Marrying somebody in debt: advice needed

LegacyUser

I'm curious about this, but I cannot post anonymously on the Legal Discussion or the financial advice threads so maybe somebody here could help.

I earn between 30k and 40k and am very careful with money. My total debt is €7500, which I'll have paid off at the end of this year. I've about €2500 in savings. I pay rent and own no property. My fiancée, however, got sucked into the bubble and now shares a mortgage with somebody else for €450,000. The house was bought for €530,000 so she also feels she owes the relative who gave the balance €40k of that additional €80k. The house, if it could be sold, might get €200,000 now. Apparently, the bank will not allow her/them to sell it because of this.

We are due to get married in the next year and that mortgage repayment will be a huge amount of money coming out of our combined family income every month. This bothers me no end as I've always been careful with money and now I'm going to have my life shaped by the constraints that repayment places on us.

As things stand we are living in that house because if she does not live here she will lose €200 per month in a tax exemption for owner-occupiers. To leave it would in reality mean that any new accommodation would cost €200 extra on top of the new rent. In other words, for the foreseeable future I'm living in a place I would never choose to live in and I'm looking at a future of €1200 (at current interest rates) coming out of our limited monthly income to finance this house. That's a hell of a lot of freedom that has been taken away from me. It really is about freedom to me.

What happens if she wants to give up work and raise our children? It could be done on my salary outside Dublin, which is where we had planned on living initially. How can I afford to pay her mortgage on this house, and our family home when we finally move out of here (it's barely big enough for two of us at the moment)? Will I have any responsibility for her mortgage if we marry? I'm going to be struggling as it is to keep a family going on my income so I'm getting very nervous about everything now.

We've been going out for nearly a decade but all I can see now is many, many years of living a life that is shaped by the financial constraints imposed by the albatross that is this house. I'm in very deep in this relationship and there are loads of dreams tied up in it, but this financial burden is killing many of those dreams, from building our own home with space to move about in in a few years time to being able to fund extra classes for our kids.

Would anybody have advice on the best way to proceed here, and what if any liability I will have to pay off her existing debt after we marry? Thank you.

Missy Moo Moo

Does the other owner live in the house? Could your fiancee rent it out and use the rent to pay the mortgage while you both live somewhere else?

Missy Moo Moo

Sorry, just re-read your post and seen the bit about the owner occupier tax relief.

padd b1975

Why o why was this not thought about and discussed before you got engaged??

dory

padd b1975 wrote: »

Why o why was this not thought about and discussed before you got engaged??

Aw well maybe because he was madly in love??

OP, it's a toughie. Personally I couldn't do it. I don't know what legal advice you're after. Surely even if you weren't at all responsible for her mortgage it's still be a big chunk coming out of your joint income. If it only came out of hers, she'd still have less to put into the kitty. That or if she still had to put the same amount as you into the joint account, she'd be living on the breadline and you'd be grand. Which is recipe for disaster.

I think you have to accept her, debt and all (and change your dreams). Or marry someone who is debt free.

padd b1975

dory wrote: »

Aw well maybe because he was madly in love??

OP, it's a toughie. Personally I couldn't do it. I don't know what legal advice you're after. Surely even if you weren't at all responsible for her mortgage it's still be a big chunk coming out of your joint income. If it only came out of hers, she'd still have less to put into the kitty. That or if she still had to put the same amount as you into the joint account, she'd be living on the breadline and you'd be grand. Which is recipe for disaster.

I think you have to accept her, debt and all (and change your dreams). Or marry someone who is debt free.

Of course he has to accept her debt if he goes through with the wedding.
He will be taking a solemn vow which includes the phrase "for richer or poorer".

Zen65

uncertainandworried wrote: »

I'm in very deep in this relationship and there are loads of dreams tied up in it, but this financial burden is killing many of those dreams, from building our own home with space to move about in in a few years time to being able to fund extra classes for our kids.

Surely whether or not you marry is almost irrelevant at this stage? Are you not already jointly burdened by the debt if you are very deep into the relationship? Is your question really about what would happen should you decide to split up after marriage? Maybe if you are planning for that eventuality already then you are unsure of the relationship itself?

Where do you currently live? If you are not living with her is there a saving on your part by giving up your current home? Does that not improve your joint financial position in the short term?

