[LifeisGood]

Originally Posted by Punkchick

When my now husband and I bought our first house it was my £50K that was put down as a deposit. With this in mind we went to a solicitor and got a contract drawn up that said in the event of a break up I would recieve the first £50k of any money made from the sale of the house and any more after that would be split 50/50 as we would both be paying the mortgage equally. My now husband had no problems with that, in fact he actively encouraged me to sort it out. We were only 21/22 at the time and were well aware that being so young things could go wrong, I had seen it with my two older sisters when they got divorced. That contract is now not valid as over the years he has paid back half the deposit so we are even. 13 years later and we are still very happy and now married. I think if one partner does contribute substantially more than the other it is only sensible to protect yourself. My husband never saw it as me not committing fully to the relationship or any of that nonsense, he asked for it to show how committed he was, and he wasn't just after my money.

As I understand it, the OP's house is in his name only, rather than the house being in joint names. His girlfriend has no rights over the house whether they are in a relationship or not.

[Rhymin' Simon]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

If a man I loved and was considering living with told me that it was a pre-nup or nothing, I'd take nothing and find someone who had more faith in the relationship lasting. If a man thought that protecting the value of an asset was more important than placing trust in my commitment to the relationship then it wouldn't be a relationship worth pursuing. And that goes for my own assets.

You make a commitment to it 100% or you don't bother.

True dat. Oh yes.

[academia]

Originally Posted by saladcream

I have a mate who moved his girlfriend into his house - that he bought on his own. and he asked her for a few hundered quid a month towards the mortgage bills etc...

when they split up she tried saying that she wanted everything she had paid back...as she had been paying his mortgage off for him.

did she expect to live for free?

A few hundred a month is a substantial amount. And she was in fact contributing to the mortgage. What did he expect - that she should kick in and get nothing back? What was the outcome legally?
But that story, if absolutely accurate, should be a warning to young women about being over casual in the financial arrangements. You can end up paying out over and over and in the end discover you are homeless, broke, and don't have a leg to stand on.

[bookaddict]

deleted

[c4rv]

Originally Posted by academia

A few hundred a month is a substantial amount. And she was in fact contributing to the mortgage. What did he expect - that she should kick in and get nothing back? What was the outcome legally?
But that story, if absolutely accurate, should be a warning to young women about being over casual in the financial arrangements. You can end up paying out over and over and in the end discover you are homeless, broke, and don't have a leg to stand on.

But I guess the argument is that she would have been paying that in rent and seen nothing for the return anyway.

[Jerrica09]

Originally Posted by c4rv

But I guess the argument is that she would have been paying that in rent and seen nothing for the return anyway.

But if he was her landlord as well as her boyfriend he should have made that clear.

[Little Nell]

Originally Posted by academia

A few hundred a month is a substantial amount. And she was in fact contributing to the mortgage. What did he expect - that she should kick in and get nothing back? What was the outcome legally?
But that story, if absolutely accurate, should be a warning to young women about being over casual in the financial arrangements. You can end up paying out over and over and in the end discover you are homeless, broke, and don't have a leg to stand on.

The argument would be that this gave her a beneficial interest in the house and therefore she's entitled to a share in it. After all, it's relatuively common for couples (married or not) to have an arrangement whereby one pays the mortgage and the other takes care of the bills. They both have a stake in the house even though only one is making direct payments - and regardless of whose name's on it.

If it's a landlord of course it's different, but that needs to be a formal arrangement.

[c4rv]

Originally Posted by Jerrica09

But if he was her landlord as well as her boyfriend he should have made that clear.

that goes back the original point that people don't discuss breakup situation when first getting together. Nobody is going to say that if you move in then even if you pay any money towards the house, you won't get any money from if we breakup.

[CRTHD]

Originally Posted by Rusty Sheriff

I moved into a 2 bed semi and fronted up a large deposit (£30k) 10 months ago.

I am now worried that I have no pre-nup agreement, if anything goes t**s up!

