me. Op , it is up to you to see whether he is worth the aggro of trying to gently bring to his attention that it would be unequal partnership if a grown up man relies on a woman for his living arrangements or just move on and count yourself lucky you have not joined your lives.
    Soundgirlrocks, I think the risk of holiday fund being taken into account for benefitial interest court is academical. Part of the fund would be spent and I do not see how a man paying for holidays could be interpreted as having interest in the house; part of the fund he would take when he is moving out for either rental expenses or deposit anyway. So it would be no contribution to a house but his savings. If they do some big purchases as cars or fridges etc he would take half of those.
    Anyway if my boyfriend was adamant he wants to contribute towards mortgage and build up benefitial interest I would be happy with it. After all of we were to split in a few years the interest built would be fairly minor and probably equal to a half of whatever was left in holiday fund anyway. As percentage of equity accrued in those years would be small and "his" would be half tops , likely less. So in practice in would be likely to be similar to half of unspent holiday fund which he would get anyway if we were to split.
    The word "dilemma" comes from Greek where "di" means two and "lemma" means premise. Refers usually to difficult choice between two undesirable options.
    Often people seem to use this word mistakenly where "quandary" would fit better.
  • FBaby
    FBaby Posts: 18,367
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Not at all, what I am saying is the mortgage has no relevance at all.

    you are the one suggesting that if there is a mortgage there should be an element of "rent" that relates to that mortgage interest.
    See what you mean, should have put 'rent' under bracket, my point was that it didn't seem fair that he should be contributing towards the capital as he wouldn't be entitled to any of that capital, but the interest is what needs to be paid -assuming there is a mortgage repayment- despite gaining nothing for it, similar to paying rent.
  • justme111 wrote: »
    Soundgirlrocks, I think the risk of holiday fund being taken into account for benefitial interest court is academical. Part of the fund would be spent and I do not see how a man paying for holidays could be interpreted as having interest in the house; part of the fund he would take when he is moving out for either rental expenses or deposit anyway. So it would be no contribution to a house but his savings.

    Part of the issue with Beneficial Interest is its an implied trust if there is a discussion along the lines of " you can pay for our holidays rather then the mortgage" a court could take this as an implied trust, its not black and white.

    As I said its a messy area of law and I think in most cases the legal costs v any uplift in value & equity contributions after a few years of cohabitation would cancel each other out, making the whole discussion academic but over a longer term it could be a issue.
  • thriftylass
    thriftylass Posts: 3,981
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    When I moved in with my boyfriend he had the mortgage and the house. So he paid that and I accepted/wanted no claim to that. However, I paid some bills and food etc so that we spend about the same amount of money off our wages on living expenses without me actually paying the mortgage. We now have bought together and married and still use that system (both on the deeds now though) as we don't have a joint account.
    DEBT 09/23: CC 6347 5120, Other 1763 NSDs 0/20 Planned debt free date: Dec 2024
  • justme111
    justme111 Posts: 3,508
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker I've been Money Tipped!
    Forumite
    Over a long term I think it would be only fair if he was left with something if he moves out as he was part of the family.
    The word "dilemma" comes from Greek where "di" means two and "lemma" means premise. Refers usually to difficult choice between two undesirable options.
    Often people seem to use this word mistakenly where "quandary" would fit better.
  • Gavin83
    Gavin83 Posts: 8,739
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    justme111 wrote: »
    If they were not to spend anything from that surplus money at all and split in a year he takes what he needs to move out , the reminder then split in half. Both benefitting but not at each others cost. The situation is not adversarial, it is mutually benefitial.

    If she was to get half on a split that would suggest it's as much her money as his. Is that's the case then why put this money aside at all and not just pay half the mortgage?
    If adult children where living at home no one would say anything about them paying room & board to their parents.

    Children can legally be lodgers, partners can't.
  • getmore4less
    getmore4less Posts: 46,882
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post I've helped Parliament
    Forumite
    FBaby wrote: »
    See what you mean, should have put 'rent' under bracket, my point was that it didn't seem fair that he should be contributing towards the capital as he wouldn't be entitled to any of that capital, but the interest is what needs to be paid -assuming there is a mortgage repayment- despite gaining nothing for it, similar to paying rent.

    A lot of people make this basic mistake of not understanding the concept of debt servicing equity.

    The borrowing of the capital and the interest being paid is what bought the equity. the capital payment just reduces the debt, it does not change the equity that debt bought, that varies in different way(value goes up or down).

    eg Using your concept the owners just borrows 100% of the money from their mum at 25% and the "lodger/lover" now has a bigger bill because it is tied to the interest.

    The key is that if you pay the interest on some capital that bought an asset you should have the beneficial interest in that asset.


    Not saying there is not an issue of a person potentially getting shelter for free.
    However you deal with that, interest on debt does not work as a model.

    The landlord/tenant model has some merit but the law for people in relationships gives that issues and falls in line with the old saying rent is dead money(if you believe in that).

    If one of you owned a house and rented that out and rented somewhere else as a couple the problem does not exist,

    Want a model where the house you rent is the one owned by one of you it breaks down.
  • justme111
    justme111 Posts: 3,508
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker I've been Money Tipped!
    Forumite
    Gavin83 wrote: »
    If she was to get half on a split that would suggest it's as much her money as his. Is that's the case then why put this money aside at all and not just pay half the mortgage?



    Children can legally be lodgers, partners can't.
    Because while they are together money is spent on common enjoyment they would not been able to afford otherwise, not her or his separate financial obligations. It would be divided only if they split.
    The word "dilemma" comes from Greek where "di" means two and "lemma" means premise. Refers usually to difficult choice between two undesirable options.
    Often people seem to use this word mistakenly where "quandary" would fit better.
  • This thread is really sad. I have a mortgage just in my name and I would not be happy to have a boyfriend living here rent free.
    But neither would I be happy breaking up and having to pay money over. My parents paid my deposit so it would feel like a boy taking my parents money.

    It doesn't seem fair that if you want to stay in your house and live with your boyfriend you are potentially becoming someone's meal ticket.

    I would not let a boyfriend move in that didn't want to pay his way. He should at least want to! But it's not very romantic to draw up an agreement in case of break up. It feels like a situation with no winning side.
    2017- 5 credit cards plus loan
    Overdraft And 1 credit card paid off.

    2018 plans - reduce debt
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards