Money Moral Dilemma: Should my partner pay more towards bills to cover his children in our new home?

RAS

xaghra said:

 Better still put the house into a trust

You only need to hop over to the Death and Probate subforum to see the havoc caused by putting properties into trust. Yep, some solicitors and will writers love the fees, but don't do it without advice from a STEP solicitor.

What can be useful in blended families is to include an Immediate Post Death Interest trust in your will, based on tenants in common. 

That way half the value of the house can be protected for the future benefit of the children of the first spouse to die, without lumbering them with all the tax, financial and legal complications created by other trusts and the house lived in by the survivor. And the second spouse hopes to leave the other half to their children.

Please make will and see a STEP solicitor if you have a blended family.

jedav

We own our property 1/3 - 2/3, because that's in proportion to the contribution that we each made towards its purchase (we're not married).  Although the mortgage had to be in both names, or the bank wouldn't have lent, my partner paid the mortgage to get his share as I didn't need to borrow to pay mine.  Unequal ownership is evidenced by a deed drawn up by our solicitor (I think it was a Statutory Declaration).  The property is registered in both names at the Land Registry and the ownership is assumed to be 50/50 without the deed, which doesn't get registered so needs to be kept in a safe place (solicitor, for example) so that it can be produced as evidence, if needed.  We pay half of running costs via a joint account each as we both use the house equally.  We have our own accounts too.

If he wants a larger share then you should consider paying proportionally less of the deposit as well as of the mortgage.  If you can afford it, why not go 50/50?  Assuming prices continue to rise you'll get the benefit of that rise.  Certainly his paying more for bills seems reasonable as you wouldn't need to have all bedrooms heated, for example, if it were just the two of you.  Insurance could be paid in the proportions in which you own the property.

Do consider that, if you split up, your smaller than 50/50 proportion might not be enough to buy you somewhere to live on your own.  I have a provision in my will that, should I die first, my partner will have a life interest in the property, including the power to use some of the proceeds to downsize, should it be necessary (as he owns the smaller proportion).  His will has a provision to allow me over a year (CGT reasons, although the tax-free allowances were much bigger then) to realise enough money to buy out his heirs, if I need to.  We are executors for each other, he has adult children and I have none.

Hope this helps!

jedav

2702 said:

You are right.
He says he wants to pay more to have a larger percentage of the property? So you would need to get a solicitor to draw something up as if you are both on the title then by law it is a 50/50 split. Do not even know if that would be possible.
Good luck

It is possible to own a property in unequal shares.  Equality of ownership between those registered as owners at the Land Registry is assumed, as you stated, unless a deed is drawn up, signed by all owners, stating otherwise.  That deed is not registered so needs to be kept safely.

Jemma01

Think twice about moving in with someone already planning what will happen if you separate. He's using you to buy a big house cuz he can't afford it otherwise, yet wants you to carry the burden of moving out.

I would buy my own tiny space he can visit or stay put where i am, and he can see and manage his children's visitations where he lives now. Having 3 children that are yours is a serious work, let alone someone elses you can't scold.

If you insist that's truly what you want to do, then 50/50 ownership/mortgage, and he pays most of the bills and cares for his children 100% including any mess/damage in the house.