Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • BumbleBee11
    • By BumbleBee11 17th Apr 17, 10:05 AM
    • 3Posts
    • 5Thanks
    BumbleBee11
    Partner Rent Disagreement
    • #1
    • 17th Apr 17, 10:05 AM
    Partner Rent Disagreement 17th Apr 17 at 10:05 AM
    New here, so apologies if wrong area.

    I own my own house and my partner and I are discussing him moving in with me. He currently lives with his family paying minimal rent per month. The issue is he said if he moves in he will happily pay half of all council tax, food and utility bills, but disagrees to pay half of the mortgage (which is just over 500pm). His reasoning for this is its my mortgage which is my loan on the house, why should he pay half of a mortgage when in years to come he still won't own any of the property. On the other hand he said if it was a rented property he would gladly pay half of that, but his issue with contributing towards the mortgage is that it's my house and therefore the mortgage should be up to me.

    I see where he's coming from, but I just can't get past the feeling that alongside utilities, some sort of rent should be paid for using/living in the property. Paying just a couple of hundred pounds a month for full use of it when I'm paying much more seems bizarre, even though I know long term I benefit because I own it.

    What are other people's thoughts on this?

    Thanks
Page 3
    • justme111
    • By justme111 17th Apr 17, 10:48 PM
    • 2,568 Posts
    • 2,441 Thanks
    justme111
    Thanks again all. Bit of a difficult one as of course as some have said there's no way to enforce this, and I'm not sure how I feel about using that money for holidays for example, but something to think about
    Originally posted by BumbleBee11
    You have an account where money goes in both of your names. If you see he is not contributing to it or you can not agree on what to spend it then that will be your litmus paper. Why not to spend it on holidays ? You would have spent your other money on holidays, you save your other money in this way. Some big household goods , further career training, cars - anything could be paid with this money provided that those were the same amounts benefitting each of you. It is nice to spend it on something that you would not been afford otherwise and what is your common project . Even food shopping could be done with this money but then there is a potential for people to argue one was buying expensive treats/alcohol consistently with it
    Btw if he ends up moving out only 50% of this money is his ,other 50 is yours. I do not see why all of it would be considered "his" as per pastures new comment. Why would only he benefit monetarily from living together but not she ?
    Last edited by justme111; 17-04-2017 at 10:51 PM.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 18th Apr 17, 5:58 AM
    • 15,355 Posts
    • 38,530 Thanks
    FBaby
    Ultimately, if this is not something you can easily discuss together so you can reach a position that makes you both happy with, you are not yet ready to move in together. There are many other parts of cohabitation you might disagree with that will require some communication and compromise, so your priority should be to get this right first.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 18th Apr 17, 6:32 AM
    • 28,440 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    getmore4less
    The fairest of all is to work out the cost of the interest which is the rent and the capital which is the investment. You pay the capital in full you share the interest. His half of the interest he puts towards something joint his equivalent of the capital repayment he invests how he wishes.
    Originally posted by FBaby
    But that does not represent the situation at all well as an equivalent of "rent"

    If the place was mortgage free then the interest/rent is ZERO.

    mortgage interest and rentable value have no correlation.

    In equitable(beneficial) terms if you service the debt you own the share that debt buys.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 18th Apr 17, 6:55 AM
    • 28,440 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    getmore4less
    You have an account where money goes in both of your names. If you see he is not contributing to it or you can not agree on what to spend it then that will be your litmus paper. Why not to spend it on holidays ? You would have spent your other money on holidays, you save your other money in this way. Some big household goods , further career training, cars - anything could be paid with this money provided that those were the same amounts benefitting each of you. It is nice to spend it on something that you would not been afford otherwise and what is your common project . Even food shopping could be done with this money but then there is a potential for people to argue one was buying expensive treats/alcohol consistently with it
    Btw if he ends up moving out only 50% of this money is his ,other 50 is yours. I do not see why all of it would be considered "his" as per pastures new comment. Why would only he benefit monetarily from living together but not she ?
    Originally posted by justme111
    Wrapping the "rent" money in some elaborate scheme to hide it from it going towards the mortgage will not protect the OP from the OH getting a beneficial interest.

    having a paper trail in a joint account that only he contributes to will make his claim even easier.

