How much rent should I charge my partner?

Gavin83

Tom99 wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Why would he be an idiot if he has no intention of claiming a share of the property?
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Why would he need legal advice?
[/FONT]

Why wouldn't he have any intention of claiming a share of the property? Legally (and arguably morally) he should be able to claim a share. Ultimately it's possible he could end up paying more into the property than she does, why shouldn't he have a claim?

I'm more surprised by the next question. Surely it's logical to seek legal advice before signing away your rights on such an important matter?

I agree with a few of the other posters. I think the best solution is for him to pay his 'rent' into a savings account. If you stay together then great, you've a large sum of money towards a future joint property. If you don't stay together he's got a pot of money to support himself rather than being left in the brown stuff.

Tom99

Gavin83 wrote: »

If you don't stay together he's got a pot of money to support himself rather than being left in the brown stuff.

He will only have a pot of money because he has lived rent free.

Gavin83

Tom99 wrote: »

He will only have a pot of money because he has lived rent free.

As well as her, technically speaking. Sure, she'll be paying a mortgage but that'll be towards an appreciating asset so it's effectively an investment. He'll be paying the same amount for nothing.

Of course the other option is that he doesn't live with the OP and rents elsewhere. At least that way he'll have more rights and his own space.

Tom99

Gavin83 wrote: »

As well as her, technically speaking. Sure, she'll be paying a mortgage but that'll be towards an appreciating asset so it's effectively an investment. He'll be paying the same amount for nothing.
.

He will be paying for somewhere to live not 'for nothing', the same as he would if he rents elsewhere but probably less.

unholyangel

Gavin83 wrote: »

Why wouldn't he have any intention of claiming a share of the property? Legally (and arguably morally) he should be able to claim a share. Ultimately it's possible he could end up paying more into the property than she does, why shouldn't he have a claim?

I'm more surprised by the next question. Surely it's logical to seek legal advice before signing away your rights on such an important matter?

I agree with a few of the other posters. I think the best solution is for him to pay his 'rent' into a savings account. If you stay together then great, you've a large sum of money towards a future joint property. If you don't stay together he's got a pot of money to support himself rather than being left in the brown stuff.

Its quite funny you say those exact words because the judge in the case of dobson v griffey said:

The defendant was paying for the farm, and he wanted it to be his own exclusive property. This may have been ungenerous, but it was not morally wrong, let alone legally so.

The judge also stressed it was not enough that the claimant had intended to gain an interest, the defendant had to have that intention also. Again, a signed document agreeing they're not obtaining a beneficial interest clearly shows that the owner never intended it and the other knew & agreed to it.

There are no rules for whats right in a relationship. They're all different. As long as the two people actually involved in it are okay with whats going on, then who's to say its wrong?

I think some are affronted by the idea because they wouldn't agree to it themselves. And again, nothing wrong with that as long as those in their relationship are okay with it. But I'm puzzled why one party (in their minds) isn't allowed to have lower housing costs while the other one is fine to have zero housing costs. :huh:

Surely the "fair" way would either be for him to buy into the house and share mortgage/insurance/repair/maintenance/improvement costs or for them to find the middle ground where they are both saving an equal (whether the same or proportionally) amount.

Also curious if peoples opinions would still be the same if OP rented and was asking how much rent they should pay.

Soundgirlrocks

unholyangel wrote: »

Also curious if peoples opinions would still be the same if OP rented and was asking how much rent they should pay.

No because the OP wouldn't be building up capital in a property by pay off a mortgage. I personally think a contribution to the interest portion of the mortgage would be fair as this is a cost to the OP, but it then gets starts getting complicated to calculate.

hazyjo

unholyangel wrote: »

Also curious if peoples opinions would still be the same if OP rented and was asking how much rent they should pay.

Soundgirlrocks wrote: »

No because the OP wouldn't be building up capital in a property by pay off a mortgage.

Also, if they were added to the tenancy, they'd have far more rights and a guaranteed roof over their head for X number of months.

Gavin83

unholyangel wrote: »

I think some are affronted by the idea because they wouldn't agree to it themselves. And again, nothing wrong with that as long as those in their relationship are okay with it. But I'm puzzled why one party (in their minds) isn't allowed to have lower housing costs while the other one is fine to have zero housing costs. :huh:

Surely the "fair" way would either be for him to buy into the house and share mortgage/insurance/repair/maintenance/improvement costs or for them to find the middle ground where they are both saving an equal (whether the same or proportionally) amount.

Yeah, whatever works for the couple. I don't see an issue with the partner paying half the mortgage so they both pay the same. The issue is the original home owner often doesn't want them to have an interest the property so this doesn't always work, hence the other suggestion.

In the OPs situation I'd probably just split the mortgage and accept the beneficial interest building up.

unholyangel wrote: »

Also curious if peoples opinions would still be the same if OP rented and was asking how much rent they should pay.

No, because it's a completely different situation. Soundgirlrocks and hazyjo explained it nicely.

Tom99

Gavin83 wrote: »

In the OPs situation I'd probably just split the mortgage and accept the beneficial interest building up.

But you don't have to accept that a beneficial interest will build up, you just agree in writing that it won't, then you can charge your partner half the mortgage, all of the mortgage or whatever you like. The same as they would pay for sharing an equivalent rental property but discounted a bit would be fair in my view. There is absolutely no reason why someone who owns their own property should provide rent free accommodation to a partner.

unholyangel

Soundgirlrocks wrote: »

No because the OP wouldn't be building up capital in a property by pay off a mortgage. I personally think a contribution to the interest portion of the mortgage would be fair as this is a cost to the OP, but it then gets starts getting complicated to calculate.

The OP would be building that capital even if he lived elsewhere. He wouldn't be getting to live for free elsewhere though.

hazyjo wrote: »

Also, if they were added to the tenancy, they'd have far more rights and a guaranteed roof over their head for X number of months.

He'd also be liable for the full rent, decorating, damages etc.

Gavin83 wrote: »

Yeah, whatever works for the couple. I don't see an issue with the partner paying half the mortgage so they both pay the same. The issue is the original home owner often doesn't want them to have an interest the property so this doesn't always work, hence the other suggestion.

In the OPs situation I'd probably just split the mortgage and accept the beneficial interest building up.



No, because it's a completely different situation. Soundgirlrocks and hazyjo explained it nicely.

He's just got out of such a huge financial mess, he had to depend on his girlfriend & mum for several years despite earning "considerably more" than OP does.

Can you really blame the OP? Particularly if OP has had the house a long time, I can understand their wanting to keep the house to themselves for the time being.

In the circumstances, I do think them saving equally from the arrangement would be the fairest of all. Thats just my opinion though as I wouldn't like to live off anyone, let alone a partner. Which is what he'd be doing by living there rent free imo. That is not to say I don't agree with one partner paying more if something happens (pregnancy, illness, job loss etc) but I don't think I could ever accept a relationship where it was par for the course.