How do i keep everyone happy?

borkid

Detroit wrote: »

My criticism of the OPs wife is due to the pressure she is placing on the OP, who she knows to be vulnerable, to get him to utilise an asset which belongs to him to benefit her.

The house in question belongs to the OP, not to them as a couple, and unless his wife is bringing a similarly valued asset to the marital table, I feel she has no right to dictate that he should use his personal asset to benefit her, rather than his family.

The choice is the OPs and a supportive partner should respect that, and prioritise his peace of mind over their own agenda.

That's the point we don't know maybe she provided all the deposit or earns more than he does so contributes more to the family finanaces.

Detroit

:beer:

cjdavies wrote: »

I'm now confused how she was funding them, if there was no mortgage to pay and paid her own 50% on her house.

No, I don't understand this either. OP and wife both work to contribute to their income. Excellent. That seems fair.

OP and wife buy a marital home together presumably sharing housing costs. Still seems reasonable.

OP has another house that is fully paid for, and costs him nothing, so is in no way a drain on their income as a couple. Still no cause for alarm.

OPs wife then decides the house is an untapped source of further income and wants the family to pay to live there.
For a quiet life, OP says they are paying when they're not. Not ideal, and no financial gain for the couple, but no loss either.

I can't see any way therefore that the wife has been 'swindled'.

A failure to make money is not a loss of money. And as the house is the OPs, and we have no indication the wife contributed in any way to this, any gain would rightfully be the OPs not hers.

If he chooses not to take this, that is surely his business. His wife is certainly no worse off.

If she wanted to retire early she should have planned financially for this at an earlier stage in her own life, rather than dictating what should be done with assets belonging to the OP.

paddy's_mum

Detroit wrote: »

to utilise an asset which belongs to him to benefit her.

But isn't that what HE is doing to HER when they both pay in to the family exchequer but she has been carefully kept totally unaware that there is a £200 a month shortfall which has been hidden from her, not for a few days or weeks but five long years?


Given that they are married, I would expect most people (and certainly the courts) to view all these things as matrimonial assets and on that basis, I believe that she is entitled to express her opinion.

I simply cannot see that she has done anything wrong, or unreasonable, or marriage threatening except object to being deceived by people for whom she is now unlikely to have much respect.

Detroit

borkid wrote: »

That's the point we don't know maybe she provided all the deposit or earns more than he does so contributes more to the family finanaces.

That's a reasonable point. We don't know that. I made an assumption based on there being no indication in the OP that his wife was paying a disproportionate amount towards the household income.

I took 'bought a house together' to indicate equal contribution. Perhaps incorrectly.

If the OPs wife has been subsidising their life as a couple she would have some grounds for complaint.

tesuhoha

spadoosh wrote: »

Its not cool to do this at the expense of the op and his family relations. Clearly at one point the OP didnt want to ask his dad for the money. So he didnt. Clearly he didnt want to tell the OH this, so he didnt. The OP has made the choice, to reneg on that choice will probably mean burning bridges. Personally im one to stick by my convictions so id go on the basis that i want my dad to have a house. If this cost me a relationship then so be it. I wouldnt be prepared to lose the relationship i have with my dad because i decided to backtrack on an arrangement, especially one that would see him unduly stress and potentially massive consequences regarding where he lives and how hes able to look after himself.

If she wants to retire earlier and £50 per week would do it, tell her to find a (n extra) job, its 7 hrs work at minimum wage.

If its that easy, why can't the siblings find an extra job for £50 a week? Are they helpless? There are two of them and they are living rent free unlike her.

Incidentally, its not just a 'relationship' you are talking about. She is his wife.

paddy's_mum

Detroit wrote: »

I feel she has no right to dictate that he should use his personal asset to benefit her, rather than his family.

Not picking out your posts in particular, Detroit. It just happens that you have made several points on which another viewpoint could be applied. Not out to get you, I promise!

Doesn't this cut both ways? Shouldn't the OP have no right to use matrimonial assets to fund the lifestyle of three grown people who are content to sit on their backsides while also knowing full well that they are adding to the OP's troubles, anxieties, fears and possibly a return to depression?

It cannot be fair that only the wife is accused of putting pressures onto the OP.

Detroit

paddy's_mum wrote: »

Not picking out your posts in particular, Detroit. It just happens that you have made several points on which another viewpoint could be applied. Not out to get you, I promise!

Doesn't this cut both ways? Shouldn't the OP have no right to use matrimonial assets to fund the lifestyle of three grown people who are content to sit on their backsides while also knowing full well that they are adding to the OP's troubles, anxieties, fears and possibly a return to depression?

It cannot be fair that only the wife is accused of putting pressures onto the OP.

