Finances/relationships in later years

maman

toniq wrote: »

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.

I can see that OP is asset rich and cash poor but she's not 'left with nothing' as she owns the house and it's solely in her name.


Maybe OP used some savings to buy the larger house in which case the fact that she's short of cash is down to him to an extent. Of course it might be just that the house is in a different area so maybe didn't cost more than her original house.


If OP feels strongly that as a partner he should subsidise her because she has a lower income and he doesn't then maybe the relationship isn't going anywhere and, as you suggest, she should buy herself a smaller home that she can fund alone if necessary.

Primrose

I think sadly you may indeed be right and that the elephant in the room is that he doesn't want to commit long term. Is there any reason why you are not married? At this stage of your life it seems natural and prudent to be thinking abiut possible inheritance tax if one of you dies.
What do your respective Wills say?
As the house is in your sole name and his savings are in his sole name, it's a possible that even with the mortgage the value of your equity in the house could over the future could grow more quickly than the value of his savings as interest rates are so low.
However he seems to be getting very cheap board and lodgings compared to your own income and if he really doesn,t want to increase his monthly contribution to your outgoings, I suggest you get him to buy his own food, etc.

However this really doesn,t sound the sort of way a long term committed relationship should be going and maybe you have to ask yourself the hard question whether henis hedging his bets elsewhere with a "reserve" relationship lined up. Why else would he not want to make a full scale financial commitment.

For goodness sake don,t move and put any future property in joint names. I think you need a long honest diacussion about where your long term relationship is really going. Until you have resolved that issue it seems that financial discussions will be going nowhere.

theoretica

Looking at it the other way - as I read the situation you are currently paying half the utilities (under £250) and half the food/holidays etc out of your pension. If you downsized to release some of the equity and have more spending money, how long would it last you? Would you end up the same situation again once you had spent it?

I wonder if another aspect of the problem is that he has more spending money and is pushing your half of the bills up with more expensive food and holidays and things?

SailorSam

Have i got it right that you bought a house and all he pays is £250 per month. He'd pay more than that for a bedsit.
Have you got room for one more, i'll sell my house and keep the money and i'll pay you £250 a month.
He saw you coming.

maman

SailorSam wrote: »

Have i got it right that you bought a house and all he pays is £250 per month. He'd pay more than that for a bedsit.
Have you got room for one more, i'll sell my house and keep the money and i'll pay you £250 a month.
He saw you coming.

No, that's not what it says in the original post. I've kept asking why posters think he's getting 'cheap board and lodge '. He's paying £250 AND half of all other bills. So everything there is to pay he's paying at least half.
We don't know how often his DD stays over and adds to costs but otherwise I read it as he's paying his way but OP wants him to subsidise her because his salary is more than her pension so he has money left over but she's feeling the pinch. To me that's more about the relationship than just money.

FBaby

it was suggested by my partner in the beginning that the plan was everything to be "joint" with a plan to sell my house buy a house large enough and close enough to his work and to accommodate his daughter ( then aged 14) when she stays.
He would then sell his house the value approximately 50% of my property and this would give us financial cushion for retirement.
Also joint incomes/expenditure.

Something doesn't sound right with the above and I think this is where the issue is. The only way the above plan had been truly joint is if by this agreement, his name was put on the deeds on the new house. OP would then have 'given' an element of her wealth whilst he would have done so too with his asset going to support both of them during retirement AND his income supporting them both.

However, it would seem that the original plan derailed as the house is in OP sole name. Sound like OP's OH has therefore adjusted the deal accordingly but not fully sharing his wealth either.

I'm sorry OP but I can't understand why you see yourself as the victim in this situation. If you want to go back to the original deal by which all your income and wealth is shared, then the solution is to put his name on the deeds of the house, otherwise, you are certainly getting the better deal.

As for the suggestion that he could get an interest in the property, this is indeed nothing more than a potential possibility at this stage. He certainly hasn't lived there long enough to have any claim, and the legal costs that would come with any challenge would by far be more than anything he would be lucky to get.

maman

FBaby wrote: »

Something doesn't sound right with the above and I think this is where the issue is. The only way the above plan had been truly joint is if by this agreement, his name was put on the deeds on the new house. OP would then have 'given' an element of her wealth whilst he would have done so too with his asset going to support both of them during retirement AND his income supporting them both.

However, it would seem that the original plan derailed as the house is in OP sole name. Sound like OP's OH has therefore adjusted the deal accordingly but not fully sharing his wealth either.

I'm sorry OP but I can't understand why you see yourself as the victim in this situation. If you want to go back to the original deal by which all your income and wealth is shared, then the solution is to put his name on the deeds of the house, otherwise, you are certainly getting the better deal.

As for the suggestion that he could get an interest in the property, this is indeed nothing more than a potential possibility at this stage. He certainly hasn't lived there long enough to have any claim, and the legal costs that would come with any challenge would by far be more than anything he would be lucky to get.

Exactly!! I think OP is miffed because her 'partner' has spare cash whereas she has a valuable property. So, day to day she's short of spending money but in terms of a future she'd definitely in a better place.

Somerset

FBaby wrote: »

Something doesn't sound right with the above and I think this is where the issue is. .

It's exactly where the issue is.


The OP thought she was in a committed relationship. That it moved forward from separate lives to joint lives. Mirroring a marriage. The partner proposed a joint home, joint savings and joint income. Normal traditional marriage type arrangement.


Three years on, and it's nothing of the kind. And he won't even discuss it. So a problem, because the OP didn't sign up for this arrangement and obviously isn't happy with it.

Primrose

I suppose I'm rather traditional in my outlook in that your dilemma flags up one of the differences which can often occur between a partnership and a marriage (and I certainly don't want to infer that all marriages get their handling of finances right either because i know they don't!)

But while you're both unable to trust each other enough to go the extra mile towards 100% shared finances and assets, it seems that you both need to assess where you want to be long term if something isn,t going to crumble into disappointment or disillusion further down the line when retirement age starts to beckon. This is a time when you want to be able to enjoy what you've planned for years for . - not to be squabbling over unequal financial assets or incomes, especially when the potential loss of your partner through separation or bereavement could derail you.

FBaby

The OP thought she was in a committed relationship. That it moved forward from separate lives to joint lives. Mirroring a marriage. The partner proposed a joint home, joint savings and joint income. Normal traditional marriage type arrangement.

Exactly, but it's NOT a joint home if she is still the sole owner so NOT mirroring a marriage type of arrangement. I could understand a bit better if they had remained in the property she was in in the first place and had not bothered to go through the legal steps of adding him to the deeds, but she sold her house and bought another one, hence having to go through the legal system anyway, so why was his name not added to the deeds of their joint home then?

It sounds to me like OP is the one who changed the goal posts when somehow, the supposed to be joint home became hers only and if that is the case, I'm not one bit surprised that he is not willing to share more of his income and still expect her to pay her half of everything.