The property issue should not unduly influence your decision to marry this girl if you are genuinely deeply tied to the relationship. Eventually all economic highs and lows are just part of a cycle and the house will eventually be something you can dispose of (at an acceptable loss) even if that means waiting 10 years to do so. When I bought my first house the mortgage payments were crippling but after 10 years the mortgage had become a minor issue due to inflation. Also in 10 years time your earnings should (typically) increase if you are proactive in seeking improved salary opportunities.

Yes, you are in a hard place because you've been caught by the worst property collapse in decades. This situation is temporary and it seems to me that your joint financial position is better by living in the one house than it would be if you continue to maintain two homes.

The real question is this ..... are you sure enough about the relationship to take this risk?

Be at peace,

Z

fungun

Maybe its just me but I dont think about finances when it comes to a relationship and it sounds to me like you are being a bit unfair on your partner.

If you have been going out a decade, she could only have made that kind of loss if she bought in the last 5 years - then you must have been in a stable relationship when she bought the house. You would have known what she was doing and could have voiced your concern at that stage if you had any.
If it had turned out great, you would be living there, or selling up or whatever and being really happy together....you reaping the rewards of the investment. It hasnt worked out and now suddenly its 'her' problem and you are worried about taking on 'her' debt....sounds a bit one sided to me; you were willing to take any upside, so should also be willing to take the downside

The Corinthian

Very few people enter a marriage without someone having some 'baggage'. It could be a divorce or a child from a previous relationship, or a long-term medical issue, or - as in your case - a debt. When compared to most, a debt - even one as large as your fiancée's - is not the worst thing in the world.

If you know what to expect, then you can make an informed decision, because you'll know what part of this burden you'll be taking on. What I suspect is the issue is that you may not be entirely certain on what to expect, and I would cite the following comment:

uncertainandworried wrote: »

What happens if she wants to give up work and raise our children?

I think the most important question here is do you trust her?

If you do not or are uncertain, then she could quit her job and stay at home with the children if she chooses. You can't force her to work for a living, and neither will the state. You will become the sole provider and she the primary carer, which naturally will have implications to custody and maintenance should you ever split.

I am uncertain about the long term legal implications of her debt. I believe it will remain her debt and separate from you (look at all the developers presently declaring bankruptcy and transferring assets to their spouses, for example), however let's not kid ourselves that it will not de facto be at least in part shared by you.

Combined income will be affected during the marriage, and other factors such as the tax exemption for owner-occupiers will affect you because you're living together. If you ever split, at the very least her debts will become part of the calculation when assessing maintenance, so you will end up paying towards it, one way or another.

So ultimately I think it comes down to trust. If you do, you will face this together. If not then you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place.

padd b1975 wrote: »

He will be taking a solemn vow which includes the phrase "for richer or poorer".

Legally speaking solemn vows in a church are as binding as "the cheque is in the post", I'm afraid.

padd b1975

The Corinthian wrote: »

Very few people enter a marriage without someone having some 'baggage'. It could be a divorce or a child from a previous relationship, or a long-term medical issue, or - as in your case - a debt. When compared to most, a debt - even one as large as your fiancée's - is not the worst thing in the world.

If you know what to expect, then you can make an informed decision, because you'll know what part of this burden you'll be taking on. What I suspect is the issue is that you may not be entirely certain on what to expect, and I would cite the following comment:

I think the most important question here is do you trust her?

If you do not or are uncertain, then she could quit her job and stay at home with the children if she chooses. You can't force her to work for a living, and neither will the state. You will become the sole provider and she the primary carer, which naturally will have implications to custody and maintenance should you ever split.

I am uncertain about the long term legal implications of her debt. I believe it will remain her debt and separate from you (look at all the developers presently declaring bankruptcy and transferring assets to their spouses, for example), however let's not kid ourselves that it will not de facto be at least in part shared by you.

Combined income will be affected during the marriage, and other factors such as the tax exemption for owner-occupiers will affect you because you're living together. If you ever split, at the very least her debts will become part of the calculation when assessing maintenance, so you will end up paying towards it, one way or another.

So ultimately I think it comes down to trust. If you do, you will face this together. If not then you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place.

Legally speaking solemn vows in a church are as binding as "the cheque is in the post", I'm afraid.

Realistically speaking the vows are only as binding as the integrity of the person taking them.

