Mortgage Paid, Partner Wants Rent

Dial Hard

Big Bag of Chips wrote:

Of course it matters! Paying rent is classed as a business arrangement rather than a personal contribution to the household. If you pay rent you have no entitlement to any claim to the house. Ever. If so wouldn't a huge portion of renters be applying to court for their stake in the houses they've been renting for a period?

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. There's a huge difference between a tenant-landlord relationship and a cohabiting couple, regardless of whether or not "rent" is paid. If, in five years time, the OP and her boyfriend break up, the fact that she paid him "rent" would have absolutely no bearing on any of her rights under the Cohabitation Bill.

However...

That's a separate issue to what's *actually* at play here, imo. They need to have a very frank and honest conversation about finances in general and about the house specifically before they even think any further about moving in together.

Sarn

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Of course it matters! Paying rent is classed as a business arrangement rather than a personal contribution to the household. If you pay rent you have no entitlement to any claim to the house. Ever. If so wouldn't a huge portion of renters be applying to court for their stake in the houses they've been renting for a period?

Paying rent does not prevent a claim to the house unless both sides have received legal advice and have a contract waiving rights to the cohabitation scheme. For example, if she ended up pregnant by him while living together, the fact that they would have a child together would indicate a relationship and simply paying rent would not remove rights under the scheme.

I don't think any renter would consider that they would have a stake in a house when they are not in a committed relationship with their LL.

Big Bag of Chips

Dial Hard wrote: »

If, in five years time, the OP and her boyfriend break up, the fact that she paid him "rent" would have absolutely no bearing on any of her rights under the Cohabitation Bill.

Rights to the house isn't automatic though. And if she looked for a claim to the house she would have to prove that she contributed to the mortgage or the purchase price of the house. Or to the maintenance and upkeep of the house with a view to having a claim to a portion of the house, and not as a gift to the owner.

All that aside, they really need to sit down and talk to each other about where they see the relationship going and what the plans are for future finances.

amtc

Like I stated before it depends if it's seen as his house or their house. Personally it sounds as if it's convenient rather than moving towards permanent. In that case he's well entitled to ask for rent. If it's as a prelude to marriage not so. I have a neighbour whose mortgage was paid off due to both his parents unfortunately passing away, but his girlfriend paid rent until they got engaged.

threetrees

I'd be far more concerned that after 18 months he hasn't been open enough to tell you he owns his house and that he didn't correct you when you said you'd contribute to the mortgage. A person who seeks rent in a settled longish term relationship on a house that is mortgage free? Alarm bells not wedding bells are ringing.

K_P

K_P wrote: »

He's had his house bought for him or mortgage paid off by, I assume, parents.

There is no age mentioned in the OP - they could both be pensioners for all we know.

Hannibal_Smith

mikeybrennan wrote: »

I wouldn't say who said it

Never a good idea

I'm going on the premise of an open and Frank conversation. I hear you have no mortgage repayments, are you being honest with me? But I can't tell you who told me that. Is a bit double standard.

Lu Tze

For those saying she shouldn't be paying rent if there is no mortgage, if a large repair become apparent 2 months down the line (roof works etc.) And she isn't paying rent, should she be contributing half the repair cost as her contribution towards upkeep?

Mug82

Mug82 wrote: »

I guessed he still had a mortgage so said I would help out and he said I could throw him €400 a month. We agreed splitting bills too. I've found out this week that he has no mortgage.

threetrees wrote: »

I'd be far more concerned that after 18 months he hasn't been open enough to tell you he owns his house and that he didn't correct you when you said you'd contribute to the mortgage. A person who seeks rent in a settled longish term relationship on a house that is mortgage free?

The word rent never came into their conversation according to the OP, he didn't seek anything, the OP offered "to contribute" and he said she could "throw in" €400 a month. Maybe she's contributing to a sinking fund for the house or maybe he's just assuming she would be more comfortable contributing!

And MAYBE the information the OP got from "snooping" is incorrect.

Mug82 wrote: »

I'm happy where I am now and not paying a whole lot more but this would be next stage in our relationship and feels right in every other way.

OP, just talk to him. I do understand that that conversation about finances can be difficult but people should not move in together without having it. If you truly believe that your partner is the kind of person to try to make money off you then, presumably, you wouldn't be moving in with him.

skallywag

I don't think that this is as clear cut as some are making out, best illustrated by way of a real life example.