Any ideas how I go about one, or whether she would be entitled to anything should we split.

No kids involved, and no contribution except odd bits like a pint of milk etc as she is still at college and not earning a full time wage

Just keep everything in your name (including utility bills). Is she "paying" / registered for, council tax at your address or another? If she's registered elsewhere I would keep it that way. Just brief her that if the council come knocking, she tells them that doesn't live there, she's only visiting from her parents place / whatever. (She'll understand that you're just trying to save a few quid).

Keep records of all the costs attributable to running the home and who paid them. When filling forms in, always consider what "picture these would paint" if they are ever called on to establish your "lodgers" status (In case you need evidence if things do turn nasty).

In a few years, when she gets the "big" job and you look to up-scale, that is the time to consider the pre-nup (or whatever the correct terminology is) to protect the value of the deposit, which will no-doubt come from your equity.

Whatever you do, don't mention pre-nup at this stage, otherwise your "benefits" will dry-up.

Of course if she "falls pregnant" (oh, how did that happen?) you're screwed.

[Punkchick]

Originally Posted by LifeisGood

As I understand it, the OP's house is in his name only, rather than the house being in joint names. His girlfriend has no rights over the house whether they are in a relationship or not.

I understand that, what I was getting at is all those people who think if you do anything like what I did, you are not in a proper relationship. Well sorry my case proves that to be wrong. Yes love is grand, doesn't always stay that way, even in the most solid of relationships. If my OH and I had split up I could have been £25K out of pocket, would those saying that having a prior legal agreement is not what relationships are about be happy with that? I doubt it, a lot of people here seem very tight indeed. I can see the threads now, with my ex stole £25K off me.

[technology_love]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

If a man I loved and was considering living with told me that it was a pre-nup or nothing, I'd take nothing and find someone who had more faith in the relationship lasting. If a man thought that protecting the value of an asset was more important than placing trust in my commitment to the relationship then it wouldn't be a relationship worth pursuing. And that goes for my own assets.

You make a commitment to it 100% or you don't bother.

I'm sorry but thats a 100% emotional response.

So, if you went into a relationship and coughed up £50k towards a deposit and your marriage went belly up, you'd have no problem with your soon to be ex-spouse automatcally getting half of it? If so then great, very nice of you to do so. Others like me would not be happy with that.

Its very easy to say have faith. People change when divorce happens.

[Ash_735]

I wonder how different this thread would be if the OP started with "I'm a strong and Independent Woman who's bought and House and have recently started dating some bum of a guy..."

[1965Wolf]

This is an extremely complex area of law. I know because one of my partners is an expert in it.

I am amazed at how so many on here are giving such emphatic advice from a standpoint of sheer ignorance.

To answer the OP-get some sound legal advice from a solicitor who knows what he/she is talking about. Otherwise, it could all end in tears.

[technology_love]

Originally Posted by 1965Wolf

This is an extremely complex area of law. I know because one of my partners is an expert in it.

I am amazed at how so many on here are giving such emphatic advice from a standpoint of sheer ignorance.

To answer the OP-get some sound legal advice from a solicitor who knows what he/she is talking about. Otherwise, it could all end in tears.

Hear hear.

[Beau_Soir]

Originally Posted by technology_love

Hear hear.

Agree with this,its utter madness. I'm sure if you asked most people that were divorced, very few would say that they weren't 100% committed going into the relationship and yet they still ended up divorced. Sh*t happens, that's life, but why should you have to foot the bill for that?

[Jerrica09]

Originally Posted by Ash_735

I wonder how different this thread would be if the OP started with "I'm a strong and Independent Woman who's bought and House and have recently started dating some bum of a guy..."

It's not comparable. He isn't calling his partner useless is he? She's a student. Presumably if they stay together she'll go into work when she's finished at college then finances will be more shared.

I mentioned in this thread about a neighbour of mine who works in the law and lost her marital house to her ex in their divorce.

