Boyfriend as tenant

Peregrinus

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Apologies, I see the link to CI now.

That's all fair enough on there but I see that it mentions that a "financially dependent" partner may seek redress. How do they decide who is/is not financially dependent? The way I see it, if both parties are working and on similar salaries then neither of them are financially dependent on eachother?

In that situation, they are both usually seen as mutually financially dependent. As in, neither of them could enjoy the style of life they both enjoy were it not for the financial contribution of the other.

("Dependence" doesn't mean you would starve without the other to provide for you; it just means you couldn't afford the style of life that you do, in fact, enjoy.)

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Also, what would the situation be regarding redress under this act if the owner of the house was on salary X and the live in partner was on salary 2X or 3 X. Surely the live in partner of much greater means could not be considered financially dependent in any real sense. Would they still be entitled to gold dig their worse off OH for a cut of the house?

It is possible for a couple to be mutually financially dependent even if one earns more that the other. But the greater the disparity between their incomes, the more likely it is that the richer of them will be found not to be dependent, or to be dependent only to a very small extent.

Chemical Byrne

Another option to limit the chances of success of his potential claim is to debar him from contributing to the household. Ie, do not seek any rent, mortgage contributions, bills, groceries etc. He should buy his own groceries like in a houseshare.

Of course that would put a bit more strain on OP financially but puts her in a better position to keep her things when they break up. You can't have it all I suppose.

What would happen if she buys and then leases out the house and she and bf live in another rented house until she is sure he will cut the mustard? Would this avoid the issue or would he still have a claim on her house even though neither of them live there?

Also OP would it be an option to tell him that you are the one assuming all the risk. To equalise the risk you could make him buying a similarly valued property (or other investment which would fall within the scope of the CPCROCA 2010) a condition of being able to move in with you. That way, when the relationship breaks down you will both have a claim on eachother's property or, in fact, both be able to hold on to your own. Does this make sense?

But then it comes back to whether or not a partner is entitled to a slice of a property owned by their partner but they do not live in the property, as I mentioned before.

Stereomaniac

When I studied Social Policy and Social Care I was basically told that a lot of these laws are designed to protect females in the event of family breakdown, in particular stay at home mothers. Sadly it's just all part of life that we run the risk of getting cleaned out, by boyfriends or girlfriends if, as the original poster puts it, the relationship turns sour. I probably wouldn't look for my girlfriend to sign anything if we were in this situation, but I would definitely expect her to take charge of something in the house like the bills for example.

Peregrinus

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Another option to limit the chances of success of his potential claim is to debar him from contributing to the household. Ie, do not seek any rent, mortgage contributions, bills, groceries etc. He should buy his own groceries like in a houseshare.

Of course that would put a bit more strain on OP financially but puts her in a better position to keep her things if they break up. You can't have it all I suppose.

What would happen if she buys and then leases out the house and she and bf live in another rented house until she is sure he will cut the mustard? Would this avoid the issue or would he still have a claim on her house even though neither of them live there?

If they cohabit for long enough (it doesn't matter where - in a house that one of them owns, in a house they both own, in rented accommodation) then, on a breakup, the courts basically have the same powers as they would have if the couple had married. That is, they look at the assets and means of both parties, they look at the needs, earning capacities, etc of both parties, and they have power to divide the assets any way they think best.

In short, you can't avoid a "marriage breakdown"-type carve-up of assets by shacking up instead of marrying. From that point of view, you shack up for long enough, you might as well have married.

And you can see the point. In this case, if he doesn't buy a house because he doesn't need one, living with the girlfriend and all, and ten years later it all goes pear shaped, and all the money he might have put into a house over the last ten years has been put into groceries and holidays and a lifestyle they both enjoyed, thus enabling her to make payments on a house that she otherwise couldn't have afforded without big compromises to her lifestyle (or perhaps couldn't have afforded at all), that leaves him in a very rough position, doesn't it? She gets the capital asset, he gets the regrets.

It's not really a problem if neither party has much in the way of assets, or they both have similar amounts. But if one party owns a house and the other doesn't, you can see the potential for a problem.