    Crazy idea.

    Also there is really no need to create joint finances and credit histories till you get a mortgage with someone when there is no choice.


    Share the running costs as if you were both tenants, decide the "ownerships" costs are joint or not, the OH either buys in or not all or nothing.

    while it is nothing the suggestion they save to buy in later(or have funds to move on) is sensible, no need to track or check, when the time comes they will either have the money or not.

    Do not in anyway tie some virtual rent to other activities, if the OH, while living rent/mortgage free, wants to show some appreciation by paying for a nice dinner or a better holiday so be it but don't pretend it is a substitute for rent.
    • justme111
    • By justme111 18th Apr 17, 10:32 AM
    • 2,568 Posts
    • 2,441 Thanks
    justme111
    Ok , have an account with his name on it only but surely on discussing how you spend that money it will crop up how much is there and you will know the balance.
    Why not tie it to other activities , specially couple one's?
    It is nice and symbolic thing to do. And no , the money does not go towards mortgage so there is no need to create elaborate schemes. The money goes on surplus luxury spending that otherwise would not have happened.
    You might be happy to either be one that benefits unilaterally from circumstances or live with one , I would not be. Any benefit from living together has to be shared 50/50 unless exceptional circumstances apply or it is difficult to share.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 18th Apr 17, 10:49 AM
    • 15,355 Posts
    • 38,530 Thanks
    FBaby
    But that does not represent the situation at all well as an equivalent of "rent"

    If the place was mortgage free then the interest/rent is ZERO.

    mortgage interest and rentable value have no correlation.

    In equitable(beneficial) terms if you service the debt you own the share that debt buys.
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    So are you saying that even if OP had no mortgage to pay she should still expect rent and therefore make a profit from her partner?

    I suppose it all seems strange to me because I would never consider sharing my life and home with someone unless our relationship was serious enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable with the principle of one partner using the other to make a profit out of them.
    • Kynthia
    • By Kynthia 18th Apr 17, 10:53 AM
    • 4,867 Posts
    • 6,849 Thanks
    Kynthia
    Claiming beneficial interest is not as easy as many people on this forum seem to think. For a start there needs to have been some intention for the partner to gain an interest in the property and clearly a written agreement would show that is not the case. It needs to be updated should anything change to show the intention didn't change. Giving more than half the bills doesn't automatically mean it's going towards the mortgage and beneficial interest can be argued. For a start the money would need to go directly to the mortgage company or at least into the account where the mortgage is taken from.

    Plus paying more than half the bill doesn't meant 'rent is being paid legally. Rent is what lodgers pay and your partner isn't a lodger but a member of your household which is a different status. Any money a member of your household gives you is considered a contribution to household costs. Contributions don't have to be exactly equal either so paying more than half the bills doesnt mean there's a contribution to the mortgage.

    OP I think it's something you need to work out between you. I personally would want us both to be better off so something between just half the bills and half what the homeowner is paying. However there isn't one right answer. Do some legal research rather than assume people on a forum are right and then try to come to an agreement.
    Don't listen to me, I'm no expert!
    • Gavin83
    • By Gavin83 18th Apr 17, 11:32 AM
    • 4,184 Posts
    • 6,442 Thanks
    Gavin83
    Ok , have an account with his name on it only but surely on discussing how you spend that money it will crop up how much is there and you will know the balance.
    Why not tie it to other activities , specially couple one's?
    It is nice and symbolic thing to do. And no , the money does not go towards mortgage so there is no need to create elaborate schemes. The money goes on surplus luxury spending that otherwise would not have happened.
    You might be happy to either be one that benefits unilaterally from circumstances or live with one , I would not be. Any benefit from living together has to be shared 50/50 unless exceptional circumstances apply or it is difficult to share.
    Originally posted by justme111
    So you suggest he should contribute an amount equal to the mortgage payment to the relationship, except not directly to the mortgage so if they do break up he has no beneficial interest in the property? Once again, having your cake and eating it comes to mind.

