Boyfriend as tenant

bucketybuck

Cameron Hollow Reversal wrote: »

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.

I shouldn't really have to explain the difference between a relationship and all the emotional complexities they involve, and a simple business transaction between a tenant and a landlord.

SarahMollie

eoinf wrote: »

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.

Thanks eoinf.

In my heart, I totally believe this is the situation. I think his pride and fundamental decency would prevent him from coming after me in the worst case scenario even if he legally could.

I absolutely want it to feel like our home and as such have been consulting him on decisions, like beds and sofas etc. I want this to feel like a win win for us both, to rent this place would cost €2000 per month, and i can do it cheaper by buying it. Doing things this way would afford us both a great lifestyle and down the line I hope we're co owners anyway.

endacl

Cameron Hollow Reversal wrote: »

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.

Because the situation is different, legally speaking. And that's just how it is. If you are a co-habiting couple, what one party pays the other is not 'rent'. They might call it rent. They might think its rent. But its not rent.

This may have been mentioned elsewhere on the thread. :rolleyes:

Cameron Hollow Reversal wrote: »

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.

Nobody's going overboard. Simply pointing out the legal position, so that the OP is better informed. What's your issue with that?

Cameron Hollow Reversal wrote: »

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.

And no guarantee it wouldn't.

Cameron Hollow Reversal wrote: »

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.

You can really only speak for yourself. You don't know what 'normal people' might do. After 5 years claiming a share of equity might be a crappy thing to do. After 25, maybe not?

Cameron Hollow Reversal wrote: »

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.

It is a good arrangement. But it has potential legal and financial implications for both.

bucketybuck

SarahMollie wrote: »

Thanks eoinf.

In my heart, I totally believe this is the situation. I think his pride and fundamental decency would prevent him from coming after me in the worst case scenario even if he legally could.

Just be aware that its that same pride and decency that means he will probably want to be fully equal in a relationship, so I would suggest bearing that in mind in the future. If you value that relationship then never ever use the fact of the inequality against him. If at any point he feels like a lodger rather than a partner, from that point on his level of discomfort with that situation will only grow, it will never decrease.

As was said though, the best way to deal with this is to be fully open at all times. I completely understand why you want the house to be yours, but that desire isn't really compatible with a fully equal relationship so tread carefully in that regard.

endacl

SarahMollie wrote: »

Thanks eoinf.

In my heart, I totally believe this is the situation. I think his pride and fundamental decency would prevent him from coming after me in the worst case scenario even if he legally could.

I absolutely want it to feel like our home and as such have been consulting him on decisions, like beds and sofas etc. I want this to feel like a win win for us both, to rent this place would cost €2000 per month, and i can do it cheaper by buying it. Doing things this way would afford us both a great lifestyle and down the line I hope we're co owners anyway.

Best of luck with it. I hope we haven't put a damper on things!

BabysCoffee

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Would it not be more sense to charge him the going rate for the room.

By charging him half of the mortgage payment I would think he could make a case that he is entitled to half the house.

Agreed. Safer to charge a fixed monetary amount of rent (albeit below market rates) than have him make a payment linked directly to the mortgage.

endacl

^^
Jaysus. What's the point? :rolleyes:

Bestof luck with it, OP. I'm done.

witchgirl26

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

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!

The 5 years start from the time you first start living together.

OP - quick question. Does your lender know that you are living with a partner currently? I only ask because my other half had to sign a form stating how long we'd been living together when he bought. It was so that the bank was aware if we were near the 5 year mark as they may have wanted to assess my income. Still a sole application but to protect the bank as I might have had an interest.

Chemical Byrne

Really OP, you are unfortunately caught here. If you want the house to be yours and yours only and you also want to live with the bf, the reality is that it can only be achieved by buying the house and then renting with your bf elsewhere. You can lease out you house if you need to to be able to pay the mortgage or just use it occasionally with him.

Surely you'd be able to find somewhere equally nice to rent and share with him.
The law's an ass.

