Moving in girlfriend...

Heart Break Kid

May be wortgwhile looking into her rights as a cohabiting couple. If she moves in and you later split she is entitled to claim an allowance from you to maintain her standard of living. Consider a waiver that she must sign to void this entitlement.

Spanish Eyes

I suppose we are all overthinking this now and it will all be grand. How dare we say that romance has its downfalls.

Ursus Horribilis

This auld living in sin business isn't as simple as it used to be.

Nermal

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You got to live in it, didn't you?

This piece of legislation was a really bad idea, it blurred the line between marriage and casual relationships.

Ursus Horribilis

Nermal wrote: »

You got to live in it, didn't you?

This piece of legislation was a really bad idea, it blurred the line between marriage and casual relationships.

Maybe people in casual relationships shouldn't move in together?

Problem is you can't legislate for the different types of cohabiting couples. It runs the gamut from casual arrangements right up to people who've got the kids and the dog. Depending on what side of the fence you are on, it's a great piece of legislation or it's a horror story that hasn't yet been written. I wonder how many cohabitants are aware of this law?

Sierra Oscar

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well it is the case. After five years if your partner can prove s/he is or was dependent on you, it is going to happen.

I think a little balance is needed in fairness. I mean, five years is a pretty decent stretch of time all the same. If a relationship lasts five years then marriage is probably going to be on the cards regardless, especially for those in their late 20's / early 30's for when this sort of a situation arises. If you're married you face the same, if not worse, of a situation with property being split should things go south.

If the relationship ends within five years then the partner doesn't really have much of a claim on anything, assuming a child isn't involved.

Going by some of the suggestions in this thread it would seem people should never enter into relationships. That's not much craic though, is it?

gozunda wrote: »

Let out your gaff and rent someplace together and go halves on costs 50/50

That's certainly worth considering. On the other hand the OP needs to weigh up whether they want to actually be a landlord and deal with all the issues involved with that.

Also the OP could be creating a situation where the rent from the property is just covering the mortgage, and then you have to pay rent for a separate property on top of that. The alternative is for the OP to let the partner move in with him, allowing them both to save what they otherwise would be spending on rent. Who knows, maybe the saving will help with paying for a nice wedding?

Of course the OP should be aware of the implications, but keep in mind we're talking about a five year period before the redress scheme becomes applicable. If the OP doesn't feel right in the relationship three or four years down the line, then it's probably time to ask some questions regardless of the accommodation situation.

fritzelly

Just to add to the above she is also legally a tenant regardless if she is contributing to the "rent", so there is that to think about should a break up be down the road...

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

super_sweeney

Ah it all gets very confusing. It is a conversation worth having those as mature adults and seeing what the best is for both parties to protect them both best. 
I had the personal misfortune of being tired of paying crazy rent in Dublin and the gf at the time was unemployed so i decided to buy. At the time she was very upset as i wouldn't put her on the mortgage ect but the banks wouldn't have given me a mortgage if she was a dependent and also I didnt really see a reason why as she didn't contirbute to deposit nor had any intent on paying rent. She went on and on about it. The shortly before the house was ready we split and I found out she had been seeing some other dude for 9 months. I had been with her for two years so clearly thought she was legit. 
But in hindsight one has to ask now with all the fuss of getting on the mortgage that she was clearly just out for half the gaf... So take from that what you...

But either way an Adult conversation should be had and no one can tell you whats right and wrong for your personal circumstances its all just opinion.

shakencat

I moved in with my other half...
He owns the house..


Living together X years, have two dogs,
I pay half mortgage, half bills and pay for refurbs or things we need etc as does he!
Whatever is needed we pay, whoever has the extra cash at that time.
We've both been randomly out of work through the years and we supported eachother, knowing it will all work out in the end..

I didn't know about the 5 year rule, but do know a child changes things, but we've decided for it (not trying to trap him! Like some would say!) - we'd also be married If we had a spare 20+k!
But we've put it into the home!


Luckily all has worked out, all the thoughts you're thinking of passed both mine and his mind too!!

We're both open and chat about it though -
And with a little one on the way it has all worked really well.