If she had started a thread asking if she should be protecting her money I bet a lot of posters would be annoyed with her - double standards, evil feminists, etc.

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

If a man I loved and was considering living with told me that it was a pre-nup or nothing, I'd take nothing and find someone who had more faith in the relationship lasting. If a man thought that protecting the value of an asset was more important than placing trust in my commitment to the relationship then it wouldn't be a relationship worth pursuing. And that goes for my own assets.

You make a commitment to it 100% or you don't bother.

That was exactly my attitude when I got married as a houseowner to a girl that rented a flat.

Twelve years later, when we divorced, I realized what a mistake it was. People change, and the fact that the relationship was more important to you than material possession seems a bit by the by when the relationship is gone and most of your material possessions with it.

[technology_love]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

That was exactly my attitude when I got married as a houseowner to a girl that rented a flat.

Twelve years later, when we divorced, I realized what a mistake it was. People change, and the fact that the relationship was more important to you than material possession seems a bit by the by when the relationship is gone and most of your material possessions with it.

Sorry to hear that buddy.

But thank you also for posting - it shows what can happen.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by technology_love

I'm sorry but thats a 100% emotional response.

So, if you went into a relationship and coughed up £50k towards a deposit and your marriage went belly up, you'd have no problem with your soon to be ex-spouse automatcally getting half of it? If so then great, very nice of you to do so. Others like me would not be happy with that.

Its very easy to say have faith. People change when divorce happens.

Yes it's an emotional response - what other response can there be to the most intimate relationship in your life. It's not a business deal, it's an emotional exchange.


As for people changing when divorce happens, I've been divorced. I've also lived with someone for a number of years that I didn't marry. I'm now happily remarried. In all three cases I made 100% commitment to the relationship because I trusted my own judgement about the sort of person I was getting involved with. I put everything I had into the relationship including what assets and cash I had at the time. I'm no worse off now as a result of it.

[CitySlicker]

Love is love. A home is usually purchased with a mortgage and there's no mention of love in your contract with the bank. When it's clear one party has a substantial (or entire) hand in the property you'd be daft if you think love conquers all because whilst we all plan for love ever after, the only two certainties in life are death and taxes.

I talked about this openly and honestly at the time this was an issue with me, and made it clear this wasn't about planning for a break-up but rather setting both of our expectations. At the same point we decided how bills would be paid and who would be responsible for what.

It isn't as clear as saying not married equals diddly squat, as some have said. You'd be wise getting legal advice, or at least having a look at this excellent document - http://static.advicenow.org.uk/files...s-2010-867.pdf It's entirely possible for your girlfriend to gain a 'beneficial interest' in the property and without you both setting your stalls out now, one of you could be in for a nasty surprise if the worst should happen.

There has been a lot of recent case law, and all signs are pointing towards the law being sympathetic to fair, balanced agreements. The Law Society is due to complete its findings into premarital agreements this autumn also. I think it is very wise to separate love from what is essentially a business arrangement, and whilst it is hard for some people to do so, money does not know the value of love. People seem to have a big stigma in understanding this point though, much like writing a will - people often associate wills with being morbid and about death, but they can save a heck of a lot of trouble years down the line.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

That was exactly my attitude when I got married as a houseowner to a girl that rented a flat.

Twelve years later, when we divorced, I realized what a mistake it was. People change, and the fact that the relationship was more important to you than material possession seems a bit by the by when the relationship is gone and most of your material possessions with it.

The material possessions were the least important thing I had to lose. I came out of my first marriage knowing I'd given it my all, sad that it had ended but happy that when I met someone else that I trusted and respected I'd make the same commitment again.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by CitySlicker

Love is love. A home is usually purchased with a mortgage and there's no mention of love in your contract with the bank. When it's clear one party has a substantial (or entire) hand in the property you'd be daft if you think love conquers all because whilst we all plan for love ever after, the only two certainties in life are death and taxes.

I talked about this openly and honestly at the time this was an issue with me, and made it clear this wasn't about planning for a break-up but rather setting both of our expectations. At the same point we decided how bills would be paid and who would be responsible for what.