The optimal solution is probably to buy the house together, and share the costs. If the relationship breaks up, they'll almost certainly have to sell the house, or one buy the other out, but neither of them will feel cheated financially, and they'll both save a huge wodge on lawyers.

Chemical Byrne

Well, peregrinus, in that case I think it would make sense for her to prohibit him from directly contributing to the household in any financially measureable way and make it a condition of moving in that he either buys a property himself of similar value, or saves or invests the money so they will both have a similar amount of wealth in the event of a breakup. That way no-one will get fleeced out of it.

Pac2015

SarahMollie wrote: »

So I'm *hopefully* close to buying my first home (solicitor estimates about 2weeks away from closing). My boyfriend and I currently live together (since Nov 2014) in a rented apartment.

I've been trying to buy since before we moved into our current rented place (actually since before I even met him!) but 3 previous "Sales Agreeds" later and clearly my circumstances have changed. We'll be together 2 years in October.

Obviously I'm hoping that our relationship will go the distance but in the short term we're not engaged, let alone married. I have to be pragmatic and protect my investment, so I'm wondering if anyone has any advice on how best to do so. We've spoken about it and are in agreement that he will be paying me rent. Should he be a tenant with a lease or a licensee as if I was renting a room to someone under the rent a room scheme? If our relationship turns sour, will I be protected?

I'm trying to be as fair as possible in the situation because I wouldn't want him feeling like hes a guest in my house even though essentially thats the situation. Rent will be in line with what he's currently paying even though the house will be a step up.

The reason we're not buying together is that
1) As i mentioned, I've been trying to buy for years so its always something I've been doing for myself
2) I'm making a big life decision - its not on me to impose doing the same on someone else
3) I wouldn't want to put our relationship under unnecessary pressure - I'm sure we'll buy a home together eventually if our relationship works out

Has anyone any experience of sharing a home when only one party is the homeowner?

I was in the same situation as yourself I bought an apt in July 2008 and met my now husband in Sept 2008, so I moved into on my own in Feb 2009 as time progressed we realized that the relationship was going a step further we discussed moving into together from time to time as he was still living at home with his parents, in June 2010 we got engaged and he then moved in with me in July 2010 so basically I lived in the apt for a year and a half on my own and he obviously came over.
I too saved hard to buy my apartment and furnish it and wanted to protect my home so we agreed that he would not pay anything towards the mortgage it was a small mortgage of 600 pm and I knew I could afford that on my own but he did contribute to the bills and food we both have always gone 50/50 on that. We did everything via bank transfers so that he has a record of what he was giving me and I did too.

I knew that when we married he would automatically be entitled to 50% of the apartment my solicitor advised me not to put his name on the deeds while we were not married and also not to take any money off him towards the mortgage and in that way if we broke up he would not be entitled to have any claim on the apt he told me so many people make the mistake of taking money from partners for their mortgage repayments and end up breaking up and having to give them half.
I had no problem reimbursing him money for food and bills if we broke up.

We married in June 2012 and as soon as you say I do they are entitled to half of the property which of course I have no problem with.
The agreement now is that we go 50/50 on everything from the mortgage in the apt, rent on where we are now and bills including food etc...it works for us they way I see it now is if we split he is entitled to half the apt as he contributes to it.

We hope to buy a home together in 2016 and the apt will be sold, we dont qualify as first time buyers as I have the apt in my name and he now owns 50% of it.

I hope it all works out for you but make an agreement to what suits you be sensible about it all.

witchgirl26

I'm in a similar situation but from the opposite side. My other half had a deposit ready to go & wanted to buy. I didn't. I'm currently saving to invest the same amount he paid as a deposit into the house & then put my name etc on the documents.

Yes you do unfortunately have to think about what would have if the relationship broke down. We talked to a solicitor about it and apparently most things signed saying I wouldn't have an interest etc aren't legally enforceable if it came to a court scenario.

I pay my portion of the mortgage, bills are in my name (some anyway) but they come out of a joint account.

OP - one question for you that you mightn't have considered. You mention your other half has the amount of a deposit etc. How would you feel if he wanted to invest in the house & get his name on the mortgage & deeds in the future?