I am in the early stages of considering buying a house in cork. Just a house that I can have as mine and rent out as an investment. I would not live there and I would not be giving my gf any say in it nor moving in there with her. I want to build a proper house after for that.

Wabbit Ears

SarahMollie wrote: »

Thanks eoinf.

In my heart, I totally believe this is the situation. I think his pride and fundamental decency would prevent him from coming after me in the worst case scenario even if he legally could.

I absolutely want it to feel like our home and as such have been consulting him on decisions, like beds and sofas etc. I want this to feel like a win win for us both, to rent this place would cost €2000 per month, and i can do it cheaper by buying it. Doing things this way would afford us both a great lifestyle and down the line I hope we're co owners anyway.

Ill say it again, Rent in this situation simply does not exist. Also the terms Licencee and Tennant have no place either. Everything contributed financially in anyway towards the 'Household' can be taken into consideration in a split.

I bought an apartment with my then girlfriend now wife and, during legal discussions, ( it was abroad so rules are different) we had a choice to say we owned the apartment 50/50 or, in the event if a breakup, to spit it according to how much we contributed. I said contributed, she said 50/50. We ended up with a 50/50 split in the legal documents but, fcuk me, it still gets brought up 12 years later in fights.

There really is no nice way to explain 'protecting your financial interests' you are reducing your partner to less than a guest in his own home.

Funny thing is, if this situation were reversed, this entire thread would be you posting about how much of a jerk your BF is in Personal issues.

Chemical Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed. Safer to charge a fixed monetary amount of rent (albeit below market rates) than have him make a payment linked directly to the mortgage.

A strategy you could use on him OP could be to request him to give you money for contributing to groceries and bills and, somehow, incline him to give it over to you in cash as often as possible. That way he feels happy that he's contributing but the clincher is that there will be no concrete record of his contribution and you might be able to have his claim struck out. OTOH, he might cop the scheme too.

There really is no nice way to explain 'protecting your financial interests' you are reducing your partner to less than a guest in his own home.

But you see that's what they are if they do not own it! If I lived at my gf's own place I certainly would not consider myself anything other that a guest.

Funny thing is, if this situation were reversed, this entire thread would be you posting about how much of a jerk your BF is in Personal issues.

Agree 100%. Definitely.

Riskymove

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

A strategy you could use on him OP could be to request him to give you money for contributing to groceries and bills and, somehow, incline him to give it over to you in cash. That way there will be no concrete record of his contribution and you might be able to have his claim struck out.

sweet jaysus....

Funny thing is, if this situation were reversed, this entire thread would be you posting about how much of a jerk your BF is in Personal issues.

I can see that alright

"I want to move my girlfriend in and want her to pay for half the mortgage but not have any rights when I kick her out!!"

I hope the bf doesn't read this thread

Chemical Byrne

Riskymove wrote: »

I can see that alright

"I want to move my girlfriend in and want her to pay for half the mortgage but not have any rights when I kick her out!!"

I hope the bf doesn't read this thread

Tbh, I don;t see how the bf's contribution would entitle him to a share of the property. I mean if he wasn't living with her and not paying her "rent", then he would be paying rent somewhere else sure! I like the idea of having the payment of rent but not directly linked to mortgage so he couldn't use that as a basis for a claim. But unfortunately, as we see earlier, that is a non runner.

Riskymove

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Tbh, I don;t see how the bf's contribution would entitle him to a share of the property.

isn't that the point of the OP?

wanting her BF to move in and pay half the cost but tie it up in such a way that it is not recognized and that he gets no rights to stay there etc.?

Chemical Byrne

Yeah. And FWIW, I think she's dead right too!

I wouldn't fancy busting my arse to find and pay through the nose for a place only for some upstart to come in and pull the rug out from under me when it doesn't suit them anymore!
Especially so if it was a property I really liked.