The Corinthian

padd b1975 wrote: »

Realistically speaking the vows are only as binding as the integrity of the person taking them.

My point exactly and why I asked whether the OP trusts his fiancée. Vows are not legally binding ("till death do us part" went back in the 90's, after all), so at the end of the day there's no point even mentioning them, because even if he may keep them, there is no reason to presume she will here.

LegacyUser

padd b1975 wrote: »

Why o why was this not thought about and discussed before you got engaged??

You must be utterly exhausted after making such a thoughtful and constructive comment. :rolleyes:

As strange as it patently is to you, there are considerations other than money involved.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Of course he has to accept her debt if he goes through with the wedding.
He will be taking a solemn vow which includes the phrase "for richer or poorer".

Why are you bothering to post this arrant nonsense? I am clearly talking about the legal consequences. Everybody else can understand that.

Dermighty

uncertainandworried wrote: »

I'm curious about this, but I cannot post anonymously on the Legal Discussion or the financial advice threads so maybe somebody here could help.

I earn between 30k and 40k and am very careful with money. My total debt is €7500, which I'll have paid off at th,,,,,

Did she buy the house before you started going out?

500k is a fantastical figure for a house 10 years ago.

Why would you pay the mortgage? Is it because the two of you would be living there?

Aside from the figures and statistics, realistically the debt changes your expected quality of life, that's definitely a game changer (in my eyes). I don't think you;re wrong to feel bad about it, but what it comes down to is weighing your relationship against the quality of life you want, you only have one life so do whatever will make you feel better in the long run.

"Legally speaking solemn vows in a church are as binding as "the cheque is in the post", I'm afraid." I agree completely, though, admittedly, I don't have much regard for religious vows in the first place.

Jack B. Badd

I don't think this would necessarily be a deal-breaker for me but if I was in your situation, I would have to think long and hard about those freedoms I'd be giving up. The fact of the matter is, financial pressure puts a lot of strain on relationships and marriages and I'd worry that I'd be resentful if I was stuck with that debt. Or to put it more accurately, stuck in a place I didn't want to live in with a significant chunk coming out of my/our income to finance someone else's mistake...

I'm curious, you say you've been going out 10 years or so - did she buy this house within the past 10 years or was it before you got together? If it was while you were together, did she consult you at all, assuming that your relationship was serious and the likelihood that her debt would impact you? I think the answer to those questions would inform my decision to get married or not in this case.

LegacyUser

Zen65 wrote: »

Surely whether or not you marry is almost irrelevant at this stage? Are you not already jointly burdened by the debt if you are very deep into the relationship? Is your question really about what would happen should you decide to split up after marriage?

No: I didn't for a moment think of splitting. As I said I am concerned that if she wants to give up work to raise our family, or loses her job, then will I be burdened with that debt which was taken out before we got married. I will not be able to keep our family going and service that ridiculous debt out of my income each month. There may be something I can do, other than not marrying her, to protect myself from being liable for that. I may not be even liable for it. I do not know, hence this thread.

Zen65 wrote: »

Where do you currently live? If you are not living with her is there a saving on your part by giving up your current home? Does that not improve your joint financial position in the short term?

I currently live with her. Prior to this I was living rent free at home with my parents. I moved in with her recently because it was/is the best thing to do for emotional reasons. There is no financial sense, from my perspective; indeed it will be another €5,000 that I'll have to find to pay for the wedding day. But it's still the right thing to do.

Zen65 wrote: »

The property issue should not unduly influence your decision to marry this girl if you are genuinely deeply tied to the relationship. Eventually all economic highs and lows are just part of a cycle and the house will eventually be something you can dispose of (at an acceptable loss) even if that means waiting 10 years to do so. When I bought my first house the mortgage payments were crippling but after 10 years the mortgage had become a minor issue due to inflation. Also in 10 years time your earnings should (typically) increase if you are proactive in seeking improved salary opportunities.

Fair enough. I appreciate that. Somebody else has said something similar but I'm not hearing it enough. I would much, much prefer if she could cut her losses and be left with a €100k figure or whatever of debt and get rid of this house. That is at least certainty and we can work at paying that off quickly and then begin our life together. The existing situation of a huge and uncertain proportion of what will, when we marry, in effect be our combined income going into this lost cause property and affecting our weekly/monthly budget for the next twenty years is the albatross I want to get off our backs. I can't see how I'll be able to service her debt if she wants to give up work or loses her job, along with supporting our family.