Peregrinus

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Well, peregrinus, in that case I think it would make sense for her to prohibit him from directly contributing to the household in any financially measureable way and make it a condition of moving in that he either buys a property himself of similar value, or saves or invests the money so they will both have a similar amount of wealth in the event of a breakup. That way no-one will get fleeced out of it.

That would work. But it might have implications for the kind of property she can afford. If her finances assume some kind of contribution from a roommate/tenant/licensee, at least in the early years, then this suggestion will require a rethink of finances.

Chemical Byrne

How would it? She said she can afford the mortgage just going it alone. The bills would not change a huge amount really with one extra person. She would not be paying his groceries, he would have to buy his own for his own use.
There's nothing stopping her from still renting out rooms if that is what she wants. After all, it will be HER house and if he doesn't like it he can go sh!te.

endacl

Stereomaniac wrote: »

When I studied Social Policy and Social Care I was basically told that a lot of these laws are designed to protect females in the event of family breakdown, in particular stay at home mothers. Sadly it's just all part of life that we run the risk of getting cleaned out, by boyfriends or girlfriends if, as the original poster puts it, the relationship turns sour. I probably wouldn't look for my girlfriend to sign anything if we were in this situation, but I would definitely expect her to take charge of something in the house like the bills for example.

The point that many are missing on this thread is that private arrangements have no bearing on the legislation. Again, it doesn't matter what you might get her to sign.

As a point of discussion though, why is this all about 'fleecing' a homeowner? I'll give a gender neutral hypothetical.

A (30) buys a house, coming up with a 20% deposit for a 25 year mortgage. Pays the mortgage and upkeep for 4 years. Meets B. A relationship forms. B (also 30) moves in after a year. All goes well. They don't marry. They live together in the house for 25 years. No kids. Let's keep this simple! The mortgage is cleared. 26 years after first getting together the relationship disintegrates. A and B split up. A has a fully paid up house to live in. B has no home and no deposit. B has paid an equal share of the mortgage, upkeep and costs from year 6 of the mortgage till it was completed. A has had his/her cost of owning the house effectively halved for 20 years of the mortgage term.

What's fair in this situation?

SarahMollie

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Another option to limit the chances of success of his potential claim is to debar him from contributing to the household. Ie, do not seek any rent, mortgage contributions, bills, groceries etc. He should buy his own groceries like in a houseshare.

Of course that would put a bit more strain on OP financially but puts her in a better position to keep her things when they break up. You can't have it all I suppose.

What would happen if she buys and then leases out the house and she and bf live in another rented house until she is sure he will cut the mustard? Would this avoid the issue or would he still have a claim on her house even though neither of them live there?

Also OP would it be an option to tell him that you are the one assuming all the risk. To equalise the risk you could make him buying a similarly valued property (or other investment which would fall within the scope of the CPCROCA 2010) a condition of being able to move in with you. That way, when the relationship breaks down you will both have a claim on eachother's property or, in fact, both be able to hold on to your own. Does this make sense?

But then it comes back to whether or not a partner is entitled to a slice of a property owned by their partner but they do not live in the property, as I mentioned before.

Honestly, i cant see this working for me/us. Us behaving like a house share would be a backward step for our relationship - ie, we don't buy separate groceries at the moment, so to start doing so would be a bit backwards.

I also don't see forcing him to buy a property in a rush just so we have one each as a good idea.

In reality, i want us to carry on living together as we are now but the only change will be on paper.

I'd honestly rather take the risk on my investment that start behaving awkwardly in my relationship.

Chemical Byrne

Well in that scenario it probably is fair that the B has a claim to whatever proportion they contributed over the 25 years. That's simple.

But that's the situation the OP wants to avoid. She wants to be able to keep her house. In order to do that she needs to effectively keep his contribution to the household ideally at 0% or at least small enough that she can pay him off. True, that may mean the OP is more financially strained but things are more secure for her house wise in the longer term. With the money he is not contributing, he can do with whatever he wants, holiday, go out, buy his own house etc.

However, in the end though it would all probably balance out either way.

Riskymove

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

There's nothing stopping her from still renting out rooms if that is what she wants. After all, it will be HER house and if he doesn't like it he can go sh!te.

tbh I can't see how anyone would like a situation where they are treated like a lodger or a child living with a parent

"you'll do as I say under my roof"?

