Is my partner right to feel aggrieved? Please help.

kittykat100

I think renting is a good move for you, she will have the equity as a nest egg from the sale of her house as security.

You say you love her kids... but take it from me, seeing them and being able to escape to your own home and living with them is two totally different senarios. At least if you rent you and it doesn't work out you both have an escape plan.

Kittyx

FBaby

Mods, my situation is (was) very similar to yours. I worked, owned my house (although managed to buy my ex out before meeting my partner), and my partner owned his house (almost fully paid) having bought is ex' wife part.

We fell in love and soon agreed to move together and marry. The plan was to both sell our houses and get one together under both our names. It didn't work as planned though, we couldn't sell our houses, and in the end, we agreed that we would extend my partner's and rent mine. It seemed straight forward. I never thought of his house as his marital one so didn't think that we would be an issue.

Yet it did become one because he struggled to make the psychological move from his house to ours. The fact that he is extremely home proud (something I hadn't realised until I moved in) made it even more difficult. From my perspective, I struggled to get attached to a house that didn't feel like mine (decoration not my style at all) and which I could lose any second if we separated. We got stuck in this vicious circle for some time. He was anxious at the prospect on putting me on the deeds and risking once again to lose the house he loved whilst I couldn't make it home unless I felt I had some security (especially as I was contributing fully to the mortgage). We had some difficult moments, when I tried to be patient when he promised that he would add me to the mortgage/deeds, then at least that he would change his will, then saying all was a waste a time as we were planning to get married. It went on for 18 months and I started to seriously doubting his commitment.

And then he did it, proposed, and although we considered waiting a year to marry, in the end, we decided to do it as soon as possible. It changed everything to both of us. I've got the proof of his commitment, which allowed me to start considering our house my home too.

I totally appreciate what it means to him. He has worked so hard all his life to pay for the house, almost losing it when his wife had an affair and took off, but I also totally understand how your fiance feels, that needing the reassurance that you are completely committed to her to be able to trust you totally and let go of the past.

Saying that, my advice based on my experience is that I think you should indeed live together first before making full commitment. Our life living together was very different to what we thought it would be. Something much better then we anticipated. He was worried he would lose his freedom to do all his sports and go out with his friends but knowing that he is back every evening, I don't miss his being away and I don't mind at all. I was a bit concerned about how he would adapt to my children living with him, as although he got along great with them, it is a different matter when you have to deal with their mess, noise, demands, moods etc... but that turned out not to be a problem at all to my surprise.

What we hadn't expected though was the adjusting to each other's ingrained habits! It did take time to accept to make compromises that gradually evolved to our own normality. I am grateful we did give ourselves time to adjust to living together before deciding to make a commitment to a life together. I think we would have felt under a lot more pressure the other way around. As it is now, we can marry knowing that we've been through it all already. Maybe that's what your parents are worried about.

My advice would definitely be to rent together for 6 to 12 months, go through the adjustment of all living together and then you can take the time to find your perfect house together, knowing that it is now about the house, not the moving in together any longer.

thistledome

Mods wrote: »

As for the hypocrisy point, is it not hypocritical that she is offended that my parents think it could go wrong (as relationships often do) whilst she also acknowledges it could go wrong and thus wants her name on the deeds so she can keep the house if it does? Her words about me having control suggest very strongly to me that she is just as aware of negative possibilities as anyone even. FYI, I don't know why she would say anything about control in relation to me as I've barely had any since the relationship began as I've always had to fit in with hers and the children's needs.

Has she actually said the words I've highlighted above, or is that just your opinion on why she wants her name on the deeds?

I think she doesn't feel that you trust her and I think she's right.

Your OP asks if she's right or hypocritical to feel aggrieved, but I think right and wrong is irrelevant to how someone feels. You started out with one plan and now you and your parents have changed that plan. I'd feel aggrieved too if I was her, but I think your parents are spot on, tbh.

Perhaps your parents don't feel this relationship is going to last.

An honest talk about how you both feel might clear the air (I sense some resentment in your posts) or it might bring the whole "happy family" facade tumbling down about your ears. If so, better that it happens now than when you're legally committed or worse, realise you've spent the last 15 years kidding yourself (me? bitter? :rotfl:)

jmho, of course.

zzzLazyDaisy

Mods wrote: »

My issue is with the fact she doesn't understand where I'm coming from. She has placed restrictions and conditions on me in the interests of her security and when someone even suggests doing the same for my security, all hell breaks loose! It's the hypocrisy that is bugging me. Now, do you see where I'm coming from?

