Share house with new husband?

Errata

Commitment is all fine and dandy, but when one is expected to commit a large asset to benefit the other and the other can't commit anything because they're potless ....What then?
The OP has put a roof over her fiance's head, he hasn't paid his way and now he wants half her house? He's had a very cushy student life so far and I think it's time he took a reality check.

Mojisola

MaryJo wrote: »

The problem with this is that we both have different amounts of personal income available to us. I earn £70k+ and he earns just over £20k.

To be honest, I am quite happy with paying my £70k and his £20k salaries into a joint account, paying all of the bills from it, and each taking, say, £500 per month for 'personal expenses'.

My problem is, my house is such a huge asset and it is very much pre-marital, that I am not sure if I should 'share' it.

MaryJo wrote: »

Our plan had always be to take advantage of the 'mortgage free situation' and stay in my house for a few years to save money for a deposit for a new 'marital home' together from our joint bank account.

We would then rent my house and pay that money into our joint bank account (along with our salaries).

He's earning £20k but is benefiting from £45k of income because you are sharing everything you earn with him. You are already giving him more than his salary from your money and he has no mortgage/rent to pay.

If he can't see that your heart is in the right place as far as he is concerned, he doesn't deserve you.

Have you discussed this any further with him? If it becomes a complete sticking point with him, he's likely to be the loser all round.

Cyberman60

SailorSam wrote: »

I think you've made a good point there FBaby.
Lets be fair to the guy.Op if you're getting some sort of agreement drawn up for him to sign saying he hasn't any rights to a share of your house should your marriage fail in the next 10yrs. I think you should sicn to say if he wins millions next week, he can keep it for himself.

I would say to him that he can keep it and spend as he sees fit, but it's a different thing altogether when there is an asset already there such as a house which the OP has worked hard for years to pay for.

Cyberman60

FBaby wrote: »

!He hasn't contributed, earnt it, worked for it - it isn't his./QUOTE]
So on that basis if her husband to be inherit a large sum after they marry he should make it clear that because she hasn't worked for it, earnt it or contributed towards it, it should be all his and she should have no rights to it at all?

Many people marry and agree to share assets when one has a lot more to lose than the other that doesn't mean all those who are due to gain from it have a financial motive to marry.

If he inherits, then it's his to save or spend as he sees fit. I don't see a problem there.

Cyberman60

Goldiegirl wrote: »

For me, marriage is a life long commitment, where everything is shared


Therefore, if I was the person bringing a property to the marriage, I would change the property to joint names after the marriage took place.


If I had any hesitation about whether this was the right course of action, I simply wouldn't get married


If I was the person without the property, and my intended didn't want to share their property with me, same result, I simply wouldn't get married.


It's as black and white as that for me

I agree in the long-run, but not immediately on marriage.

Cyberman60

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Historically, men have earnt more than women - it's only recently that sometimes women are the higher earners.

Does that mean that for years men have resented funding their wives holidays and cars, particularly for non earning wives?

I think not.

So why would a woman get resentful, when men don't?

The OP is not resentful at all with funding her husband day to day but cautious about potentially losing half an asset that she has worked hard for within a few years of marriage, if sadly a divorce occurs. She's being perfectly reasonable IMO.

GlasweJen

The problem with him inheriting is that not many people here realise that if his rich great aunt were to die and leave him a house of equal value to the OPs 5 seconds after the "I now declare you" has happened then the wife will get 50% upon divorce. The 5 year rule short marriage rule isn't applied in Scotland.

OPs partner can never benefit from the OPs house if it is excluded from the marriage but the OPs partner will have to split everything 50/50 with the OP the minute he says I do. You can't protect a future asset.

FBaby

I agree in the long-run, but not immediately on marriage.

So could it be that the issue is just wanting to marry too quickly?

BitterAndTwisted

If this bloke wants to be an "equal partner" upon marriage then he needs to up his game by a factor of several multiples. I wouldn't be getting married to someone on such a low income when they've been subsidised so generously for so long. And that's not factoring in how grasping wanting 50% of the OP's property makes him sound. From what the OP has described, he assumed the property would become an asset of the marriage until quite recently, when he discovered the laws in Scottishland are rather different. This would be throwing the whole thing in a completely different light for me and I'd be having a really, really hard think about the kind of person I'm considering getting married to.

I wouldn't be putting this property into joint-ownership in a month of Sundays.

Perhaps tenants-in-common with ownership split 10%/90% would satisfy him? If it doesn't, then the OP knows where they both stand.

bbk87

Whilst I believe marriage to be a life long commitment, and things should be shared and equal etc, I also believe it is wrong for him to ask / demand you put the home into joint names so he can get something out of the marriage should it go pear shaped.

If it were me I would be OK with putting the house in joint names, until the point he began asking / demanding this.

It is a horrible situation to be in, OP, and I feel for you.