Moving in together as widows

swingaloo2

How is the OP losing out? She has is going to have someone moving in with her who she presumably wants to share her life and home with and is going to have her bills halved. If I was going to move in with a partner I would prefer to stay in my own home rather than move into his, women tend by nature to be more 'homemakers' than men so to me she is getting the best of both worlds as long as she safeguards her house and keeps and pays her mortgage separately  from the general bills. He on the other hand is letting tenants into his home which may or may not work out well. Another point, if the relationship does not work out then he is the one who will have issues getting his home back.  For me, she has all the advantages not him.

AskAsk

swingaloo2 said:

How is the OP losing out? She has is going to have someone moving in with her who she presumably wants to share her life and home with and is going to have her bills halved. If I was going to move in with a partner I would prefer to stay in my own home rather than move into his, women tend by nature to be more 'homemakers' than men so to me she is getting the best of both worlds as long as she safeguards her house and keeps and pays her mortgage separately  from the general bills. He on the other hand is letting tenants into his home which may or may not work out well. Another point, if the relationship does not work out then he is the one who will have issues getting his home back.  For me, she has all the advantages not him.

because he is getting free board and lodgings.  he would have had to pay 100% of the bills if he stayed in his own house.  so he now only has to pay 50% of the bills and on top, he gets income from renting out his property.

swingaloo2

But the OP would have to pay full bills if he didnt move in. I don't see it as 'board & lodgings', its not a business transaction its a couple choosing to live together. The OP is going to get half of her bills paid and its not going to double her bills by having him there. This way they both benefit. Why on earth would anyone expect a partner to pay the going rate for moving in with them, its a partnership.

AskAsk

swingaloo2 said:

But the OP would have to pay full bills if he didnt move in. I don't see it as 'board & lodgings', its not a business transaction its a couple choosing to live together. The OP is going to get half of her bills paid and its not going to double her bills by having him there. 

yes, she would benefit with having him live with her as he would contribute to 50% of the bills.  however as he is getting rental income for his house, i think it is only fair that he should share some of that income with her as without her, he wouldn't be able to make that money.

the best way i think is for him to pay more than 50% of the bills depending on how much rental income he is going to get and how much the annual bills actually are.

maman

Underlying this is how you feel about paying your way compared with relative income. So the guy moving in has increased his income. That doesn't mean that OP would want him to pay more than 50%. 

sheramber

You share the household expenses as you both agree regardless of what anybody else thinks or says. 
If it is such a big deal perhaps you should  look at your  relationship and consider of you ready to become one household.

Keep_pedalling

AskAsk said:

swingaloo2 said:

How is the OP losing out? She has is going to have someone moving in with her who she presumably wants to share her life and home with and is going to have her bills halved. If I was going to move in with a partner I would prefer to stay in my own home rather than move into his, women tend by nature to be more 'homemakers' than men so to me she is getting the best of both worlds as long as she safeguards her house and keeps and pays her mortgage separately  from the general bills. He on the other hand is letting tenants into his home which may or may not work out well. Another point, if the relationship does not work out then he is the one who will have issues getting his home back.  For me, she has all the advantages not him.

because he is getting free board and lodgings.  he would have had to pay 100% of the bills if he stayed in his own house.  so he now only has to pay 50% of the bills and on top, he gets income from renting out his property.

So are you suggesting that the OP and her partner should throw away a chance of happiness by tuning this into nothing more than a business transaction. Some people’s priorities are very strange. 

If he pays more than half of the household expenses he is effectively contributing to the mortgage payments which could get very messy if the relationship ended acrimoniously in a few years time. 

AskAsk

Keep_pedalling said:

AskAsk said:

swingaloo2 said:

How is the OP losing out? She has is going to have someone moving in with her who she presumably wants to share her life and home with and is going to have her bills halved. If I was going to move in with a partner I would prefer to stay in my own home rather than move into his, women tend by nature to be more 'homemakers' than men so to me she is getting the best of both worlds as long as she safeguards her house and keeps and pays her mortgage separately  from the general bills. He on the other hand is letting tenants into his home which may or may not work out well. Another point, if the relationship does not work out then he is the one who will have issues getting his home back.  For me, she has all the advantages not him.

because he is getting free board and lodgings.  he would have had to pay 100% of the bills if he stayed in his own house.  so he now only has to pay 50% of the bills and on top, he gets income from renting out his property.

So are you suggesting that the OP and her partner should throw away a chance of happiness by tuning this into nothing more than a business transaction. Some people’s priorities are very strange. 

If he pays more than half of the household expenses he is effectively contributing to the mortgage payments which could get very messy if the relationship ended acrimoniously in a few years time. 

they are not getting married so there is no divorce split of assets.  they are going to cohabit.  the OP asked what would be a fair split if he were to move in and i have responded as to what i think is a fair split.

whether the guy thinks this is fair or not is not the question here.  if he objects then they can discuss an equitable split between them.  as a financial split alone, i am suggesting that a 50% share of bills is not fair on the OP.  the OP will need to make up her own mind as to whether she is happy with this arrangement if she wants him to move in with her and he doesn't want to pay more than 50% share of the bills.

TBagpuss

Decide what you both feel is fair in terms of how much he contributes to outgoings (which can include an element of 'rent' , then get a cohabitation agreement drawn up which can explicitly set out that he will not gain any interest in the property even if he contributes to the mortgage or home improvements unless you sign a further deed to say he does, and that you won't have any claim n him.

That way, you can agree a fair amount for him to pay (bearing in mind that he will have the extra rental income and would otherwise be living 'rent-free' ) while still protecting your assets, both from each other if the relationship were to break down, and on behalf of your families if either of you were to die.

You may want to build in provision / update your will to give him a 'grace period' to move out if you were to die and (separately, ad probably shorter!) how much notice you will give him to tell him to leave if you break up.

And remember that if, at a later stage, you decided to get married, you will need to update your wills and consider a pre-nup, at that time, if you want to ensure that your finances can remain separate. 

Kynthia

I moved in with a partner who owned their home and I rented out mine and we weren't yet combining our finances. They suggested I pay 50% of mortgage and bills and I thought that was too much as I wouldn't be claiming any equity gain. However there's no way I thought it was fair to just pay half of the bills while he had to pay the other half and the mortgage. I needed to give some contribution and I thought it would make sense for us both to be similarly better off.

So I calculated roughly how much extra it would cost him for me to live there (utilities, council tax, etc), and then I roughly worked out the reduction in my costs (this was an estimate as there was the reduction in all my bills and council tax, the net position with rent/mortgage/agent fees/tax on rental income, etc). Then I deducted his additional costs from my net gain and agreed to pay him half of that.

It's important to remember rental income isn't pure profit. As well as the mortgage there are agent fees, voids, maintenance costs and tax which can be  calculated on a figure greater than the profit (for example mortgage interest isn't deductible)

There isn't one right way to do things. The best thing to do is come up with something you are both happy with that leaves you both better off.