Could be the same for you trust your gut!


On another note, if things went sour, I understand it's his house..
But I know some girls see things differently.
Let's hope you don't have one of them...

Peregrinus

shakencat wrote: »

I moved in with my other half...
He owns the house..


Living together 4 years, have two dogs,
I pay half mortgage, half bills and pay for refurbs or things we need etc as does he!
Whatever is needed we pay, whoever has the extra cash at that time.

On another note, if things went sour, I understand it's his house..

You're part-paying for him to buy a house for himself? That's extremely generous of you. I hope he's properly appreciative of it.

shakencat wrote: »

But I know some girls are mad bats and would fight for it!!

There's a large middle ground between "women who are not as recklessly generous as shakencat" and "mad bats".

super_sweeney

You're part-paying for him to buy a house for himself?  That's extremely generous of you.  I hope he's properly appreciative of it.  

I am always puzzled when people say this.... isnt that what rent is yet we dont mind doing that? Like surely its better to pay more than likely less to someone you know than some poor random landlord? and also live seperately...

shakencat

I've changed the wording on that

Also, the mortgage is less than average rent, so I am paying less than 'the norm'

Peregrinus

super_sweeney wrote: »

I am always puzzled when people say this.... isnt that what rent is yet we dont mind doing that? Like surely its better to pay more than likely less to someone you know than some poor random landlord? and also live seperately...

There's a big difference between "paying rent", and "paying half the mortgage and half the refurbs".

It seems to me that you and he are jointly paying the cost of buying this house, but he gets to own it.

Which, as I say, I'm not criticising; it's very generous of you, but we do generous things for people we love.

It's just I think it's worth noting that it is very generous of you. And, while we can applaud your generosity, I don't think we can assume that other people who pay off mortgages in this way are intending to make a similarly generous gift, or that if they aren't we can call them "mad bats".

(And, yeah, I acknowledge that you have thought better of that particular phrase.)

super_sweeney

yeah thats fair enough everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 
My view being a home owner is that i have taken the financial risk and put my savings ect and out myself at risk taking the mortgage out. I would by no means expect someone to pay half if I met someone and they wanted to move in. but 2 points. 
1. If we did agree on a some "rent" then i would not think this would entitle them to anything at the end. (just my view)
2. If we could not come to an agreement on it. I would simply just remain living separate. For me if your not willing to share a portion of cost with the person your seeing then perhaps we should live separate. Until we can both afford to buy a new place where we split deposits/ costs there and then there would be equal ownership and equal Financial Responsibility. 
For me those are the two routes. Of course there are exceptions.... but thats a different discussion.

FishOnABike

shakencat wrote: »

I didn't know about the 5 year rule, but do know a child changes things, but we've decided for it (not trying to trap him! Like some would say!) - we'd also be married If we had a spare 20+k!

It doesn't have to cost 20+k to get married. Marriage fees / costs start at €200

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/getting_married/civil_marriage_ceremony.html
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/1/bdm/MarriagesinIreland/Fees.html

after that it's just a question of how much you want to pay for a party or how much you want to put to building your lives together.

shakencat

I could very easily say, ok..

He pays the mortgage, and I pay for food and bills..

Either way, payment has to be made!!

shakencat

Ah I understand that it can be alot cheaper, not disputing that!!

And yes, we've decided the money go into the home..
And we will marry down the line..

As I said..

It has worked for us and we will have a family soon,
I know/understand it's not the same for every one

Peregrinus

shakencat wrote: »

I could very easily say, ok..

He pays the mortgage, and I pay for food and bills..

Either way, payment has to be made!!

And either way the result is the same. Either you pay some of the mortgage directly, or you bear different costs that he would otherwise discharge, thus enabling him to make mortage payments that otherwise wouldn't be possible, or at least would be much more painful for him. Same outcome; you're subsidising his purchase of the house.

Look, you say it works for the two of you and that, ultimately, is the only test that matters. But generalising to other couples, I'd suggest there are two rules.

One: you need to talk about this, to ensure that the two of you have the same understanding about how this is going to work. If you don't have a shared understanding, it certainly won't work for you as a couple, and you may find that out the hard way.