Well, if I am honest, I don't think it is the same thing at all.

SHE is the single parent of dependent children. Any decisions she makes impacts on her children. They have no say in the choices she makes which could have a massive impact on their lives if things go wrong, so she has a lot of responsibility to ensure her children are taken care of. If she and the children move into your house as lodgers, they have no security and could be made homeless at a moment's notice. So she has to put her children's needs first.

On the other hand whilst you may still be your parent's 'child', you are in fact a grown man, capable of making your own decisions about what is best for yourself. You were planning to buy a house with the woman you were planning to marry, to make a home for you all live together as a family, and she was going to contribute the equity from her house. You have now changed your mind and told her that if you buy the house you will be going it alone with financial help from your parents, and you expect her and the children to move in as lodgers - in what was originally intended to your first home together - on a trial period of two years until you decide if this relationship is 'gonna work'. Ultimately you can put your own wishes and needs first, ahead of the children's needs - that is a luxury she does not have.

If you cannot see the difference, then I do wonder if you are really prepared for the complications and tensions of making a long term committed relationship with a woman who has dependent children.

cte1111

If I were your partner, then I would have reacted similarly. Why are you allowing your parents to call the shots? Part of growing up, becoming a father, committing to your own family is making your own decisions, not obeying your parents.

If the plan had gone ahead as your parents dictated, then you would have had full security, but your partner and her children would have had none. Why wouldn't she react badly to this?

Georgiegirl256

Sorry if I'm missing something here, but why can't you move into your partners house? To trial living together first. As people have said, it can totally change the dynamics of a relationship. Surely living together (a trial run as it were), is better than plunging straight into a mortgage.

Because, to me, it sounds like you are not 100% sure about ths relationship, if you are starting to doubt your partners motives?

I can see where your parents are coming from, they are looking out for you, and only have your best interests at heart, but I can also see totally where your partner is coming from too, she just wants security for her and her children, and at the moment it seems like she feels she doesn't have this.

tattycath

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Sorry if I'm missing something here, but why can't you move into your partners house? To trial living together first. As people have said, it can totally change the dynamics of a relationship. Surely living together (a trial run as it were), is better than plunging straight into a mortgage.

Because, to me, it sounds like you are not 100% sure about ths relationship, if you are starting to doubt your partners motives?

I can see where your parents are coming from, they are looking out for you, and only have your best interests at heart, but I can also see totally where your partner is coming from too, she just wants security for her and her children, and at the moment it seems like she feels she doesn't have this.

In an earlier post OP said she had a buyer for the house. Renting together first is the best option until try can both invest in a property together.

Mods

FBaby wrote: »

Mods, my situation is (was) very similar to yours. I worked, owned my house (although managed to buy my ex out before meeting my partner), and my partner owned his house (almost fully paid) having bought is ex' wife part.

We fell in love and soon agreed to move together and marry. The plan was to both sell our houses and get one together under both our names. It didn't work as planned though, we couldn't sell our houses, and in the end, we agreed that we would extend my partner's and rent mine. It seemed straight forward. I never thought of his house as his marital one so didn't think that we would be an issue.

Yet it did become one because he struggled to make the psychological move from his house to ours. The fact that he is extremely home proud (something I hadn't realised until I moved in) made it even more difficult. From my perspective, I struggled to get attached to a house that didn't feel like mine (decoration not my style at all) and which I could lose any second if we separated. We got stuck in this vicious circle for some time. He was anxious at the prospect on putting me on the deeds and risking once again to lose the house he loved whilst I couldn't make it home unless I felt I had some security (especially as I was contributing fully to the mortgage). We had some difficult moments, when I tried to be patient when he promised that he would add me to the mortgage/deeds, then at least that he would change his will, then saying all was a waste a time as we were planning to get married. It went on for 18 months and I started to seriously doubting his commitment.

And then he did it, proposed, and although we considered waiting a year to marry, in the end, we decided to do it as soon as possible. It changed everything to both of us. I've got the proof of his commitment, which allowed me to start considering our house my home too.

I totally appreciate what it means to him. He has worked so hard all his life to pay for the house, almost losing it when his wife had an affair and took off, but I also totally understand how your fiance feels, that needing the reassurance that you are completely committed to her to be able to trust you totally and let go of the past.

