So I tend to look at things from a business stand point. It's just my default. Which I think in turn hurts his feelings and pisses him off.

If he were to live where he lives now he would pay significantly more elsewhere than what he is paying 'towards' my mortgage even at half. I have a lot of equity in the house that I paid into myself before he ever made any 'rent' payments to me.

So in the scenario IF I refi for 30 years with a lower payment and in turn lowering his payment to whatever 'half' of that turns out to be. It's pretty stinking cheap in turn is an even bigger homie discount. So that's why he feels that I would be 'making money off him' if I kept him at the 'hypothetical 500' mark if I went the 30 yr route.

Keep in mind. He is also not opposed to paying half of the higher amount. Even though I told him I would pick up the difference if I went the higher amount and he got offended that I would even think I'd have to pick up the difference.
If I figured out a 'reasonable' market rate value to charge B for the area. He would be paying more than what he's paying now.

Sublessee vs. unauthorized occupant making mysterious monthly payments.... again, I look right through the law as it's fundamentally unnecessary when comprehending these arrangements.

If you want to enforce it, or need outside authority to enforce it, you are **** out of luck because it's unenforceable. That's the difference. But reasonable individuals don't need that authority to benefit each other.

I've been my unauthorized occupant's boss before too lol. Talk about a potential chitstorm. I'm picky with this kind of stuff

lol got 'em

Not in every state.

The original agreement was 50% so why make it complicated if it changes. If person B legit can't afford, person A should take on the additional since they are choosing to refi. But person A should not always rely on person B to be around. If they break up, the entire cost shifts to person A regardless.

Yeah, but you're a renter. This is a domestic partnership, which is somewhat different. There is no contract between her and him.

Like technically he doesn't have "equity" but if he ever decided to take her to court he probably could have a case

If you are not married then you should agree to pay an amount both parties think is fair (there are many variables to this equation)
It should not be dictated by the type of mortgage one person chooses as there are other variables that are different for that consideration.

Think of it this way, would i raise or lower the prices on my renters that currently live in my properties today because I chose to refi, take out a heloc, etc? No, that is not their issue or concern.

I don't know about Texas but there are zero common law marriages here in NC.

He could pay half until the house is done and she could kick him out with zero recourse.

Exactly, and because it's all hearsay, it could very well become a bigger issue than it is.

Personally, I say stick to the OG agreement. 50% of the mortgage.We have common law marriage here. There are a few stipulations, though.

Honestly, though, I would reconsider living with a partner who doesn't see enough future with me to put me on the mortgage.

Right, but I've always tried to live with people who I don't worry about trying to sue me, and that hasn't even been in the context of a relationship.

Who is this loser who is upset about already getting a discount on someone else's house and wants more off because that person is making strategic decisions on how to finance their own property? Especially at face value if the OP is truthful and this is a male person B. Just seems immature

Yep thought about this way ahead of time. He originally wanted to purchase a gigantic house with me but I didn't want to be tied financially to someone I wasn't married to so I opt to buy on my own. Personal goals if you will. I've just entertained the refi since rates are so low now. The discussion isn't about affordability here. He can easily go buy a house on his own now if he wanted to.

Logic right here, but like Don and myself both said, there are a lot of variables in this equation we don't know....namely the length of the relationship, seriousness, income disparity between you two, ect.

50/50 is fair

So you fault the guy for him thinking that he’d be paying the majority for the ability to occupy the property (a property he’s not legally entitled to with no contract), but you presume he’d be paying more in rent elsewhere so you shouldn’t lower his rate? It just sounds like he likes 50/50, but you’re not viewing him as a romantic partner but a ‘renter’ and what makes better business sense to you.

When I lived with an ex, we were both paying rent (it was a rental) and we didn’t worry about the nickels and dimes. I even payed all the rent a month or two and she may have too. We split everything else unless one of us just needed to pay a bill before it was late. But neither of us sent a debt collector after the other lol. I’m sorry, the stress of all this seems so foreign to me. Just 50/50 seems fair...for all you know he could move back in with his parents or a friend that’s charge him 0 rent...maybe just charge utilities. You don’t know that he’s getting a deal living with you.

I really hate all these convoluted terms. I feel like you’re both renting anyway. Stop paying your mortgage and see what happens to ‘your’ property.

If you want my personal opinion, it's such that, if you're in a relationship and you have reached the "move in" state... It's time to consider that maybe they should have a little equity in the home.

Like I'm personally not going to live with somebody I don't intend to build a future with.

It would be very different if this person was just renting the home.

We don't know how long they've been together for. I would be very hesitant to put someone I was dating on the deed. Engaged, maybe. Dating, no. Chit could go south real quick

You're right, but I mean, I look at it from the only lens I can; if you're dating me, we're rocking it fair. We split the costs of things because it's a partnership, and I don't profiteer off of you. OP proposed "increasing" rent or a scenario where it would be less than 50/50 on her part where the boyfriend/renter would foot the additional cost.

If we're living together, we split things fair. If it was agreed to be 50/50, that's what it continues to be. The moment we deviate from that, the conversation goes to the place we're at now. One of us is a renter. So unless he's getting equity, it's absolutely not fair to ask him to pay more than 50/50 when that money is going toward your ownership of the home. Essentially, he is a renter that sometimes fuks you.

That's not healthy.

Whats fair is keep charging him the 500 dollars, thats it. Thats the original arrengement and it should be respected as such, doesnt matter if you refinance the house for 1 dollar for the next 1000 years or if you suddenly decide to pay off the mortgage tomorrow.