While I understand the concept of what the OP want's to do I can't see why they just cannot agree that he will contribute - even if its to cover the bills or whatever

It is coming across as "I want to buy a house" "I want my boyfriend to move in" "but I don't want him to have any rights cause I want to kick him out if relationship ends"

It comes across very cold and calculated

She would not be paying his groceries, he would have to buy his own for his own use

This is even worse tbh

"Let's live together but act as if we are two unconnected people even buying our own separate groceries!!"

Will he have a separate room?
a rota for the washing machine (separate washes obviously)?

Chemical Byrne

SarahMollie wrote: »

Honestly, i cant see this working for me/us. Us behaving like a house share would be a backward step for our relationship - ie, we don't buy separate groceries at the moment, so to start doing so would be a bit backwards.

I also don't see forcing him to buy a property in a rush just so we have one each as a good idea.

In reality, i want us to carry on living together as we are now but the only change will be on paper.

I'd honestly rather take the risk on my investment that start behaving awkwardly in my relationship.

Well, it's your funeral! Financially speaking.

You seem to have a grave concern about the future financial impact of a faltering relationship. Perhaps this is a symptom of some unconcious doubts you are having about the relationship. Perhaps you need to step back from this purchase for a while and reconsider this relationship and whether it is right for you?

I am with my gf for the greater part of one year now and I would hope it would go the distance.
But I am quite certain that I won't be entertaining joint accounts or anything like that. We could share joint expenses by paying into a joint account set up for that purpose but my salaries or other income will be going into my personal account which I will use as I see it fit to use. Similarly, I would have no issue with her doing the same. I have no designs for how she will manage her finances.
Shared responsibility for shared expenses. All else is the business of the individual.

K.Flyer

SarahMollie wrote: »

OP here

Few points to answer/clarify;

- I don't want to buy my house and then live elsewhere. I'm buying it because i love it and want to live there. I don't want to become a landlord.
- under the new arrangement my bf certainly won't lose out relative to either our current rental arrangement/ the market in south Dublin. He'll actually save about €150 per month at least, and will also be living in a bigger property in a better location.
- we both have good jobs and earn roughly the same amount. Thanks to some prudent savings over the years (including predating my relationship) i have a considerable deposit and will have approx 40% equity from the outset. This is also how I'm able keep his contribution for half a 3 bed house at less than what our current 2 bed rented apartment is costing him.
- He also has significant savings and could easily afford a deposit on a place if he wished. He is not my dependent.
- I don't actually have any serious doubts over the relationship but i do live in the real world and know that breakups are a fact of life unfortunately. Sometimes, depending on the circumstances, people behave out of character if they are hurt.
- If this were back in the days where people paid nominal deposits and have 98% mortgages, I'd be less bothered, but the fact is I'm basically putting the majority of my saving in here, so I'm the one assuming all the risk.
- In his mind, there was never any doubt that he would contribute. He wouldn't want me to facilitate him living rent free and in his own words "wouldn't want to be seen as a mooch"

To reiterate, this is something I've wanted to do since before we even met and I'd no idea how things would work out, so I kept house hunting. We're very happy and thankfully things are going great. All being well, we can both trade up in a few years and together get a forever home. He's definitely long term material

From reading through your posts on this thread and the posts outlining the possible problems that you might run into, would it not make sense, and be less complicated, if you bought the house between you.
From what you say, he sounds as if he is in a position to do so, and you also say at the end that its not your "forever house".
It would mean, if you unfortunately decided to go your separate ways, there is a clear cut split of assets and you both move on.
Not wanting to sound cold, but if loves dies, and people can change, money can become a seriously contentious issue.

Chemical Byrne

It doesn't matter, she wants this to be her house. She doesn't want him sharing ownership. People should be able to have their own things if they want.

Flatzie_poo

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Well, it's your funeral! Financially speaking.

You know sometimes these things work out yeah?

Galadriel

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Well, it's your funeral! Financially speaking.

You seem to have a grave concern about the future financial impact of a faltering relationship. Perhaps this is a symptom of some unconcious doubts you are having about the relationship. Perhaps you need to step back from this purchase for a while and reconsider this relationship and whether it is right for you?