Indeed, I still don't know will I be legally responsible for that debt which she alone took out before our marriage in the event of her not being able to pay it on account of losing her job etc. Because we'll be married, will they assess my income as being part of hers and decide she has to pay the house debt (with my income) even though she has lost her job? That is one of the principal reasons why I posted here. Does anybody know?

Ickle Magoo

OP, we cannot give you legal advice - if you need to know where you stand legally then contact a solicitor.

Dermighty

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

OP, we cannot give you legal advice - if you need to know where you stand legally then contact a solicitor.

I AGREE

Ickle Magoo

Dermighty,

Be aware that there is zero tolerance for muppetry in PI/RI and that off-topic and unhelpful posting can earn you a ban from this forum.

If you haven't already done so, please take the time to read the [URL=" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181484"]forum rules[/URL] in the charter.

Many thanks.

iguana

Here is what I would do in your situation OP.

First off do not get married until you have gotten full legal advice on this situation. If you don't have a wedding date set then don't even think of setting one until this issue is settled. If you have a wedding date set already and it's soon I'd seriously consider postponement until you two know exactly what you are doing with regard to this debt.

Secondly the laws with regard to personal insolvencies are in the middle of being rewritten at the moment. There is a suggestion that homeowners in negative equity could soon be able to have part of the debt written down if they surrender the property. They would then work out a payment scheme over the following 5 years to pay back the remainder owing. This payment scheme, if it happens, will take into account each of the former owners incomes so if this is something your partner and her co-owner choose to do she may find herself better off financially if you are not married. You may also find it easier following that to secure a mortgage yourself if you are not married as if you are married to someone who availed of this scheme your credit rating will be in tatters and you certainly won't have the option to borrow within that 5 years.

I really do think that at this point in time it would make the most sense to not get married until you know what is going to happen with the house and my best advice there would be to get rid of it if she can. In the meantime you can see a solicitor with regard to establishing that you are each other's next of kin in the case of medical emergency and if you have children before you marry you can also agree to legal guardianship to safeguard your rights as a father so you can enjoy some of the benefits of marriage.

It is also worth remembering that the civil partnership bill does include sections on the financial rights and responsibilities of cohabiting couples once they have been living together for 5 years, so if you have been living together that long, or if/when that time is approaching, you should seek advice on exactly what that will mean with regard to your responsibilities over this house.

padd b1975

The Corinthian wrote: »

My point exactly and why I asked whether the OP trusts his fiancée. Vows are not legally binding ("till death do us part" went back in the 90's, after all), so at the end of the day there's no point even mentioning them, because even if he may keep them, there is no reason to presume she will here.

I think it needs to be accepted as given that they love and trust each other 100%, otherwise they would not as mature adults have got engaged and started to plan a wedding.

In that context I don't think its too much to believe that all problems become mutual.

LegacyUser

fungun wrote: »

Maybe its just me but I dont think about finances when it comes to a relationship

With respect, I think it's perfectly fair to think about it, just as everything else is thought about. To think about it, indeed to worry about it, doesn't negate other feelings. It is much better that I'm thinking about it before marriage. Last time I checked on the causes of marriage breakdown, financial problems were at the very top of the reasons.

fungun wrote: »

If you have been going out a decade, she could only have made that kind of loss if she bought in the last 5 years - then you must have been in a stable relationship when she bought the house. You would have known what she was doing and could have voiced your concern at that stage if you had any.

I don't know about stable; I was in college doing my doctorate and she was working in a well-paid job, nagging me about being in college and not joining her in the madness and "being like everybody else" by buying a property. Now I'm out of college with more education and financially better off than any of the sheep (no apologies for that: they all lost the plot and got obsessed with materialism). I had no say in her purchase and it was almost single-handedly facilitated and encouraged by her father, who now feels very bad about it. There are no winners here.

fungun wrote: »

If it had turned out great, you would be living there, or selling up or whatever and being really happy together....you reaping the rewards of the investment. It hasnt worked out and now suddenly its 'her' problem and you are worried about taking on 'her' debt....sounds a bit one sided to me; you were willing to take any upside, so should also be willing to take the downside

