Boyfriend moving in how do I protect my home?

Errata

Pssst wrote: »

Indeed,but isnt he entitled to have some kind of longer term security as well as the OP? seems like she wants the best of both worlds. Her own feelings of security and a disposable boyfriend who will either have to shape up or ship out.

Mind you,its his call...

It's not uncommon these days for a couple on the threshold of marriage to have a prenuptial contract. What's wrong with having a pre shacking up together one ?

3plus1

Errata wrote: »

It's not uncommon these days for a couple on the threshold of marriage to have a prenuptial contract. What's wrong with having a pre shacking up together one ?

A 'pre shacking up together one' is just as bad as a prenup, in my opinion.

I can only see one being useful if there are third parties involved - i.e. one set of parents funding the deposit for a house, or one half of the couple having children already.

If it's just two people living together or getting married and there isn't anyone else involved, I don't see why any sort of contract divvying up assets is necessary. Everyone chooses their own partner - and they should trust their choices. A prenup should serve only to protect a third party who hasn't made that choice and is simply relying on your judgement.

Errata

Don't tell me, tell Paul McCartney.

Northern_girl_2

I think the OP is right to consider these things because no matter how solid the relationship is you can never predict the future. Yes you have to trust your partner but you also need to make sure that you can find an agreement that you are both happy with. People can have such different attitudes to money that if you don't discuss it early no then it can cause resentment and problems further down the line.

When my partner moved in I owned the house and it was certainly something I thought about so we had a long discussion about how we wanted to work out bills etc. As others have said your partner does not have an automatic right to half your assets when you split up - the best way to protect yourself is to make sure that they aren't contributing to the mortgage but should be contributing to other bills.

What worked for my partner and me when we first moved in was that she would pay half the bills (except mortgage). She also put half of the mortgage and half of any amount I spent on the house (repairs etc) into a joint saving account which neither of us would spend. The idea being that if we split up then she would take the savings and I would still have the house. For now the money is still in savings but we plan to use it to pay for our wedding and pay off a chunk of the mortgage further down the line, which is when we have committed to spending our lives together and our finances are entwined.

It was the best solution for us but every relationship is different so each to their own I guess.

3plus1

Northern_girl wrote: »

What worked for my partner and me when we first moved in was that she would pay half the bills (except mortgage). She also put half of the mortgage and half of any amount I spent on the house (repairs etc) into a joint saving account which neither of us would spend. The idea being that if we split up then she would take the savings and I would still have the house. For now the money is still in savings but we plan to use it to pay for our wedding and pay off a chunk of the mortgage further down the line, which is when we have committed to spending our lives together and our finances are entwined.

I think I like that idea, actually. By not putting your partner's half of the mortgage into the mortage, if you split, you can 'return the equity' without having to sell up. Maybe something the OP could consider if she's still reading this thread.

catmiaow

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I think that there's a difference between being embittered and learning from one's mistakes.

Here here!:j

catmiaow

Ember999 wrote: »

Poor guy! He's moving in with her to have what amounts to no security whatsoever. How nice that he can be made homeless at a moments notice! I am thinking from 'his' point of view here (yet am female, with property and married) - what about him? So he is to move in, be classed as a 'lodger' with no rights whatsoever? I'd tell her to forget it - that's no way to start off a relationship, no way at all.

What about him? does no one else see this from his point of view?

Cause he would not be made homeless, I would never just kick him out. But why should he be entitled to 50% of my house. Of course if we live together for years a percentage should be given but 50% is way off.

I think a lot of people lose a lot by letting someone move in and they take 50% after what a few months of living with you. Tell me is that fair?

catmiaow

Pssst wrote: »

I can understand catmiaows concerns.
she has probably been bitten once in the past and doesn't care to repeat it.

having said that,what security would this guy have?

Is he giving up his own home to move in ? Whats his current status?
As things are,he could be just booted out on a whim.

Where would he go? his mates settee,the Sally army hostel,a park bench?

Come to think of it,if any person is simply living in someone elses house at their pleasure then they need to think carefully.
i mean,if you happen to be 40 something,you get ejected and then what? Do you want to start a big fat mortgage at 40 or older?

He rents a room from his friend, which is a temporary thing until her boyfriend moves in. He has plenty of friends to move in with if we do split, but I would never kick someone out so I hope I made that clear. I would let him live here until he found somewhere else If the worst did happen.

catmiaow

Running_Horse wrote: »

Don't have a go at me. Does the man you are planning to share your life with know you are discussing him online? If he moves in and shares a computer, he probably soon will. When my future wife moved in to my house it never even occured to me to do this.

Why not? You insulted me, I am entitled to stick up for myself.
Yes I have told him I asked for people's advise on here, we have discussed the situation. The lodger thing is not the way to go that is for sure, I want people's views that is for sure but I am certainly not being harsh as some people on here suggest. :mad:

melancholly

Ember999 wrote: »

Used to be a lot simpler when people simply got married when they wanted to live with someone. I wonder why so many choose to live together rather than get married? It was so much simpler then...

well i like having the option to live with someone first, before marriage is an issue! you learn so many different things about someone when you share a flat/house and it can be a deal maker or breaker. i certainly have no intention of buying a house with my OH until we're lived together somewhere rented first and tested the water. luckily, we both have a similar outlook (which does, in fact bode well for the future!).

in the OP's situation, renting together isn't an easy option since she owns somewhere already.... i think some conversation about what him moving in really means financially is essential. i would encourage any friend of mine in that situation to just be careful about letting someone pay the mortgage and to take advice. (and my OH owns and if we were ever to move in together in his place, which is pretty unlikely, i would actually bring up the topic myself to make sure we knew where we were - i would want to make it clear i have no interest in paying towards the mortgage as it would complicate things).