That's ok Paddy's Mum, I consider a respectful exchange of opposing views to be an enjoyable aspect of taking part in this forum.

I personally don't see that the OP is using matrimonial assets to fund his family's life style.

He is letting his family live rent free in a house he bought and paid for before he met his wife, with the express purpose (rightly or wrongly) of housing himself and his father.

It is frequently the case that pre existing assets couples bring into the relationship are considered to be their own should there be a seperation.

I don't see what claim OPs wife has on a property that belonged to OP before he met her, ethically at least.

I agree this may be different if OPs wife has contributed disproportionately throughout their marriage, but we have not been told this is the case.

I also agree the family are taking advantage of the OP.

cadon

OP, it sounds like your father and siblings are trying to take advantage of you, and your wife simply wants to help you make a stand rather than being the money grabbing cow some people are making her out to be. It's her job to support you against the world - and that includes your blood relatives if she thinks they're trying to rip you off.

I can relate to your feeling of responsibility for your family. However, this doesn't seem to be reciprocated. If you can afford to not charge them market rent, then I agree that you shouldn't - but surely they should make some kind of token payment? If £50 was unaffordable (and I think that was reasonable), they should have made you a counter offer. It's not that as if they have no regular income whatsoever.

Callie22

Detroit wrote: »

OP I don't think you're being treated well by either your family or your wife.

With regards to your wife, she presumably knew and accepted your commitments to your family before she married you. To put you under pressure by moving the goal posts now is very unfair.

It's telling that you felt you needed to lie to her, presumably for fear of going against her wishes. This is not a healthy way to feel about your partner. You should feel free to stand by your choices if you want to, and have her respect you enough to support you.

You have had a history of abuse from your mother, and its not surprising if you feel afraid to oppose your wife. I therefore don't criticize you for lying, it was unwise, but given your history and your wife's position, understandable.

As far as your family are concerned, they are taking advantage of you. I agree that, with the correct benefits in payment, what you're asking for is affordable and perfectly reasonable.

Given that you have two opposing forces trying to influence you, you will be unable to please both. So how about, maybe for the first time, you please you?

Think hard and decide, if there was no pressure on you, what would you want to do?

Would you feel happier continuing to support your family, or would you rather have the £50, half or all of the house proceeds, or something else?

When you've worked this through, give them all your decision.

You have done quite enough thinking of them, let them please you for a change.

I'd also strongly recommend you talk this through with someone outside of this who has YOUR interests in mind.
Or maybe a professional counsellor who can help you reach the decision right for you.

Just to comment on the bit in bold - the OPs wife didn't 'know and accept' the OPs commitments because he didn't tell her the truth about them. He told her that he had a house, his family lived there but they paid £200 a month, which she was happy with. However, that wasn't the truth and that's what's caused the issue here.

Personally, if I were in the OPs wife's situation I'd be mightily annoyed - I wouldn't have a problem with my OH having a property and letting his family live there, but I'd be annoyed if I then found out that the money I thought was coming in to support that commitment actually wasn't. There's an awful lot that we don't know about this whole situation - who has been covering maintenance and repair costs, for example? Houses don't cost 'nothing' just because the mortgage has been paid off. Has the OP been subsidising these costs over the years? If so then the wife has a right to be annoyed because it's 'their' jointly earned income that's been subsidising 'his' family - and even if the OP has just been using 'his' wage to cover these costs then that's just another lie isn't it? We don't know anything about the OPs financial situation - perhaps they've been 'struggling' financially, perhaps the OPs wife is unwell and early retirement is more of a 'need' than a 'desire'.

More broadly, I'd also be annoyed if I married someone and then got told that something like this was none of my business and I shouldn't have an opinion on it - especially not if I felt that 'my' earnings were being used to support my partner's family. I don't think that's fair at all and the OP can't have it both ways - he either needs to ensure that his family support themselves or he needs to accept that if he's using joint earnings to subsidise them (which he is, however broadly you want to interpret it) then his wife is going to have an opinion. The fact that mortgage was 'paid off' before they married is irrelevant - having a second property is going to have had a financial impact throughout the marriage and is probably going to have had an influence on financial decisions that they've made as a couple. To expect the OPs wife to just 'put up and shut up' is unfair, IMO.

Dird

paddy's_mum wrote: »

She is your wife and if, heaven forbid, a divorce was in the offing, the previous house would be classed (at least in part) as a matrimonial asset.

If it was paid off by him alone before they married wouldn't it be excluded?

Also the comments criticising how OPs wife was assuming there was an extra £200/month in the household...who cares? She's gone ages and never noticed so it's not as if that missing £200/month has meant them walking around with gas & electric switched off. It's had no material effect on her current lifestyle