That's why I think asking him to buy his own property is a good idea as it evens up the scores. He doesn't have to be emotionally attached to it, he can just buy and let, or not let, or whatever, it'll be his. In any case, she could use it as defensive leverage against him. The fact that she has the power to lay a claim on and force the sale of his property can be used to act as a deterrent for him laying claim and forcing sale of her property. It's actually a bit like MAD doctrine.

There's also the possibility, and worry for the OP, that she might outgrow the relationship and want to kick his sorry ass out but will be prevented from doing so by fear that he'll abscond with half her wealth. She might have to put her whole life on hold for years and live in a miserable relationship while she figures out a way to get rid of him and keep her property.

I'm thinking now, would the five year rule expire if, for instance, ye were living in a place one of ye owned for 5+ years, owner wants out and convinces the OH that they'll move into a rented place (for whatever token reasons) and let out the owned house. Would he fact they're not living in the house anymore get the owner off the hook of having to bleed themselves out to an ex?

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

I shouldn't really have to explain the difference between a relationship and all the emotional complexities they involve, and a simple business transaction between a tenant and a landlord.

I dont see much difference to be honest between a bf and gf who have no legal relationship to each other whatsoever and a house owner taking in a licensee and having them pay half the mortgage and bills.

endacl wrote: »

Because the situation is different, legally speaking. And that's just how it is. If you are a co-habiting couple, what one party pays the other is not 'rent'. They might call it rent. They might think its rent. But its not rent.

This may have been mentioned elsewhere on the thread. :rolleyes:
.

endacl wrote: »

^^
Jaysus. What's the point? :rolleyes:

Bestof luck with it, OP. I'm done.

You need to lay off the semantics. The person is not a tenant we know that but its still rent, money paid over in order to live in the house.

I see this situation as being no different to a licensee living with the op, certainly up until the 5 year living together threshold anyway.

Chemical Byrne

Well that is the way most rational people see it also nox. The problem is that the law doesn't see it that way!

Calhoun

I also assume in this situation that if the boyfriend is taken on as a tenant, then he would have to pay rent and bills which is acceptable but would he have to pay for wear and tear and for items in the household that maybreak ect?

Just curious as to where the OP's responsiblity as a landlord in this case.

witchgirl26

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Yeah. And FWIW, I think she's dead right too!

I wouldn't fancy busting my arse to find and pay through the nose for a place only for some upstart to come in and pull the rug out from under me when it doesn't suit them anymore!
Especially so if it was a property I really liked.

Upstart? Ah come on. If you've been in a relationship with someone long enough to be living with them for 5 years, they are hardly an upstart.

Seriously as someone on the other side of this (himself owns, I pay money in) - yes I would expect something were we to finish but I wouldn't necessarily try to claim rights to the property. More maybe splitting some furniture etc that I had put money towards.

It's dead right to understand the implications and everything that goes with this potential purchase but to go in thinking "sure this relationship will fail & I'll lose my shirt" is hardly a healthy attitude, is it? I'm not saying rose tinted glasses but if you're in a relationship with someone then obviously there is a level of trust that they aren't a complete ass.

OP like someone else said - talk to your other half. Explain what you know. He may have his own fears like what will happen to him should the relationship break down if he's put any money in to things like furnishings etc. Don't be sneaky - you're grown ups so you should be able to have an honest conversation with each other (though it isn't an easy one). If you can't - that's a totally different issue.

endacl

Cameron Hollow Reversal wrote: »

I dont see much difference to be honest between a bf and gf who have no legal relationship to each other whatsoever and a house owner taking in a licensee and having them pay half the mortgage and bills.





You need to lay off the semantics. The person is not a tenant we know that but its still rent, money paid over in order to live in the house.

I see this situation as being no different to a licensee living with the op, certainly up until the 5 year living together threshold anyway.

It's not semantics though. It's fact.
How you see things has no bearing on legal reality.

endacl

Calhoun wrote: »

I also assume in this situation that if the boyfriend is taken on as a tenant, then he would have to pay rent and bills which is acceptable but would he have to pay for wear and tear and for items in the household that maybreak ect?

Just curious as to where the OP's responsiblity as a landlord in this case.