Not true. If money and following the crowd were a primary motivator for me I wouldn't have spent Celtic Tiger days in college when I could have jumped on that bandwagon years before. It was not a priority of mine to own a home, so I consciously didn't partake in it. "Benefiting" from any profit she may have made from her "investment" would only be on paper because all that shít is just not as important to me as keeping my freedom from debt, and thus my quality of life. Whatever happened, I would come out of college free of debt and into work. And I would be responsible for that. That was enough for me. I didn't, and don't, need any of these wealth investments to be happier. It was her risk and her value system, not mine.

padd b1975

uncertainandworried wrote: »

You must be utterly exhausted after making such a thoughtful and constructive comment. :rolleyes:

As strange as it patently is to you, there are considerations other than money involved.



Why are you bothering to post this arrant nonsense? I am clearly talking about the legal consequences. Everybody else can understand that.

Arrant nonsense?? What exactly will be going through your mind when it comes to the "repeat after me" part of the service?

I am a friend

padd b1975 wrote: »

Arrant nonsense?? What exactly will be going through your mind when it comes to the "repeat after me" part of the service?

Oh I agree.... God love that poor girl getting married to someone who considers her a sheep. Your choice to do your doctorate hasn't particularly paid off has it - your income certainly doesn't indicate that it goes.

Did she support you at all during that time? Holidays, meals out etc?

The Corinthian

padd b1975 wrote: »

I think it needs to be accepted as given that they love and trust each other 100%, otherwise they would not as mature adults have got engaged and started to plan a wedding.

The OP wouldn't need to post here if he was '100%' as you say. And in fairness it is not unreasonable to have concerns - indeed it would be quite immature to be 'blindly' in love.

It is something that the OP needs to both inform himself on and decide if he has that level of trust. If more people did that before getting married, I suspect there would be fewer unhappy and broken marriages.

The Corinthian

iguana wrote: »

It is also worth remembering that the civil partnership bill does include sections on the financial rights and responsibilities of cohabiting couples once they have been living together for 3 years, so if you have been living together that long, or if/when that time is approaching, you should seek advice on exactly what that will mean with regard to your responsibilities over this house.

Five years, unless there are children, in which case I believe it is 3 years.

iguana

The Corinthian wrote: »

Five years, unless there are children, in which case I believe it is 3 years.

Thanks I've edited it to correct it. Welfare.ie says it's 5 years or 2 if you have a child together.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Pages/CivilPartnership.aspx

Jack B. Badd

I am a friend wrote: »

Oh I agree.... God love that poor girl getting married to someone who considers her a sheep. Your choice to do your doctorate hasn't particularly paid off has it - your income certainly doesn't indicate that it goes.

Inflamatory language aside, it does sound like she made a very imprudent investment option (she wouldn't be the only person to do so before the property market imploded). Maybe making sensible financial decisions isn't part of her skill-set but if that's the case, why should the OP ignore it? Most couples consist of 2 individuals who bring different strengths & weaknesses to the relationship. Mature adult couples usually recognise that these weaknesses exist & don't just ignore them to save the "horror" of possibly hurt feelings. Poor girl indeed...

I am a friend wrote: »

Did she support you at all during that time? Holidays, meals out etc?

Holidays & meals out are comparable to a massive mortgage?

StillWaters

My understanding is you are not responsible for this debt upon marriage. However, if she is considering defaulting on the loan, it is better to do so before marriage, as she would probably broker a better deal with the mortgage company, as after marriage, they will be less likely to do a deal when they see the household income.

However, whether you are legally responsible or not is irrelevant, as it will in fact become your defacto debt as it will so affect your future life choices.

I'm not sure I could do it.

padd b1975

The Corinthian wrote: »

The OP wouldn't need to post here if he was '100%' as you say. And in fairness it is not unreasonable to have concerns - indeed it would be quite immature to be 'blindly' in love.

It is something that the OP needs to both inform himself on and decide if he has that level of trust. If more people did that before getting married, I suspect there would be fewer unhappy and broken marriages.

Yeah fair enough, I may have been a little ahead of myself.
I think the very least the couple need to do is to get themselves on to some sort of pre marital course because going by what I read here from one side of the relationship, he is utterly clueless as to what being part of a married couple actually involves.

padd b1975

I am a friend wrote: »

Oh I agree.... God love that poor girl getting married to someone who considers her a sheep. Your choice to do your doctorate hasn't particularly paid off has it - your income certainly doesn't indicate that it goes.