I have a friend (just turned 40) who recently cleared his mortgage, he had quite a wedge of savings and also came into a lump of money through redundancy, but was lucky enough to move to a new job immediately. Imagine a hypothetical case that he now moves his partner into the house within the near future. On the one hand it could be argued that his partner should not pay a 'rent' etc as there is no outstanding mortgage on the property. On the other hand, if he had not decided to pay it off, and had kept what amounted ca 200K in his savings account, then it could then be equally argued that he would be fully entitled to ask his partner to contribute to the mortgage.

Dixie Chick

18 months is a long time to be with someone and not know if they have a mortgage on their house or not isnt it? I mean, would these things not come up in conversation?


OP, whatever the case may be, do not get into a living situation with someone where you do not know all the facts etc. He indeed has every right to protect his asset but if that is his MO with the rental situation and ye are a strong couple then he should tell you this.

I think ti would be strange for him to make money from the situation, if that is his aim then I would be running.

LegacyUser

skallywag wrote: »

I don't think that this is as clear cut as some are making out, best illustrated by way of a real life example.

I have a friend (just turned 40) who recently cleared his mortgage, he had quite a wedge of savings and also came into a lump of money through redundancy, but was lucky enough to move to a new job immediately. Imagine a hypothetical case that he now moves his partner into the house within the near future. On the one hand it could be argued that his partner should not pay a 'rent' etc as there is no outstanding mortgage on the property. On the other hand, if he had not decided to pay it off, and had kept what amounted ca 200K in his savings account, then it could then be equally argued that he would be fully entitled to ask his partner to contribute to the mortgage.

I think this is a very good point, if the bf cleared the mortgage from his savings for example or from a gift or inheritance then the op is benefiting from his savings/gift/inheritance while saving far more herself due to paying nothing. If he left the money in an account there would be no question of paying rent but if the savings are tied up in the property people appear to think it should be rent free. Rent is the wrong term anyway, a contribution to upkeep etc would be a better term.

Another way of looking at it is if a 5k repair bill was to arise would the op be happy to pay half or would they say it's "not my house" so why should I pay half. If its the latter they should certainly be contributing monthly.

notsoyoungwan

Dixie Chick wrote: »

I think ti would be strange for him to make money from the situation, if that is his aim then I would be running.

Do you think he should be running because the op wants to make money from the situation? That's the very first reason she gave for agreeing to move in with him.

jimmycrackcorm

batmanrobin wrote:

You're splitting the bills which would also include any upkeep of the property, so him asking for €400 seems strange.

As another poster pointed out, should there be a significant repair, would the op shell out half?

Ubbquittious wrote:

He could be one of those proper stingy guys. Watch out for the tell-tale signs Grades

I think it's pretty stingy for the op to question that they should not pay for accommodation and expect to get it free.

Dixie Chick wrote:

18 months is a long time to be with someone and not know if they have a mortgage on their house or not isnt it? I mean, would these things not come up in conversation?

They could break up tomorrow so I don't know if they should be so privy to everything.

SarahMollie

This subject is something I've looked into extensively, as myslef and my OH live in a property that I own (although with a mortgage).

There are a lot of misconceptions being thrown around on this thread.

1. Without children, you have to live together for 5 years before a party can make a claim against their (ex) partners property.
2. Being able to make a claim, doesn't mean that said claim is automatically granted.
3. Where this notion that a claim is automatically 50% comes from, I have no idea. It would be based on the contributions made by the various parties during the time spent living together. Contributions don't have to be rent, it can spend on any aspect of a couples lifestyle. If the person who doesnt own the property doesnt pay rent, but instead pays for all holidays, that is a contribution to a lifestyle that both parties have enjoyed and can be seen as a contribution. Arguement being that the owner of the house, even if they paid the mortgage etc, was enjoying a better lifestyle due to having two incomes in the house.
4. Charging rent and then declaring it a business relationship, does not shield the person who owns the property.
5. What the parties brought into the relationship at the beginning is relevant.
6. Case law in this area is limited, as the legislation has only been on the books for a few years, so nothing is really certain, specific scenarios are yet to be teased out.
7. A court would also look at both parties assets, so if the person who didnt own the home had accrued significant savings because they hadnt been paying rent/paying a lower rent than they would have on their own, then the home owner has a counter claim against that amount of money.

