Single Homeowners: Saveguarding your asset against future Relationship Breakdown

darren_clarke

i know someone who got his GF to sign a rent book every week, told her it was for tax reasons, when they split up she wanted part of house and couldnt get a penny, as she was paying rent and not the home owner

Wobblydeb

I have previously done it the same way as zzzLazyDaisy. I didn't bother with a legal document, just calculated that the bills (excluding mortgage) were about £300 per month. I asked my (now ex) boyfriend to contribute £150 and made clear he wasn't contributing to the mortgage. We were together 2 years, and when we split he didn't ask for anything, so I never got to test out the legal standing of that arrangement.

I didn't believe in asking for market rate for a room, as that feels a bit too clinical. Half of the bills meant both of us gained. He got cheap accommodation, and I lived more cheaply than when I was alone.

I did the same thing a few years later when I moved in with my (very much current) fiance. It felt fair from the other side of the fence too. I still had my own house to pay for until it sold, and then afterwards I was able to save up whilst he was paying down his mortgage.

J_i_m

I don't think there is anything wrong with laying out and agreeing the financial boundaries before taking a relationship to the next stage and moving in together.

If someone decides that it's "unromantic" or shows a lack of "commitment" then it' just as likely that this person is making the smaller financial contribution and would seek to take undue advantage should the relationship fail.

I would hate to be ruined because someone decided they had greater claim to my money than I did.

If I ever take anyone into my house (when I have one) then the only money I'd accept from them is grocery shopping done directly from their money at the shops. This is because I'd want my house to remain as my house. I'd happily let them live with me rent free.

However if it were the other way round and I moved in with a partner and they insisted I contributed towards their mortgage, then I'd do so. However and unless that contribution was specifically agreed as rent as in a tenancy then I'd seek to protect my contribution as it'd be unfair to pay towards a partner's mortgage and them be chucked out on your ear

As long as I remain single and unmarried then what is mine remains mine.

marathonic

J_i_m wrote: »

I'd happily let them live with me rent free.

I wouldn't have a problem with this either and would probably advice them to open an ISA to invest/save what they would have been paying in rent.

It wouldn't be very long before they wouldn't need to worry or stress about coming up with alternative accommodation should the relationship break down. It's all hypothetical from my point of view and things could change dramatically when I meet a partner.

moneyistooshorttomention

...and then there's the nasty little thought of "What happens if the owner of the house becomes unemployed - thanks to the current benefit system insisting that the employed person should first subsidise, then later on pay fully to support the unemployed person?"

I never did figure out just what would happen if I had a partner/husband living with me and I became unemployed and the Government made them support me and pay my mortgage for me. I guess I just assumed that the Government would soon have to recognise that many people now operate independently financially and change the benefit system accordingly.....duh....



The deposit and purchase costs were totally covered by me alone and I would have continued paying the mortgage on my own - and assumed that would have been enough to protect my house/asset and would only have accepted him doing very minor things like paying for paint for redecorating purposes (nothing major like replacing a window or even replacing the boiler).

Though I confess it was my father who first raised the matter of "You've got an asset now - how are you going to protect it should you ever get married?" all those years back. I had just naively assumed that I am a woman and anyone I married would be a man and that men don't steal from women. I knew a lot of women steal from men and that men have to protect themselves from this - but I honestly didn't think a former (male) partner would steal from me (because of being a woman):rotfl::rotfl:. Okay...okay...I was rather naïve in my younger days...and am showing my agegroup a bit here (some women in my generation had decided we would provide for ourselves even if we got married, but hadn't thought on to realise that men might assume we would provide for them as well......).