I am with my gf for the greater part of one year now and I would hope it would go the distance.
But I am quite certain that I won't be entertaining joint accounts or anything like that. We could share joint expenses by paying into a joint account set up for that purpose but my salaries or other income will be going into my personal account which I will use as I see it fit to use. Similarly, I would have no issue with her doing the same. I have no designs for how she will manage her finances.
Shared responsibility for shared expenses. All else is the business of the individual.

She never said there were issues with their relationship, they are just not at the stage of buying a house together and she is doing the clever thing and trying to inform herself of all the options available to her.

SarahMollie

K.Flyer wrote: »

From reading through your posts on this thread and the posts outlining the possible problems that you might run into, would it not make sense, and be less complicated, if you bought the house between you.
From what you say, he sounds as if he is in a position to do so, and you also say at the end that its not your "forever house".
It would mean, if you unfortunately decided to go your separate ways, there is a clear cut split of assets and you both move on.
Not wanting to sound cold, but if loves dies, and people can change, money can become a seriously contentious issue.

If he turned around to me and said he wanted to put up half the deposit, I'd be delighted. However, he's self employed for the past 2 years only and i don't believe this would satisfy the banks.


Do I see us breaking up - no.
If we broke up, do i honestly think he'd sue me - no.
Do i see us cohabiting for 20 years without marrying? - no.
If we get married in the next few years, and the property then becomes ours and not mine, am I fine with this also - yes, absolutely.

I won't be enforcing any "my house my rules" policy. We've liver together for almost a year so we know each other pretty well, and we're both adults.

I honestly don't even care if he could come after me for her % contribution, once my lump sum deposit is protected. That way we can both always move on if worst comes to worst.

This thread has made it clear to me that while I'd like to do what i can to protect my assets that predate our relationship, I don't want to behave in a way that would jepordise our relationship and our future. I'll be talking to my solicitor about it all anyway so I'll have definitive advice regarding the legality of it all. I just want to go in with my eyes open!

SarahMollie

Galadriel wrote: »

She never said there were issues with their relationship, they are just not at the stage of buying a house together and she is doing the clever thing and trying to inform herself of all the options available to her.

Thank you

Pac2015

SarahMollie wrote: »

If he turned around to me and said he wanted to put up half the deposit, I'd be delighted. However, he's self employed for the past 2 years only and i don't believe this would satisfy the banks.


Do I see us breaking up - no.
If we broke up, do i honestly think he'd sue me - no.
Do i see us cohabiting for 20 years without marrying? - no.
If we get married in the next few years, and the property then becomes ours and not mine, am I fine with this also - yes, absolutely.

I won't be enforcing any "my house my rules" policy. We've liver together for almost a year so we know each other pretty well, and we're both adults.

I honestly don't even care if he could come after me for her % contribution, once my lump sum deposit is protected. That way we can both always move on if worst comes to worst.

This thread has made it clear to me that while I'd like to do what i can to protect my assets that predate our relationship, I don't want to behave in a way that would jepordise our relationship and our future. I'll be talking to my solicitor about it all anyway so I'll have definitive advice regarding the legality of it all. I just want to go in with my eyes open!

Very good you seem sensible and that is the best way to think, my husband who was my partner at the time was not in the slightest put out by the agreement we came to only after we married and he realised he has to give up more money did he think wait a minute lol....
The way I said it to him is that I saved hard to buy my apt and furnish it and now that we were married he automatically got 50% of it so it was only fair he pays for half of it and all the expenses to go with.
It works for us and I am a very straight forward person and sensible at that I took my solicitors advice and I am glad I did.

It has actually gone in our favour that I owned before he did in the respect that the banks can see we are good payers never miss any payments for anything we hope to buy a home together next year just as soon as we can raise the deposit, the down side is that he is now not a first time buyer like me so we need the 20% deposit

K.Flyer

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

It doesn't matter, she wants this to be her house. She doesn't want him sharing ownership. People should be able to have their own things if they want.