FWIW OP, this is how myself and himself worked it out.

- My mortgage payments x12
- Management fees
- Various Insurance premiums

I totaled this amount and divided it by 2. Thats what he pays me every month, and then I pay all of the above. I was really transparent with him about how I arrived at that number. He was happy as it was a good bit less than he'd previously been paying in rent, and it meant we both got to keep a similar amount in disposable income. We also both contribute to upkeep etc.

Obviously I've invested more into it than him, deposit etc but I wouldn't feel right about charging him more to recoup money that I'd already decided to spend myself. I'm happy that our day to day expenses are basically even.

Dee01

Living with someone is very different from just going out with them. There are a large number of relationships that don't survive the moving in part.

While you're seeing if this is going to work out by moving to the next step, why should the b/f who has worked hard to buy and pay off a mortgage let the op move in rent free after a short 18 months.

The house is his and any expense that comes with it is his i.e. home insurance, property tax, broken heating, washing machine, new paint, kitchen repair..... the list goes on. Splitting utilities and shopping is standard and op would still be paying more rent if she was anywhere else. IMO it's win win - b/f has money should something go wrong with the house and Op can save.

If engagements/marriage/kids etc. come down the line, things will be different and it's all the same money at that stage so no matter what is "paid in" it becomes joint i.e. marriage costs/kid costs/schools/new windows/moving etc.

Should you break up, op has paid small rent for a period of time which will hopefully mean they have stash themselves.If it was a randomor he'd charge a lot more (depending on where it is). For now, this is the only right thing to do as far as I'm concerned.

SarahMollie

Dee01 wrote: »

Living with someone is very different from just going out with them. There are a large number of relationships that don't survive the moving in part.

While you're seeing if this is going to work out by moving to the next step, why should the b/f who has worked hard to buy and pay off a mortgage let the op move in rent free after a short 18 months.

The house is his and any expense that comes with it is his i.e. home insurance, property tax, broken heating, washing machine, new paint, kitchen repair..... the list goes on. Splitting utilities and shopping is standard and op would still be paying more rent if she was anywhere else. IMO it's win win - b/f has money should something go wrong with the house and Op can save.

If engagements/marriage/kids etc. come down the line, things will be different and it's all the same money at that stage so no matter what is "paid in" it becomes joint i.e. marriage costs/kid costs/schools/new windows/moving etc.

Should you break up, op has paid small rent for a period of time which will hopefully mean they have stash themselves.If it was a randomor he'd charge a lot more (depending on where it is). For now, this is the only right thing to do as far as I'm concerned.

I totally agree that she should absolutely contribute but there seems to be a lack of transparency in the OP's scenario.

Perhaps a suggestion would be that her "rent" is ring-fenced to pay for something for both of them or an improvement to the house down the line if it all works out.

If they break up, then she's essentially paid (a favorable) rent and if it goes the distance, then the money could be put to some joint purpose.

DavyD_83

It sounds like it is very possible that he has other loans or expenses that this money may be going towards.
I think in reality, most people have a certain amount of on-going debts and costs to cover. If (he needs to confirm) he has paid off his mortgage, he may have done so by limiting his other costs or having car or other loans.

It does seem a little unfair, that the OP should slot into this life with no accommodation costs, when he may still be compensating for his previous spends etc.
How this is managed, and what is reasonable/fair; is purely up to an individual couple to decide.

One thing I have learned from these type of threads on Boards, is that loads of people have completely different views on money, and money in couples, marriages and families than I do.
For those saying, after 18 months, surely you'd know his mortgage details; there are married couples of many years out there who would not know these things .
I've heard of people who would still not know what their spouse earns. Only that they both contribute an agreed amount to the household and the rest is their own (however big or small that may be on each side).

Dixie Chick

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

Do you think he should be running because the op wants to make money from the situation? That's the very first reason she gave for agreeing to move in with him.

I did not look at it that way. I looked at it in that there were two people in a couple paying a rent/mortgage who could have both saved by moving in together. Then later the fact that there was no mortgage came to be known.