    I'm also not sure it'll work. I still think if he was contributing more to the relationship to her they'd still be a possibility he'd have a beneficial interest. Either she wants the money and takes the risk, or doesn't take the money and secures her property. There is no way around this and nor should there be.
    • davidwood123
    • By davidwood123 18th Apr 17, 12:53 PM
    • 265 Posts
    • 613 Thanks
    davidwood123
    I've been thinking about this recently. My daughter is moving in with her boyfriend who has moved into a brand new house this month.

    She owns her own place and will be renting it out but he's suggested they go 50% on the mortgage and bills......and she seems to be going along with this.

    I think if she now suggests to him that she shouldn't be paying half the mortgage she's worried it will cause trouble. I'm trying to change her view on the situation but she's an adult at the end of the day and it's her decision to make.

    He also earns far more than she does.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 18th Apr 17, 1:26 PM
    • 28,440 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    getmore4less
    So are you saying that even if OP had no mortgage to pay she should still expect rent and therefore make a profit from her partner?

    I suppose it all seems strange to me because I would never consider sharing my life and home with someone unless our relationship was serious enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable with the principle of one partner using the other to make a profit out of them.
    Originally posted by FBaby
    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.
    • justme111
    • By justme111 18th Apr 17, 3:43 PM
    • 2,568 Posts
    • 2,441 Thanks
    justme111
    So you suggest he should contribute an amount equal to the mortgage payment to the relationship, except not directly to the mortgage so if they do break up he has no beneficial interest in the property? Once again, having your cake and eating it comes to mind.

    I'm also not sure it'll work. I still think if he was contributing more to the relationship to her they'd still be a possibility he'd have a beneficial interest. Either she wants the money and takes the risk, or doesn't take the money and secures her property. There is no way around this and nor should there be.
    Originally posted by Gavin83
    Sorry I am not sure what you saying there. I suggested he puts the amount aside equal to what he is paying for the roof above his head when he lives without her. Ie he pays at present 700 rent - after moving with her he keeps paying 700 into a separate account from which BOTH of them would benefit. I have not mentioned mortgage , her house may have no mortgage at all or have 2000 mortgage - it is irrelevant. Once again , the cake which they would have due to his rent money staying in family would be eaten by BOTH of them. What is wrong with both of them eating that cake , ie benefitting from being one household? What you mean by "contributing more to relationship with her"? More than what? 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.
    • Soundgirlrocks
    • By Soundgirlrocks 18th Apr 17, 3:46 PM
    • 408 Posts
    • 564 Thanks
    Soundgirlrocks
    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
    • By justme111 18th Apr 17, 4:23 PM
    • 2,568 Posts
    • 2,441 Thanks
    justme111
    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.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 18th Apr 17, 4:39 PM
    • 15,355 Posts
    • 38,530 Thanks
    FBaby
    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.
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    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.
    • Soundgirlrocks
    • By Soundgirlrocks 18th Apr 17, 4:44 PM
    • 408 Posts
    • 564 Thanks
    Soundgirlrocks
    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.
    Originally posted by justme111
    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
    • By thriftylass 18th Apr 17, 4:50 PM
    • 2,833 Posts
    • 23,033 Thanks
    thriftylass
    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.
    • justme111
    • By justme111 18th Apr 17, 4:52 PM
    • 2,568 Posts
    • 2,441 Thanks
    justme111
    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.
    • Gavin83
    • By Gavin83 18th Apr 17, 6:11 PM
    • 4,184 Posts
    • 6,442 Thanks
    Gavin83
    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.
    Originally posted by justme111
    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.
    Originally posted by Soundgirlrocks
    Children can legally be lodgers, partners can't.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 18th Apr 17, 7:41 PM
    • 28,440 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    getmore4less
    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.
    Originally posted by FBaby
    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
    • By justme111 18th Apr 17, 11:30 PM
    • 2,568 Posts
    • 2,441 Thanks
    justme111
    frustration
    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.
    Originally posted by Gavin83
    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.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,924Posts Today

6,720Users online

Martin's Twitter