Two: you need to keep this under review as your relationships and your circumstances change. It's one thing to move in with your current Reason For Living and pay them rent for six months or a year, at a time in life when you would otherwise be renting a small flat or a room in a share house, and you don't know where you'll be in 12 or 24 months. But four or five years down the line, when you're still together and intending to make it permanent, you've paid a substantial amount cumulatively. But for your relationship, you would probably now be looking to save for or be actually a couple of years into buying your own place, but instead you're paying someone else's mortgage. At that point it's reasonable to ask whether, as a couple, you should be continuing jointly to carry the cost of buying a house which only one of you will own. Is it now appropriate to think about re-jigging the arrangement to one where you will jointly carry the cost of buying a house which you will own in equal shares, or in shares proportionate to your respective contributions to the cost? That would look like an arrnagement more appropriate to the circumstances in which the couple now are.

To an extent, this decision is made for the couple, since if they break up after five years together (or if they have a child) then all the assets of both of them are "in play"; the court can divide them up however it thinks fit, having regard to their circumstances and needs. But of course that only comes into play if the couple break up; if one of them dies, for instance, the property outcomes may be very different from what they would have wanted, had they thought about it.

So, yeah, couples who are together for the long haul and whose financial affairs are so closely intertwined so that they are, in effect, jointly bearing the costs of a mortgage on the house they both live in, really need to think hard about who ought to own a house purchased in this way. But, I stress, it's the couple who ought to think about this, and the solution that works for them is the right solution, even if it's not the solution that others might like.

beertons

I knew of a guy who met a girl, she moved in quickly, got pregnant, moved out a year and a day later. He had to sell the house, give her half. She did this to 2 other guys, once before him, once more after. Exactly a year and a day for all. This all happened from 2003/2004, but it always stuck with me.

Peregrinus

Curious. There is no legal significance to the "year and a day" period. And you say she was doing this years before the 2010 legislation which gave cohabitants the right to seek property adjustment orders on the breakdown of the relationship? So, on what basis did this guys have to sell their houses and give her half?

Did this by any chance happen in a country other than Ireland?

super_sweeney

wow you always hear strange stories its a shame the ladies generally get the bad name. But to reassur the original poster. I dated a girl for 7 years and we lived together for a bit and when it ended neither us wanted anything from the other.  Where as she could have looked for half my savings as she was i college and i was working and i think.... think being the key term that due to the fact we were together so long she was entitled to half but there was no badness we just went our separate ways.. to young and all that

beertons

Peregrinus wrote: »

Did this by any chance happen in a country other than Ireland?

All happened in Dublin. Guys had to sell their houses. All broken men after it.

Interested Observer

Just referring back to the OP, of course she should pay her way. Why on earth should she live rent-free with you paying for the both of you? I assume she earns a wage?

sbsquarepants

When I moved my missus in years ago, I just told her out straight - I'm going to pay the whole mortgage myself you're staying with me, not renting a room - if things go tits up I expect you pack up and leave without too much fuss.

I know that has no legal standing and you can't be sure how people will behave in times of stress - but she's a girlfriend, not a business partner - you can't enter into these things trying to minimise the fall out from their failure , that will just become a self fulfilling prophecy.
If you think this girl would be the type to screw you over, maybe get a different girl!

12 years and 3 kids later - it's as good as hers now anyway.
Thankfully she lets me stay on the couch!:D

.......

This post has been deleted.

Interested Observer

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eh?

Owner occupied rentals are very common. The landlord can get tax relief on them and you don't need to register with the PRTB. Tenants don't get to claim a chunk of your house.

.......

This post has been deleted.

bucketybuck

Wesser wrote: »

Half of the mortgage plus half of the bills

Equals half of the house.

super_sweeney

bucketybuck wrote: »

Wesser wrote: »

Half of the mortgage plus half of the bills

Equals half of the house.

so i assume your including half the deposit in that half also

Addle

beertons wrote: »

All happened in Dublin. Guys had to sell their houses. All broken men after it.

And she has 3 kids.
Hardly worth it IMO.