Saying that, my advice based on my experience is that I think you should indeed live together first before making full commitment. Our life living together was very different to what we thought it would be. Something much better then we anticipated. He was worried he would lose his freedom to do all his sports and go out with his friends but knowing that he is back every evening, I don't miss his being away and I don't mind at all. I was a bit concerned about how he would adapt to my children living with him, as although he got along great with them, it is a different matter when you have to deal with their mess, noise, demands, moods etc... but that turned out not to be a problem at all to my surprise.

What we hadn't expected though was the adjusting to each other's ingrained habits! It did take time to accept to make compromises that gradually evolved to our own normality. I am grateful we did give ourselves time to adjust to living together before deciding to make a commitment to a life together. I think we would have felt under a lot more pressure the other way around. As it is now, we can marry knowing that we've been through it all already. Maybe that's what your parents are worried about.

My advice would definitely be to rent together for 6 to 12 months, go through the adjustment of all living together and then you can take the time to find your perfect house together, knowing that it is now about the house, not the moving in together any longer.

Interesting. Thanks. Nice to know that there could be potentially light at the end of the tunnel we're in now. Renting is the better option. It was a mistake to even think about buying.

cte1111 wrote: »

If I were your partner, then I would have reacted similarly. Why are you allowing your parents to call the shots? Part of growing up, becoming a father, committing to your own family is making your own decisions, not obeying your parents.

If the plan had gone ahead as your parents dictated, then you would have had full security, but your partner and her children would have had none. Why wouldn't she react badly to this?

I'm not allowing my parents to call the shots! I had to ask them for the loan. We decided mutually it was the best option. I was simply telling her what they said and in light of what's happened, I've had to take their advice about having some safety nets for us both and consider that buying it for us both may not be wise until we know we can live together in the short/medium term. Does that make sense?

I'n not simply obeying my parents either although culturally I'm singing from a different hymn sheet to my partner so maybe that's part of the problem too. We actually asked my parents to look at the house we were buying because they have some experience in this field. They told us the house needed far too many repairs and we should look at something else. I disregarded their advice and actually ended up offering above the asking price, such was my fiancee's fondness of the property! My dad actually spoke to my mum about giving us more as a leg up to something better. I find this confusing that they would give conflicting messages like this as does my partner. Do u see what I mean?

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Well, if I am honest, I don't think it is the same thing at all.

SHE is the single parent of dependent children. Any decisions she makes impacts on her children. They have no say in the choices she makes which could have a massive impact on their lives if things go wrong, so she has a lot of responsibility to ensure her children are taken care of. If she and the children move into your house as lodgers, they have no security and could be made homeless at a moment's notice. So she has to put her children's needs first.

On the other hand whilst you may still be your parent's 'child', you are in fact a grown man, capable of making your own decisions about what is best for yourself. You were planning to buy a house with the woman you were planning to marry, to make a home for you all live together as a family, and she was going to contribute the equity from her house. You have now changed your mind and told her that if you buy the house you will be going it alone with financial help from your parents, and you expect her and the children to move in as lodgers - in what was originally intended to your first home together - on a trial period of two years until you decide if this relationship is 'gonna work'. Ultimately you can put your own wishes and needs first, ahead of the children's needs - that is a luxury she does not have.

If you cannot see the difference, then I do wonder if you are really prepared for the complications and tensions of making a long term committed relationship with a woman who has dependent children.

Okay, I see a difference. I am going to continue putting their needs ahead of mine and suggest we rent. I hate the idea of renting but they need a home in a specific area. I don't want to screw up their lives by demanding a house they live in be sold if we break up so renting is the best option.

Please note that I hadn't changed my mind about anything up until she reacted badly. I was merely reporting what my parents came up with at the spur of the moment. Should I have lied and told them they said 'yes' or 'no'?

If I have messed up here, I'll have to hold my hands up but I did everything I could for us to buy the house.

Georgiegirl256

tattycath wrote: »

In an earlier post OP said she had a buyer for the house. Renting together first is the best option until try can both invest in a property together.

Yeah, she has now, so I suppose that option is now out of the question, but why not before it sold? Then at least she would have still had some security for her and her family.

Mojisola

cte1111 wrote: »

Why are you allowing your parents to call the shots? Part of growing up, becoming a father, committing to your own family is making your own decisions, not obeying your parents.

This isn't how I read it - the new couple suddenly found a deficit in the money they needed for the new house, GF suggested asking his parents for a top-up, they agreed as long they had some protection for their money.

I wouldn't hand over £6k of my money to one of my children without making sure I could get it all back. I'd hate to see it half of it disappearing with the GF if things didn't work out.