moving girlfriend in?

[lsg1r]

I explained all of that in the full post - you have only quoted one bit. Go back and read it properly.

I did and I think you need to read my post better, I didn't feel like quoting a massive block of text

But I'll summarise:

I paid for house - it's mine
No reason for her to change her career etc
No children involved
Her money is her's she can spend it how she likes
Not my fault if she doesn't think about the future - we'll have talked about it because we're a couple.....

Remember the op is moving someone in, they're not married. But yes that would still be my view if I was married... the same would apply if I moved into someone elses house, if they had paid for it then it's theirs, I would have the choice to purchase my own house. Ideal solution if both parties own a house is new house while renting old ones out...

And before you go on about this being male orientated.... woman have been after equality for centuries so until there are children involved they have the same choices as men in my view.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

I got a load of grief from my parents twenty three years ago when I moved my girlfriend in after three weeks of seeing her, lots of the "she will take half of your house" comments. We are still married and have been for twenty one years. So it can work out. Of course it is much more likely that she will take you to the cleaners Pretty sure my wife is just waiting for the optimum payout moment before she does

Exactly. Things can and do work out at times, it's not all doom and gloom.

But you are completely justified in airing your concerns op. I suggest you speak to a lawyer and don't take legal advice from a forum haha.

 

[the shadow]

 

[Ragnahex]

there are too many posts about how things should happen in this post. See a solicitor get her to sign a document. This is the only way you can be totally sure

 

[cheesyboy]

.

It's unrealistic to think that an asset like a mortgage-free house can be held by one party in a relationship and not affect the spending and lifestyle decisions therein.

As much as anything, your position is such that your partner would be expected to finance her own asset accrual whilst you are able to have the head-start of a property.

That's fine - you paid for it. But it's a very asymmetric setup within the relationship, which strikes me as adding pressures which don't need to be there.

I guess I struggle to relate, as all the money my wife and I earn is shared entirely. I earn a lot more than her, exacerbated by her 3/5ths part-time hours, but it was not always so: she out-earned me by about 70% a few years ago when we first bought a house together.

And before you go on about this being male orientated.... woman have been after equality for centuries so until there are children involved they have the same choices as men in my view.

Except that demographics say otherwise: women tend to be the younger party in relationships, and earn less in any case. That's a significant factor when we are balancing the relationship books. They are then expected to sacrifice earnings to have children and (usually) be the prime carer.

The differences in the sexes means that "fairness" and "equality" don't actually mean there is to be identical treatment

 

[LordSplodge]

Act in haste, repent at leisure. You should get to know somebody and not rush things. That's my advice, and has worked well for my relationships.

I referred to the potential bias towards misogyny on these forums because of the population demographics (young, male) in threads before but sometimes, especially in threads like this I think there must something in the water...

 

[LordSplodge]

Since when has two people moving in together meant one of them had to sacrifice their career etc.

Besides if she's living with someone she has the spare money to put some aside, I'd be doing it and I'd be recommending she did to, it wouldn't be my fault if she wants to spend it all on clothes and holidays, which would be a shared expense and something you could as the other half say no to....

Usually, when a couple move in together and commit to a serious relationship and/or get married there is a likelihood of children becoming part of that relationship making a family - the normal next step. Here the woman is the one who gives up her career to look after the child.

In this scenario if the relationship breaks down I'd expect some form of recompense to be allowed for both mother and child. Obviously this can be abused but that isn't the norm. I'd also expect my child to be the priority for having a roof over its head.

Given that most women earn less than men the scenario of them having the means to purchase property or get a good pension isn't going to be as probable as that of a male. I have no qualms providing a pension for my wife who hasn't the means and seeing as she spent years raising our child that seems fair. She can't take all the house neither as we both agreed to legally making 50% of it go to our son. We recognised that he needs protecting should be have a less than amicable divorce.

Unlikely as we have been married for decades and have a grandchild we dote over but not impossible. However during all of our relationship we openly and careful discus issues that could cause problems.

 

[lsg1r]

It's unrealistic to think that an asset like a mortgage-free house can be held by one party in a relationship and not affect the spending and lifestyle decisions therein.

Personally I don't see it as being unrealistic....

As much as anything, your position is such that your partner would be expected to finance her own asset accrual whilst you are able to have the head-start of a property.

That's fine - you paid for it. But it's a very asymmetric setup within the relationship, which strikes me as adding pressures which don't need to be there.

why is it adding pressure... I bought a house out of my money, meaning I had to finance it myself etc. Why should a person who is moving in get a financial leg up without any of the hard graft. The UK seems to be heading towards an 'expect something for nothing' philosophy which is so wrong it's stupid... just look how screwed up the welfare system is.

I guess I struggle to relate, as all the money my wife and I earn is shared entirely. I earn a lot more than her, exacerbated by her 3/5ths part-time hours, but it was not always so: she out-earned me by about 70% a few years ago when we first bought a house together.

like I said if both parties had their own houses then it would be best to get another and rent out their existing properties. In your case a 50/50 split seems the most logical approach because you are 'splitting' the mortgage, when one person already owns a house and the other does not then there is no outlay to be split.

Except that demographics say otherwise: women tend to be the younger party in relationships, and earn less in any case. That's a significant factor when we are balancing the relationship books. They are then expected to sacrifice earnings to have children and (usually) be the prime carer.

Like I said if there were children it would be different, the children will always be the priority, and technically by law they have to have a place to live. I don't necessarily agree with the pay argument, it's only when you get to the very top that average wages vary by a large degree, most normal jobs where both parties are doing the same work pay the same for both men and women.

The differences in the sexes means that "fairness" and "equality" don't actually mean there is to be identical treatment

Like I said this is in reference to someone who has bought their house and the other (we assume has not). I'm sorry but in this reference there is no way I'd be giving up my house to someone else if they haven't paid anything towards it.

LordSplodge - before commenting on children please at least read my comments properly... I have said in numerous posts that the circumstances would be different if children are involved

 

[!bluetonic!]

My wife now though is the most rational person I've ever met

So far so good for me.

First long term relationship with woman with a house that my parents helped with a deposit. She left amicably. I kept the house, albeit I had to get a second job and move a spareroom bloke in.

Second long term relationship, she moved in. Loved the house, but wasn't happy that is was chosen by me and my ex.

We got married, we bought a bigger house together so we're 50-50 now.

If I did it again with hindsight, I would write an amicable contract for both of you.

 

[Surfer]

Yea, because your experiences alone are obviously proof that all women are totally crazy

of couse by the power of science

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Usually, when a couple move in together and commit to a serious relationship and/or get married there is a likelihood of children becoming part of that relationship making a family - the normal next step. Here the woman is the one who gives up her career to look after the child.

In this scenario if the relationship breaks down I'd expect some form of recompense to be allowed for both mother and child. Obviously this can be abused but that isn't the norm. I'd also expect my child to be the priority for having a roof over its head.

Given that most women earn less than men the scenario of them having the means to purchase property or get a good pension isn't going to be as probable as that of a male. I have no qualms providing a pension for my wife who hasn't the means and seeing as she spent years raising our child that seems fair. She can't take all the house neither as we both agreed to legally making 50% of it go to our son. We recognised that he needs protecting should be have a less than amicable divorce.

Unlikely as we have been married for decades and have a grandchild we dote over but not impossible. However during all of our relationship we openly and careful discus issues that could cause problems.

I don't know if it's the actual words or just the tone but something feels very off about this post. Perhaps it's just the fact that I can't relate to it at all. This isn't a dig, just thinking/typing out loud really.