Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because he shouldn't be expected to participate in paying for a mortgage from which he will get no benefit future benefit. I would think that he would likely end up covering all the cost for the utilities freeing up money for the homeowner to save or use for upgrades/repairs. If the total of the utilities is still less than the rent he was paying, perhaps he can fund the grocery bill as well.
I see your point that he's getting use of a larger home at a reduced rate, but why should he pay more for her choice of residence? Of course, we're both assuming things that may or may not be true. He may be selling a home to move in with her or currently be renting an even bigger home. Whatever the case, IMO, if he takes on the entirety of the utilities and maybe other non-house related expenses, that's a win-win for them both.
He's choosing HER and the house is part of the benefits. Along with her winning personality, blah blah! Who knows, if she lived in a dump maybe he wouldn't want to move in or marry? Just because he didn't get to pick the house himself doesn't mean he gets no benefit.
From what the OP said, when she dies the house goes to her kids. He gets to live there for as long as SHE lives or until they split up. If either of those happen his benefits abruptly end. I wouldn't consider it a very smart financial move to help someone pay for their house and then have no stake in it at all.
I would have no issues saying that my spouse would be able to stay in the house until his death. I just would not want the house to go to my spouse, who leaves it to whoever. It needs to become my children's investment.
We can brainstorm all we want, but I think a lot comes down to what the spouse wants/expects as they ultimately have to agree to whatever plan is put forth. If they are/were comfortable renting and were planning to do so forever until meeting the OP - an arrangements where they pay a portion of the mortgage (or some other chunk of expenses) might work well. If they have their own home but are childless and are selling it to move in with the OP to avoid uprooting their kids, they might be completely unwilling not to have some sort of stake in ownership if they will pay towards the mortgage. Were it me, I'd take a pretty hard stance in the latter situation.
Most of the folks I know on 2nd marriages either added the spouse to the existing mortgage/title or they both sold their homes and bought a new one together. Only exception I can think of is a couple with such whopping income disparity the new spouse didn't have anything to contribute financially anyways.
If you want to get really fancy with the math, you could probably come up with some sort of arrangements whereby they pay a portion towards the mortgage without a stake in ownership but upon death or divorce their "estimated equity" based on what they paid towards the mortgage and any appreciation in the value of the home is drawn from other assets (e.g. retirement accounts) with the home going to the children in full. If fair is the goal without the home itself ever being at stake...that is probably about as far as it could possibly get. Legally I don't know how that would work and crunching those numbers could be a pain.
You should ask him, how much he was paying before he met you for rent, that should be fair value. Split living cost down in the middle. It's not what we suggest, it's what he is willing to pay. If he barks at your suggestion, time to look for another dream man. He is a smoocher.
What if he was paying $3K/month for a luxury apartment? He should now pay that to share a house??
Why should living costs be split down the middle? Aren't a portion of those living costs attributable to the kids? Should he be paying the kids portion also?
It's my understanding that many married people (particularly second/third-timers) split expenses and assets. (We've been married 48-years, so, it's a non-issue with us). In your case, it's unclear whether you are speaking hypothetically about a potential situation ... or are having second-thoughts about an after-the-fact situation.
When I was younger, it seemed like a Pre-Nup or division of expenses/assets contradicted the marital commitment and inferred a lack of trust that should be resolved prior to marriage. Now, older and wiser, I've seen that expectations and intentions do not always work-out as expected. (You have not mentioned whether he has any assets or heirs of his own). Since your assets appear substantial, you clearly need a binding, pre-nup regarding the division of assets, in the event the 'man of your dreams' turns-out to be less than that. But, it certainly needs to be done in a way that doesn't leave him feeling like there's an implied threat hanging over his head.
Charging "rent" and splitting expenses gets stickier and depends on how much equity/ownership you really have. If your equity position is less than 50-percent, the expectation that he will not participate in 'ownership' is less reasonable than if you own the property outright. Likewise, if he will have no ownership, yet, is expected to pay 'rent', maintenance, repair and living expenses, his costs should be substantially less than yours.
--These are issues that need to be clearly worked-out to the satisfaction of both parties PRIOR to marriage. Your comment that "you want a partner and not a dependent" suggests you already have some concerns. Are these based on past experience or on him personally? Are you looking for a husband or a "renter with benefits?"
This is completely hypothetical.
The conversation started with a meeting with my attorney. But it was later fueled when a friend that went on vacation with us complained that he spent his whole paycheck on whatever, while on vacation. I lit him up because, I spent 4 times the amount that week. I paid for the lodging, theme park tickets, some of the food, gas to get there, and other stuff.
I would have no issues saying that my spouse would be able to stay in the house until his death. I just would not want the house to go to my spouse, who leaves it to whoever. It needs to become my children's investment.
That would complicate things even further. You should ask him if he'd even want to stay in the house when you die given he'd then be responsible for all the costs associated with it and then have no share in his investment. Would your kids be OK with waiting on their share of the house for years or even decades?
Too complicated and too may possible reasons for hard feelings all the way around.
We can brainstorm all we want, but I think a lot comes down to what the spouse wants/expects as they ultimately have to agree to whatever plan is put forth. If they are/were comfortable renting and were planning to do so forever until meeting the OP - an arrangements where they pay a portion of the mortgage (or some other chunk of expenses) might work well. If they have their own home but are childless and are selling it to move in with the OP to avoid uprooting their kids, they might be completely unwilling not to have some sort of stake in ownership if they will pay towards the mortgage. Were it me, I'd take a pretty hard stance in the latter situation.
Most of the folks I know on 2nd marriages either added the spouse to the existing mortgage/title or they both sold their homes and bought a new one together. Only exception I can think of is a couple with such whopping income disparity the new spouse didn't have anything to contribute financially anyways.
If you want to get really fancy with the math, you could probably come up with some sort of arrangements whereby they pay a portion towards the mortgage without a stake in ownership but upon death or divorce their "estimated equity" based on what they paid towards the mortgage and any appreciation in the value of the home is drawn from other assets (e.g. retirement accounts) with the home going to the children in full. If fair is the goal without the home itself ever being at stake...that is probably about as far as it could possibly get. Legally I don't know how that would work and crunching those numbers could be a pain.
Generally the men I have dated come from limited financial means. Even more limited than my means, which are also slim.
I would have no issues saying that my spouse would be able to stay in the house until his death. I just would not want the house to go to my spouse, who leaves it to whoever. It needs to become my children's investment.
For starters you need children The property has to be kept up to retain value. Who knows if in 20xx the property still has value and if the children want to deal with it.
For starters you need children The property has to be kept up to retain value. Who knows if in 20xx the property still has value and if the children want to deal with it.
I have two children. The houses could be sold and the funds split amongst my children. I just want them to inherit my assets.
I have a child that will be a legal adult in 5 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The property has to be kept up to retain value. Who knows if in 20xx the property still has value and if the children want to deal with it.