I know, and fully appreciate that. But as has been pointed out in several posts, he could end up with some right to claim after a certain period of time.
I have seen a few of these similar scenarios before over the years. Two examples, one was a no contest, happy days, whilst another was awarded a substantial claim to the asset.
I am sure it will work out for the O.P. and do wish her well.

SarahMollie

K.Flyer wrote: »

I know, and fully appreciate that. But as has been pointed out in several posts, he could end up with some right to claim after a certain period of time.
I have seen a few of these similar scenarios before over the years. Two examples, one was a no contest, happy days, whilst another was awarded a substantial claim to the asset.
I am sure it will work out for the O.P. and do wish her well.

Thanks K.Flyer

Honestly, I think it will either lead to marriage or not within the time allowed under statute and I'm fine with this.

bucketybuck

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

It doesn't matter, she wants this to be her house. She doesn't want him sharing ownership. People should be able to have their own things if they want.

Sure, but she can't have her cake and eat it too.

If she wants the house to be 100% hers then she is going to have an unequal relationship, and like any unequal relationship eventually that will be an issue. In protecting herself financially against a breakup she might find she has actually created the situation that led to that breakup.

Its all snug and cosy and rational now but what about 3 years down the line and when they hit a rocky patch? When there are a few rows over stupid stuff and the boyfriend starts to feel emasculated by the unspoken knowledge that he doesn't even have a part in the house and could be kicked out at any time. If he has any pride thats the sort of knowledge that will eat away at him, its only human nature.

I understand exactly why the OP feels and wants to act as she does. But theres no point pretending that this situation is anything but a really bad way to maintain a relationship.

Wabbit Ears

Had someone close to me in similar situation.

She owned the apartment and they had a kid together and the relationship broke down.

He had been unemployed so didn't contribute so basically he had no claim on anything but the lesson learned form the solicitors advice is that there is absolutely no such thing as 'rent' when its a partner. He would have had a claim on the value of any Household purchases made in the relationship provided that there was a divided share of household payments.

So for example, if she buys a couch and stuff and he pays bills you add up everything she spent, everything he spent and divide in that ratio for the Items in the house. So just because she bought the couch doesn't make it all hers as the household is a single entity that both contribute towards, even if it is in different ways.


Also, the deposit isn't safe either even if it is all her money being used. If that money was saved while they are in a relationship he can claim that while she was saving, he took up the slack in household spending, therefore that money isn't all hers. Only if the money was gifted or inherited is it untouchable and a solicitor would have him sign a waiver to that effect.

Pac2015

bucketybuck wrote: »

Sure, but she can't have her cake and eat it too.

If she wants the house to be 100% hers then she is going to have an unequal relationship, and like any unequal relationship eventually that will be an issue. In protecting herself financially against a breakup she might find she has actually created the situation that led to that breakup.

Its all snug and cosy and rational now but what about 3 years down the line and when they hit a rocky patch? When there are a few rows over stupid stuff and the boyfriend starts to feel emasculated by the unspoken knowledge that he doesn't even have a part in the house and could be kicked out at any time. If he has any pride thats the sort of knowledge that will eat away at him, its only human nature.

I understand exactly why the OP feels and wants to act as she does. But theres no point pretending that this situation is anything but a really bad way to maintain a relationship.

I think if she is honest and straight forward with him and does not take any money from him for the mortgage or anything associated with it and purely receives money for bills and food then she will be okay and make it clear that this is what the money you are taking from him is for.
If down the line he wants to be part owner of the house that is something you can look at its obvious both dont want to own a house together just yet.
I think the OP is being sensible and I dont see any cracks in their relationship from what she is posting more so that unlike many people she is having a bit of cop on.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

the unspoken knowledge that he doesn't even have a part in the house and could be kicked out at any time. If he has any pride thats the sort of knowledge that will eat away at him, its only human nature.

If you are a licensee or a tenant renting a house you are paying towards somebodys mortgage every month and you will never have part of the house so why would someone think they have a say in the house in this situation.

Personally I think some people are getting overboard on this. Even suggesting renting out the place and renting another place, totally defeating the purpose of buying her own place.

For a start their is three more years before he would have any say on the house and even then there is no guarantee it would be ruled in his favor. This is before you take into account the extremely unlikely scenario that the bf would actually try to make a claim on the house which the vast vast majority of normal people just would not do as they would feel no entitlement to.

