Single Homeowners: Saveguarding your asset against future Relationship Breakdown

marathonic

As the title states, how would one go about this without it putting too much of a 'dampener on the mood' in the initial phases of a relationship?

I'm aware that 'common law marriage' is a myth and, therefore, a potential partner does not necessarily have a claim to the house should the relationship end.

I'm also aware that, should a potential partner contribute to home improvements, or the mortgage, they could have a potential stake in the property. As far as I'm aware, if they wanted to 'pay their way' with regards to their share of utilities and, potentially, council tax, they can do so without building any stake in ownership of the property.

With that in mind, how do you deal with potential partners moving in with you as a single person with a property bought with a sizable deposit?

My research has brought me to the conclusion that you are safe enough to accept money towards the running of the house but not the mortgage - which, in theory, means that, if a future partner wanted to 'pay their way', a homeowner should ideally be looking at taking no more than what someone would pay to rent a room in a comparable house in the area.

If the above assumptions are correct, would you then need to get some sort of a legal document drawn up (hence the dampener on the relationship) or would a court look at the payments and be able to judge that the payments represented nothing more than half of council tax, utilities and, potentially, mortgage interest?

Even writing this, without already having a partner, it feels kind of 'taboo' (and possibly the reason I don't currently have a partner ) but given the percentage of relationships that fail in relation to the percentage where you end up happily married for 50 years, one should always protect their own interests.

If a future partner were to have more assets than me, I would expect them to request some sort of a legal agreement. I'm not sure that any potential partners with less assets than me would expect me to do the same. It would be interesting to know the opinion of posters on this matter?

Having a plan of action with regards to all of the above, you'd then need to make plans, based on the relationship, with regards to Wills. I think this would be slightly more straightforward for me (considering I wouldn't need to deal with the potential arguments ). The house is currently left to parents in my case - but this would change to be left to a potential partner on engagement, or pregnancy, whichever were to happen first.

Maybe I'm over-analyzing things here but, when it's related to the most expensive asset I'll ever own, over-analysis is a must!

tizerbelle

Long OP. Short answer = read this http://www.advicenow.org.uk/living-together/

Fire_Fox

Given you don't actually have a partner, yes you are massively over analysing this!

No they should not pay towards mortgage interest, no tenant or lodger pays towards mortgage interest they pay rent at market level or below, this is not related to the size of the landlord's mortgage which could be zero or huge. Nor should they contribute in time or money to repairs or maintenance, doing anything more than the most basic DIY or decorating is out of the remit of a tenant or lodger.

marathonic

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Given you don't actually have a partner, yes you are massively over analysing this!

Well, that's true but I suppose it's better asking these questions prior to being in a relationship - at least I can honestly say that these queries are in no way a reflection on my opinion of the future partners character or on where the relationship was going!

marathonic

Pushing the legal aspect to the side, how would people feel if potential partners tried to get them to sign a legally-binding contract with regards to relationship breakdown?

It's a tough area because I realise that the majority of people wouldn't have a problem with it and, if they did, one would have to question there motives. However, I also realise that this type of request would draw the romance out of a relationship and treat it more like a business transaction....

Fire_Fox

If the majority of people wouldn't have a problem with it why is it not more common? I would have a problem with it, and I am the one who owns my home outright and is willing to work for a very low income. If you are going to treat it like a business transaction then that cuts both ways, you need to consider the partner's rights (or lack thereof) to remain in the home even after the relationship ended whilst they looked for alternative accommodation. Would you really agree to that even if they cheated on you with your sibling or best friend?

I would question the purpose of a legally binding contract, sledgehammer to crack a nut comes to mind. It may be deemed unenforceable in court anyway if the partner had paid out for numerous home improvements. You generally know within a year or two if the relationship is going to progress, in that time the partner wouldn't be able to claim much anyway, providing they were not able to prove they decorated the house from top to bottom or paid the kitchen fitters £10K.

marathonic

Yeah, I can see what you're saying is true. As a recent homeowner, and seeing so many of the posts related to relationship breakdowns and home-ownership, I just wanted to dip my toes in the water to gauge peoples thoughts on the matter.

Fire_Fox

marathonic wrote: »

Yeah, I can see what you're saying is true. As a recent homeowner, and seeing so many of the posts related to relationship breakdowns and home-ownership, I just wanted to dip my toes in the water to gauge peoples thoughts on the matter.

Many scary threads. Most seem to be people failing to take the most basic of precautions, buying as joint owners with someone who didn't make an equal contribution and/ or is untrustworthy with money and/ or relying on a long since ex to pay mortgages or bills in your name. Really basic due diligence just not done.

I wouldn't buy with anyone else again and I am not much past 40.

scumboss

marathonic if you get married you can't do squat if you wish to protect your assets.

Angelicdevil

In terms of my deposit, my parents put a 2nd charge on the property that in event of sale/loss etc that money is ring fenced to them - after the mortgage company get back their share first, obv and assuming there is anything left.

This means that that money is still mine (my parents) and no partner has a claim to it.

It doesn't protect against any additional value in the property after the mortgage co and my parents get their parts.

But it was done so that at least if someone did try to take me to the cleaners at least there would be a portion of the value that one else can touch (once the mortgage co had their share).

marathonic

scumboss wrote: »

marathonic if you get married you can't do squat if you wish to protect your assets.

Yeah, I realise that. I think Fire Fox hit the nail on the head in the response above:

"You generally know within a year or two if the relationship is going to progress, in that time the partner wouldn't be able to claim much anyway, providing they were not able to prove they decorated the house from top to bottom or paid the kitchen fitters £10K."