Lots of couples move in for financial reasons. It isn't exactly romantic but when people are together a decent bit of time, I think it makes sense from a financial point of view as well as a relationship progression one to move in.

I don't think the OP was trying to make money, more save money by moving in.

Lux23

I think I would have easier time with this story if when the OP offered €400 he said no, I think €200 would be enough. But the fact he accepted that amount straight off seems strange. You could pay all the utilities/taxes with that so he is essentially getting the OP to pay all his bills.

up for anything

I don't like the fact that he lied to you even if it was by omission about the mortgage. Not someone I'd be wanting to spend my life with.

mr_edge_to_you

Mug82 wrote: »

I've found out this week that he has no mortgage. It's all paid off. This didn't come from him but someone close to him.

Are you sure that he actually owns the house?

Seems odd after 18 months that you're not aware of each other's financial circumstances.

Halfprice

When he asked her move in should it not have been just left like that. See how things progress and if u both then feel this is right, this is what we both want and we know it will work then talk about finances? Joint saving or something?

SATSUMA

Im not sure why you wouldnt pay rent? Who lives rent free?

Pelvis

SATSUMA wrote: »

Im not sure why you wouldnt pay rent? Who lives rent free?

People who've paid off their mortgage.

PawneeRanger

Dixie Chick wrote: »

I did not look at it that way. I looked at it in that there were two people in a couple paying a rent/mortgage who could have both saved by moving in together. Then later the fact that there was no mortgage came to be known.

up for anything wrote: »

I don't like the fact that he lied to you even if it was by omission about the mortgage. Not someone I'd be wanting to spend my life with.

How is this a fact? She has not heard this from him. She has no idea what the 'facts' are.

Elessar

SarahMollie wrote: »

This subject is something I've looked into extensively, as myslef and my OH live in a property that I own (although with a mortgage).

There are a lot of misconceptions being thrown around on this thread.

1. Without children, you have to live together for 5 years before a party can make a claim against their (ex) partners property.
2. Being able to make a claim, doesn't mean that said claim is automatically granted.
3. Where this notion that a claim is automatically 50% comes from, I have no idea. It would be based on the contributions made by the various parties during the time spent living together. Contributions don't have to be rent, it can spend on any aspect of a couples lifestyle. If the person who doesnt own the property doesnt pay rent, but instead pays for all holidays, that is a contribution to a lifestyle that both parties have enjoyed and can be seen as a contribution. Arguement being that the owner of the house, even if they paid the mortgage etc, was enjoying a better lifestyle due to having two incomes in the house.
4. Charging rent and then declaring it a business relationship, does not shield the person who owns the property.
5. What the parties brought into the relationship at the beginning is relevant.
6. Case law in this area is limited, as the legislation has only been on the books for a few years, so nothing is really certain, specific scenarios are yet to be teased out.
7. A court would also look at both parties assets, so if the person who didnt own the home had accrued significant savings because they hadnt been paying rent/paying a lower rent than they would have on their own, then the home owner has a counter claim against that amount of money.

FWIW OP, this is how myself and himself worked it out.

- My mortgage payments x12
- Management fees
- Various Insurance premiums

I totaled this amount and divided it by 2. Thats what he pays me every month, and then I pay all of the above. I was really transparent with him about how I arrived at that number. He was happy as it was a good bit less than he'd previously been paying in rent, and it meant we both got to keep a similar amount in disposable income. We also both contribute to upkeep etc.

Obviously I've invested more into it than him, deposit etc but I wouldn't feel right about charging him more to recoup money that I'd already decided to spend myself. I'm happy that our day to day expenses are basically even.

Good post - also something that is not well known about the redress scheme for cohabiting couples is that your partner must also be financially dependant on you before they can make a valid claim. An other side of it though is that they cannot only claim against your property, if they satisfy the courts they can also claim maintenance orders, pension adjustment orders, attachment of earnings orders etc. And you don't even have to be married. Frightening stuff.

Anyway OP, it's all here, have a read it would be wise to know the ins and outs:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/problems_in_marriages_and_other_relationships/redress_scheme_for_cohabiting_couples.html

Big Bag of Chips

Mod Note: As the OP hasn't been back since her first post we will lock the thread.

If you want further advice, mug82, contact a PI mod directly to have the thread reopened.