It isn't as clear as saying not married equals diddly squat, as some have said. You'd be wise getting legal advice, or at least having a look at this excellent document - http://static.advicenow.org.uk/files...s-2010-867.pdf It's entirely possible for your girlfriend to gain a 'beneficial interest' in the property and without you both setting your stalls out now, one of you could be in for a nasty surprise if the worst should happen.

There has been a lot of recent case law, and all signs are pointing towards the law being sympathetic to fair, balanced agreements. The Law Society is due to complete its findings into premarital agreements this autumn also. I think it is very wise to separate love from what is essentially a business arrangement, and whilst it is hard for some people to do so, money does not know the value of love. People seem to have a big stigma in understanding this point though, much like writing a will - people often associate wills with being morbid and about death, but they can save a heck of a lot of trouble years down the line.

Marriage is a contract but it's not a business arrangement - it involves merging your life and household with another human beings. It doesn't involve choosing which bits of your life you are prepared to merge. It doesn't involve setting aside some assets of your own just in case. The marriage ceremony recognises this 'all that I am I give to you, with all my worldly goods I thee endow'. So what you are talking about falls far short of marriage.

[CitySlicker]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

Marriage is a contract but it's not a business arrangement - it involves merging your life and household with another human beings. It doesn't involve choosing which bits of your life you are prepared to merge. It doesn't involve setting aside some assets of your own just in case. The marriage ceremony recognises this 'all that I am I give to you, with all my worldly goods I thee endow'. So what you are talking about falls far short of marriage.

I don't think it falls short of marriage at all. Nowhere in any ceremony does it rule out the right to revoke your 'worldly goods' should the crap hit the fan, and if marriage is as sacred as you say then why are there so many divorces? Surely your argument is bringing the whole divorce arena into question now, you're not about to say divorce should be outlawed are you?

[Rusty Sheriff]

Originally Posted by academia

What you are in is a friends-with-benefits situation, not a relationship. You want to be her landlord, not her partner, to be able to sling her out and make her homeless at any time you like. Your sneering remark that her sole contribution to this 'relationship' is the odd pint of milk says a great deal about you. Wait and see - the first time you have a major row you'll be taunting her with remarks like that and if she has any gumption whatsoever, she'll go anyway and relieve you of all your worries.

What I cannot understand is why you moved her in in the first place. You don't think much of her and you have no faith in the relationship. What you seem to be saying is that what you have is yours and you want to keep it - which is fair enough - I dare say you worked hard enough to get it. But since that is your attitude, why on earth move her in? The surest way to gurantee your sole pssession of everyhting is to live alone and see your GF outside of it.

The one who should be worrying here is your girlfriend.

This like a few other posts is very shallow minded. I haven;t stated how long I've been in a relationship. I am not after a permanent pre-nup style agreement.

Would you be happy to save up more than the average persons yearly salary and then suddenly lose half of it because your partner decides to split up?

Wanting to protect my assets isn't shallow. There are plenty of people who wouldn't have their spouses insured on their cars because he/she may cause damage. Yet losing 15k to someone you're not married to is a gamble worth taking?

Of course I hope to never have to split up, but isn't every relationship like that?

And her contribution of a pint of milk, was an example as in she will pop to the shop on the way home for me. Her wages of £160 a month don't help massively, but the thought and principle is much appreciated.

I feel sorry for you and any partner you have seeing as you are a very shallow minded person, or perhaps I should aspire to be like you as you act like £15k is not a sum you would mind losing in a situation that could potentially be out of your control.

[alfster]

Originally Posted by orangebird

You're not married, so she's entitled to nothing. End.

Don;t bet on it a good lawyer could get something off the OP.

Happened to a mate to the point that he couldn't sell his house until he;d paid up.

Ex said she had been contributing to bills etc but she hadn;t as she had a huge overdraft.

Try for a pre-nup if you think it would give more security.