In either case, he should be giving you 500 dollars, doesnt matter if its no longer half of it. If you raise it to 30 years, hes going to pay a much higher percentage of the mortgage than he used to, but if you two break up tomorrow he wont have to deal with the extra 15 years of payments either, thats your problem.

Dont complicate things, keep charging him the 500 as if it was rent and keep the mortgage % out of the question as clearly that can change.

How would paying a monthly rent amount to a significant other while in a relationship with them be any different than paying it to some random landlord in terms of what the renter would have to show for their spending if they ever move out? I don't how marriage and giving the new person a legal stake in the house would be fair to the partner who originally owned the house unless the new partner was also going to take on financial responsibilties of things like paying for home improvement projects, repairs, and major supplies for the house like lawnmowers/etc.

Even then, how long did the previous owner of the house own it for before the new person came into the picture and started living with them? What if the original owner had spent say, 5 years making payments on the house already? If the new partner wanted an equal legal stake in the house, then to "be fair", wouldn't they need to pay an upfront cost of 50% of what the home owner had already paid? Or does the new person just get an equal stake in it "just because"?

Oh damn, person B needs to fukkin' RUN

I'm an accountant by profession so this is second nature to me, but imagine OP had bought party catering for an event the two of them held for $1200 but put it on a 24 month 0% interest plan with no required payments. The cost of the catering is still $1200 whether payments are made or not. To the extent that they both incurred it, $600 would still be the fair split.

Now two years is so short, you could reasonably wait and let them pay $600 at the end to give them the benefit of the free time value as well. But on a house it's too long term. The person's not sticking around for 30 years in all likelihood. Unless they plan to pay a ****ton of money upon breaking up for the difference, the total should be based on expense instead of cash

Otherwise person B is freeriding hard on person A from an expense perspective, and only paying half from a strictly cash perspective which doesn't tell the whole story. There's a reason everything is based on accruals and depreciation in accounting as that's the more accurate representation of the underlying economics.

This

This isn't an apt you're renting together. If you're person B OP you're getting cucked by your bf.


LOL at paying for someone's house


Edit:

Turns out OP is Person A? Shocker that she's the one benefitting from this arrangement. This dude shouldn't be paying a dime of your mortgage, dead srs. You're using him plain and simple.

Agreed. This brah got SUCKERED.

But he put himself in this position, so it's really on him as much as it is on OP for being a bit scummy about it.
Well, I mean, take it in context of the post by Anachron above. Changes this discussion quite a bit tbh

My one brother has a poverty girlfriend that lives with him and makes paltry payments and she sure as fuk isn't getting equity. It's a lot more like rent than ownership. Marriage is where that would change, IMO, not just living togetherShe should have just set a reasonable amount to begin with, and no variable to the mortgage. The person doesn't own the house and doesn't have a mortgage. If they are going to try to get something free, write up a damned lease I guess. Obviously they should just break up

lmao ya'll are adorable.

He encouraged me to purchase the house on my own to build equity when I decided I didn't want to buy with him and offered to pay half my mortgage fully knowing that it would be cheaper than renting anything close to it. I paid a very high % down on the home so that the 'mortgage' is cheap.


To those wondering - yes there is common law in Texas. No I'm not worried. That would be very out of character for him. Also he has just as much to lose as I do if he wanted to go down that ugly route.

Lmao.

If they are a roommate, the mortgage rates and terms are irrelevant. You pay x dollars for rent.

If you're treating your s.o. like a roommate, I got some bad news.

I would imagine if they are living together they should have some common financial goals, like paying down the mortgage or paying off student loans. They should not be arguing on this, rather working together for mutual benefit.

Cool so why make it a business transaction between you two? Bro clearly acknowledges that he wanted to look out foryou, but it don't seem like you're looking out for him.

Keep it at 50% and don't deviate. That's some bad girlfriend type chit.This basically

You're still not explaining why the new dating partner living in the house should get to live there completely rent free. If I ever have a new woman move in with me, I'd charge her 50% of the mortgage costs along with splitting utility bills. I would also split the costs of shared goods like groceries, cleaning supplies, etc. I would not expect her to pay a cent towards things like home improvements/repairs/equipment like lawn mowers and snowblowers/etc. unless there were an issue where she ruined something by being a dumbasss.

Even if she wanted to get married, I'd insist on a prenup that very clearly stated she would not own anything of the percentage of the home value in the event of divorce. I'd be willing to do a mostly shared finances arrangement at that point if I married her, but not literally by having almost everything go into a joint account. It would be more inforkal than that.

You're gonna say that's completely unfair. To that I say, I've been paying my mortgage off for years, which a new woman would have had nothing to do with. I've spent all the money on things like home improvement long before sbe would have been in the picture. You'd be badly mistaken if you think there is a woman on the entire planet who could convince me to just let them jump into my life and take a legal stake in my home or expect to live damn near rent free off of me. If she couldn't handle that, I wouldn't care and would tell her to go leech off someone else who is fine with being used as a financial doormat just to get laid.

Dudes getting a discount over his opportunity cost. He has to live somewhere. How is that not beneficial to his self-interest?

If he wants to own a house, he should buy his own or breakup with the girl when she doesn't want him in on the equity

I love you brah, but relationships aren't financial transactions and you have to understand that to get the idea we're trying to put forth

It's not a deal, you're paying somebody else's equity. You know that equity increases in value over time. You're getting FUKT.