Renting to a boyfriend?

budget_counsellor_shaz

LandyAndy wrote: »

When I met the current Mrs LA in 1989 I had a chunk of money from the sale of the previous marital home, she was one year out of College and had nothing. I bought a house for the two of us and wouldn't put her on the deeds as joint owner. I only did this in 2001. I didn't do it sooner because of the selfish person I was. Because I am now no longer that person I can see why it was bad idea and if I had my time again I would have shared it with her from the start.

It was very brave of you to share this with everyone. Well done.

I'm so pleased everything has worked out well for you and that you are no longer a selfish person:T

Life is full of risks and we all need to take them. I would not have gone into a relationship if I didn't feel my other half trusted me. I had a house too when I married my husband he didn't but there is no way I would have done what the OP suggested.

IMHO........ I'm a lot older (and wiser):rotfl:

Shaz

Melissa177

I would recommend that the OP gets married to her boyfriend.









And if the thought of that is scaring her, she really ought to reconsider having that child, because it suggests no committment to the relationship - and a stable relationship is what a child needs.

[It's not that I think marriage is a necessary pre-requisite for having a child, but I do think that long term committment is very important, and the OP simply doesn't have the confidence in her relationship]

Bad_BB

I would recommend that the OP gets married to her boyfriend.

And if the thought of that is scaring her, she really ought to reconsider having that child, because it suggests no committment to the relationship - and a stable relationship is what a child needs.

[It's not that I think marriage is a necessary pre-requisite for having a child, but I do think that long term committment is very important, and the OP simply doesn't have the confidence in her relationship

]

I entirely agree with Melissa on this one. Children are the ones that matter. If one is committed enough to make a baby, then that commitment should remain...on both sides...particularly for the childs sake.

I'm not judging anyone here, so please don't take this the wrong way, but....it seems to me that too many couples produce a baby without having given any real thought as to whether they expect/desire to stay in that relationship for the rest of their lives. A child needs both parents in their home and their lives. A child is a real person.

Daddy's girl was obviously committed at the time the baby was conceived, so if she is having any second thoughts or doubts now, my advice would be not to have the baby and not to let the boyfriend move in! Otherwise get married and commit to the relationship.

Just an 'Old Fashioned View', from and 'Old Fashioned Person'!

Libra1975

Erm have you lot never heard of divorce?
Since when is marriage a fail-safe guarantee of rest of life commitment?
If you think that having a piece of paper somehow makes your relationship more permenant isn't it you that has the shaky relationship rather than people who don't need a piece of paper stating they will be together forever to know thay are commited to each other.

JohnInDebt

Libra1975 wrote: »

Erm have you lot never heard of divorce?
Since when is marriage a fail-safe guarantee of rest of life commitment?
If you think that having a piece of paper somehow makes your relationship more permenant isn't it you that has the shaky relationship rather than people who don't need a piece of paper stating they will be together forever to know thay are commited to each other.

I think you have missed the point slightly regarding the marriage, if she cannot imagine being married to this person then the commitment clearly isn't there for the relationship with a child. She definitely shouldn't get married just because of the child but if the thought of it scares her then maybe they shouldn't be moving in together just because it's the normal thing to do.

When she has the baby who will be paying the mortgage? Will it be savings? Surely he wont be happy paying for everything only to be potentially turfed out later on with nothing.

rebeccaj

has anybody read the OP's 4 other posts? On reading those it does seem like commitment is not really something there is a lot of in the relationship, and the pregnancy was unplanned.

morg_monster

i just read her other posts. I got that yes the pregnancy was unplanned and she was a bit silly to miss the pill for a few days, but now that the baby is wanted thats kind of water under the bridge isn't it? I also read that her last boyfriend lived in her house for a year not contributing anything, until he left in March to go back to his ex. With that behind you I think anyone would be a bit more careful next time someone moved in!
Unlike rebeccaj, I didn't learn anything about the commitment within her current relationship. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough,

Unfortunately I think if he does move in, you are going to have to try to be a bit more trusting, and possibly risk him having an interest in your house. Remember if he's just paying a small amount towards everything he'll only have a stake on a small part of the house should it ever come to that. And if you don't need the money, then why not just let him stay for free. OK you might feel bitter if he leaves but if you don't actually need the money...
If you aren't willing to do this, then I think you need to stay living apart for now, or at least keep your own places even if he stays over at yours often. Like others have said it can work. Then when a bit more time has passed maybe you'll be ready for him to move in, or for you to get a new place together.
Also remember that babies cost a lot of £££ and you both will be paying for that too over the next 9 months!!

tr3mor

morg_monster wrote: »

Also remember that babies cost a lot of £££ and you both will be paying for that too over the next 9 months!!

9 months? Don't you mean 18 years?!!

cowbutt

I was in a similar position until recently.

The way I saw it was that I was already paying the full mortgage by myself, and coping easily before I met my then SO. Her moving in wouldn't affect my mortgage payment, and she'd had no say in the property I had bought, so we agreed that she'd just pay the extra living costs we incurred (gas, water, electricity, council tax, food) by living together. This also handily took account of the fact that our incomes were quite unequal.

In time, as her financial position improved, and as we became more committed, we would have expected us to split all household expenditure fairly so that our disposable income ratios were the same (e.g. If I earnt 3000/month, and she earnt 1000/month, I'd pay three quarters of every bill, and she'd pay one quarter). I would have expected us to set up a joint account strictly for household bills, and for us each to transfer enough each month to cover expected expenses plus some surplus.

EDIT: If we were expecting a child, then I think we would have handled costs related to the child similarly, regardless of how we were currently splitting household bills.

Some couples prefer a strict 50:50 split, but I think that's unfair if one partner earns significantly more than the other. Each to their own, though.

mkbean

Unfortunately i think most of the useful advice has been lost in a sea of judgemental replies.

I would have liked to have known the answer as i may soon be in a similar position.