Seriously? Is it stupidity at this point?

RasTa

So you want your bf to pay your mortgage?

Wabbit Ears

The BF defacto pays part of the mortgage even if he doesn't do it directly.

Ill say it again, all monies spent in the relationship towards the household count. If the mortgage goes out of her account and the bills out of his, doesn't matter, if it goes to court they will look at all monies spent and divide that way.

endacl

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

The BF defacto pays part of the mortgage even if he doesn't do it directly.

Ill say it again, all monies spent in the relationship towards the household count. If the mortgage goes out of her account and the bills out of his, doesn't matter, if it goes to court they will look at all monies spent and divide that way.

You know? I think you could sit some people down and do a really simple presentation that a ten year old would get. You could use really small words. You could draw pictures for them. In crayon. And it still wouldn't penetrate.

athtrasna

Mod note

I'm sure the OP wasn't expecting such a flood of strong reactions as have appeared on this thread.

Please remain civil and mindful of the forum charter at all times. The charter can be found in a sticky on the front page of this forum if you have any doubts.

endacl

endacl wrote: »

It's not semantics though. It's fact.
How you see things has no bearing on legal reality.

Can you show me anywhere that states that the BF is not a licensee of the OP. Because he is.

This get a bit more complex after 5 years because the law is stupid but up to that point what is the difference between a friend or stranger renting a room and the bf renting a room as a licensee.

The op would for instance be still expected to make a tax return on the income and declare it exempt under the rent a room scheme.

endacl

Cameron Hollow Reversal wrote: »

Can you show me anywhere that states that the BF is not a licensee of the OP. Because he is.
.

No. I've wasted enough time on this already. How about you go on away now and find something that states he would be?

A bit of googling might distract you from being wrong for a while.

K.Flyer

I think the O.P. should just go and seek the advise of a solicitor familiar with the Family Home Protection Act and how she can protect her interest in her home should the relationship run into problems down the road. (Which I hope it doesn't.)

Wabbit Ears

the boyfriend is not a licensee because he is her boyfriend, not her licensee. The answer really is in the names

A licensee can become a boyfriend/Girlfriend and, in this scenario, the status changes as they are now intimate and living together as a couple.

Also, If the relationship were to end, The Boyfriend/Girlfriend could continue to live there in separate rooms as a licensee.

CelticRambler

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

There really is no nice way to explain 'protecting your financial interests' you are reducing your partner to less than a guest in his own home.

When that phrase "protecting (my) interests" appears in conversations about a couple's relationship, there's something not right.

Meaning no offence to you, OP, there's something that looks "a bit off" to me about this situation. You're quite happy (desperate, even) to commit to a 25-year relationship with your bank, but not sure about your commitment to this guy ... so why are you even living with him?

OK, so maybe it's part of the finding-out process, but in that case, you're about to indulge one of your long-held dreams and he's not part of it (except as a paying guest). You say that he'll have a better lifestyle (more space, less expense) but after not-even two years together, how do you know whether that really matters to him, that he's not saying what he needs to to keep your dream alive, or that he knows what he wants himself?

As for the legalities of written and unwritten agreements: not worth the paper they're written on. When I met MrsCR-to-be, she was about to become an impoverished mature student and needed somewhere cheap to rent. I was a well-paid new graduate in a job-with-accommodation who wanted a place of my own.

So MrsCR house-hunted, found a place that suited her and I bought it, 100% in my name. A year later, we married, went on to have a family and then sold up to move to France. On paper, she would have been entitled to 50% of the value of the house, but whaddyaknow, the rules in France aren't exactly the same, so for the price of a ferry ticket and a declaration that we were permanent residents, the house (or value thereof) became mine, all mine! :pac:

That was after ten years living together, but MrsCR seemed happy enough because I/we were re-investing the proceeds in the joint purchase of our new house. Just like Wabbit Ears, though, it's an inequality that keeps being dragged into the light two decades later. You've hardly had time to have a proper row yet! :cool: