Finances/relationships in later years

FBaby

Your asset rich he is income rich. You can't expect to remain asset rich whilst also expecting to benefit from his income especially if he has to go to work every day to earn it whilst you don't need to do anything for your assets.

It sounds to me like he is being cautious on the basis that your relationship is still young in the scale of things and isn't yet prepared to share everything. Many would say that it is a wise move. He is clearly ok with the prospect of you downsizing so you can release some equity to help you so is supportive of your choices. What's wrong with this plan?

goodwithsaving

FBaby wrote: »

Your asset rich he is income rich. You can't expect to remain asset rich whilst also expecting to benefit from his income especially if he has to go to work every day to earn it whilst you don't need to do anything for your assets.
What's wrong with this plan?

Security? He could potentially gain an interest in the property whilst there is nothing protecting OP in terms of cash. Likewise we don't know how much the property is worth or the history to acquiring that property in terms of the money raised to pay for it. Money doesn't normally land at people's feet, there have often been sacrifices to get it.

On the other hand, OP could pass away and the partner could be left with nothing.

Why doesn't he purchase an investment property to rent out, and have his own security?

If money is this difficult an issue, I wonder if you both will be able to find a middle ground without feeling resentful but it does seem resentment has already set in.

enthusiasticsaver

It sounds like your partner has got the best of both deals in that he has a nest egg from the sale of his house and is living rent free in your house. If you are struggling and want to downsize then that is your prerogative and if he does not want to put his hand in his pocket and pay for half of a joint house then I am afraid I would be telling him to make other arrangements for his accommodation and just buy something suitable for yourself.

maman

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

It sounds like your partner has got the best of both deals in that he has a nest egg from the sale of his house and is living rent free in your house. If you are struggling and want to downsize then that is your prerogative and if he does not want to put his hand in his pocket and pay for half of a joint house then I am afraid I would be telling him to make other arrangements for his accommodation and just buy something suitable for yourself.

Am I the only one that's read the original posts differently. My understanding is that her partner is paying half of everything and a bit more than half of utilities. OP owns the house with no mortgage.
Where are posters getting the idea he's getting a free ride?

jellie

tacpot12 wrote: »

but he should be contributing to the upkeep of the property if he is living there.

If I were you, I would construct a budget that shows all the costs you are incurring including those costs of maintaining a property, e.g. Cost of repairs and renewals, and make sure that he covers half

Not a good idea for him to pay for any repairs / upgrading of the house, he could claim that his contribution gives him a right to the property if they split up.

paddy's_mum

maman wrote: »

Am I the only one that's read the original posts differently. My understanding is that her partner is paying half of everything and a bit more than half of utilities. OP owns the house with no mortgage.
Where are posters getting the idea he's getting a free ride?

There is a profound inequality in this set-up which, considering they call themselves "partners" should not, in my view, be there.

He is paying out far less per month than it would cost to house himself and his daughter sometimes stays there into the bargain.

The OP stays at home and has said she does all the shopping, cooking, cleaning and laundry. She is not a person in the best of health and yet he is allowing her to "struggle and go without" while he sits back being waited on hand, foot and finger from the sound of it.

So far as I can see it, so far she has been the one 'doing' things to help the relationship and the practical needs of the people within it while he won't even do her the basic courtesy of discussing something that he knows is bothering her immensely. I cannot see anything affectionate or kindly in shutting the other person out.

It isn't so much a question of mortgages or who owns what but about the value that he ought to be placing on her, the gifts she brings to their relationship and indeed on the relationship itself.

I am reminded of a comment once made in my hearing about a rather grasping neighbour ' she knows the price of everything but the value of nothing'.

When I consider that even in this relatively affordable area the cheapest room I could find was £75 a week for a smallish single, I'd be thrilled to find a nice home to share where I can put my feet up and do next to nothing and all for about £350 a month.

LannieDuck

How about you actually do reverse it? He buys a smaller property with his nest-egg, you sell yours and keep the cash in your name. Then pay him £250/mth to cover utilities. This has the benefit that the cash-rich person will be the one with the lower income, so you'll have something to live on month-to-month.

maman

I'm still confused by the reaction.
This guy is paying £250 which is more than half the utilities and half of everything else. There is no mortgage so no other outgoings. Both parties are probably better off than paying 100% of bills in their separate homes. OK so his DD stays sometimes but otherwise he is paying his way: 50%+ of everything. What's wrong with that?

If they'd sold both homes and rented and split the bills they'd be in a very similar position. It's just that she has property and he has money in the bank. She's probably better off with property.

It's a separate question whether he should subsidise her because her income is lower or what's going on in the relationship but I think it's unfair to suggest he's freeloading and not paying his way.

toniq

I think the issue people are pointing out is he sold and pocketed his house sale money into his bank and got op to buy a bigger more expensive house so his child could be accommodated. Op is left with with nothing whilst he has his house sale money in bank and a free roof over his head which cost the op not him.

So him swanning around with disposable income and a nice nest egg whilst op is skint is unfair.

Op you should down size get some savings behind you from the sale and do what suits you.

In such a young relationship he should be funding the extra room for his child not you, and it shouldn't be at your expense.

burnoutbabe

i think downsizing so you have more free cash is the best idea.

I pretty much do what you do, i own the property (no mortgage now), other half lives rent free (he rented out old place). Both want to protect our assets.

You would be worse off if you didn't live together. So its not unfair as such that he has more disposable cash than you (and one assumed he has child maintenance to pay anyway and commuting costs).

Him paying for holidays/eating out may true things up if he wants to do more expensive holidays than you can afford to go 50/50 on.