I think this is in fact a very good scenario of both of them. The op is having half her mortgage paid while living with her bf rather than a stranger licensee and the bf is paying less than market rate to live with his gf rather than some stranger in a houseshare.

SarahMollie

bucketybuck wrote: »

Sure, but she can't have her cake and eat it too.

If she wants the house to be 100% hers then she is going to have an unequal relationship, and like any unequal relationship eventually that will be an issue. In protecting herself financially against a breakup she might find she has actually created the situation that led to that breakup.

Its all snug and cosy and rational now but what about 3 years down the line and when they hit a rocky patch? When there are a few rows over stupid stuff and the boyfriend starts to feel emasculated by the unspoken knowledge that he doesn't even have a part in the house and could be kicked out at any time. If he has any pride thats the sort of knowledge that will eat away at him, its only human nature.

I understand exactly why the OP feels and wants to act as she does. But theres no point pretending that this situation is anything but a really bad way to maintain a relationship.

Honestly, these are my exact fears and I don't want this to happen. But i'm in a position/mindset to buy and he isnt.
I'd be happy to let him buy in a later date if he wanted or ultimately for us to buy another place together thats equally ours in the future.
Its unrealistic to think that in every relationship that each party will contribute 50/50 at all stages throughout the relationship.
For example, I'm an only child and will at some point inherit 2 other properties. He's not, and his parents house will be devided between him and his 2 siblings. If we're married, I fully expect that these assets would belong to us both, and that he wouldnt feel emasculated just because its likely that more will come from my side.
Equally if we decide to have a family, I may need to rely on his income more at some point in the future.
We're both very independent characters and even though i may have a house, he has significant savings which he may chose to invest in the future - thats his decision, and until we commit further to each other, I wouldnt presume to have any say on that.
I think there will always be disparities in relationships over time, and once we've made that commitment to each other I've no issue with this.

Chemical Byrne

Keep a meticulous record of every penny he might contribute and the same for yourself. That way when things turn sour, things can be divvied out in proportion to the contribution of each.

Is it really true that in a marriage situation everything is split 50/50 down the middle? Even if one party contributed loads and the other very little could it not be divided 70/30 or whatever based on contribution during the marriage?


If things turn sour, could OP just declare that she was living with a good friend as a licencee for the past 5 years? How will the OP's bf prove to the court that it was an "intimate" relationship? Sure even with holiday photos or whatever, sure friends go on holidays all the time!

On the same logic whats to stop an opposite sex licencee living with the owner occupier seducing and casually riding the owner-occupier a few times, then at the end of the 5 years come out declaring that it was an "intimate relationship" and taking them to the cleaners?
Sure they wouldn't even have to have rode, one party could just declare it as "intimate" living arrangements.

Upon whom does the burden lie with proving whether or not the living arrangements are intimate?

There would seem to be a lot of potential loopholes which the brass necked and downright brazen could exploit.

For a start their is three more years before he would have any say on the house and even then there is no guarantee it would be ruled in his favor.

Does the five years not start only from when the bf moves in? Or does it start from the beginning of the relationship? If the latter you could be with someone 4 years, 11 months, get you own place and move them in and theyll have a claim on it before the first kettle is boiled? That would be nuts!

eoinf

bit of advice from a BF/tenant who turned into an ex and had to walk away from an identical situation , JUST TALK TO HIM.

explain simply, your valid concerns, if he isn't a prick which I presume he isn't,considering you actually want to live with him, he should totally understand.

it can all be stressful enough without the need to add to it with legal crap.

Talking and being clear will save a lot of headaches no matter which way it ends up.

Of course the "legal" advice is also valid and necessary but two people should be able to sort all this out amongst themselves.

whilst its your place it is also important to make him feel like it is his "home" too. That can be difficult with the owner/lodger setup but again no doubt you can find a happy and workable balance.

best of luck. big step but certainly nothing be concerned about IMHO, speaking as someone who had to walkaway after a number of years.

personally I wouldn't have it in me to stake a claim to something that wasn't mine even if I was legally contributing and therefore entitled.