Did she support you at all during that time? Holidays, meals out etc?

+1 on the sheep part.
A revolting lack of respect for a future wife regardless of circumstances.

Ickle Magoo

I am a friend and padd b1975,

If you have no civil, mature and constructive advice to offer the OP on the actual issue they have requested advice on, kindly refrain from posting.

Be aware that off-topic and unhelpful posting can earn you a ban from this forum.

If you haven't already done so, please take the time to read the [URL=" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181484"]forum rules[/URL] in the charter.

Many thanks.

I am a friend

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

Holidays & meals out are comparable to a massive mortgage?

My point bring that maybe she was more supportive than he is when the financial tables were turned.

Dunno why this wasn't thought out before the decision to marry wasn't made. Op you need legal advice on all of this.

Kidchameleon

uncertainandworried wrote: »

(no apologies for that: they all lost the plot and got obsessed with materialism).

Your concerns about this marraige appear to be purley materialistic though. There is no mention of any other problems between you both, just money. Do you love this girl? If so you would marry her regardless of her debt levels

fungun

uncertainandworried wrote: »

I don't know about stable; I was in college doing my doctorate and she was working in a well-paid job, nagging me about being in college and not joining her in the madness and "being like everybody else" by buying a property. Now I'm out of college with more education and financially better off than any of the sheep (no apologies for that: they all lost the plot and got obsessed with materialism). I had no say in her purchase and it was almost single-handedly facilitated and encouraged by her father, who now feels very bad about it. There are no winners here.

It was not a priority of mine to own a home, so I consciously didn't partake in it. "Benefiting" from any profit she may have made from her "investment" would only be on paper because all that shít is just not as important to me as keeping my freedom from debt, and thus my quality of life. Whatever happened, I would come out of college free of debt and into work. And I would be responsible for that. That was enough for me. I didn't, and don't, need any of these wealth investments to be happier. It was her risk and her value system, not mine.

Im not sure how you can argue that any benefit would only be 'on paper' because by the same rationale your debt is also only 'on paper', its only money. With regard to you your sentence....well this is the crux of it....and my opinion is that in a relationship you cant turn around and say that. The decision then should have been a joint one, based on a compromise of what is important to you both.

'That was enough for me' is only a valid point if you didnt intend to settle down and stay here - if you did, then a house purchase is something most people do and a valid investment to make that would not really have been perceived as very high risk. In fact, she is caught in this even more than you and you dont appear to feel an ounce of sympathy for her or wanting to help her out of the situation she finds herself in - instead, all you seem to be caring about is making sure you dont get caught up in it. Would you feel the same if she was was unlucky enough to be, say, diagnosed with cancer?

n900guy

uncertainandworried wrote: »

Would anybody have advice on the best way to proceed here, and what if any liability I will have to pay off her existing debt after we marry? Thank you.

There are only two real courses of action:

1. Keep going with all your plans, and get used to having loads of debt

2. Cut your losses and move on

I am very much in the 2 camp. It's harsh but TBH I have no intention of paying off the debts of someone who really didn't have any intention of paying it off in the first place. The attitude was to make an easy 100k by selling it or marry someone. You will be very much responsible for paying that debt. The law is pretty highly stacked against men in Ireland. Relationships are about feelings but marriage is a legal decision. Unless she has a job that allows her to pay back that debt, it will quickly become yours unless you plan on both of working fulltime and her not having kids, etc., .

Overheal

Is there no capacity in Irish law for a Pre-Nuptual Agreement? Nobody has mentioned one this far into the thread. Whatever happens OP, I strongly advise one. It's not going to hurt anyone's feelings to bring the topic up, especially when there is so much debt on the table.

Neyite

Overheal wrote: »

Is there no capacity in Irish law for a Pre-Nuptual Agreement? Nobody has mentioned one this far into the thread. Whatever happens OP, I strongly advise one. It's not going to hurt anyone's feelings to bring the topic up, especially when there is so much debt on the table.

As far as I know, Pre-nups are not legally enforcable here.

rbag

'That was enough for me' is only a valid point if you didnt intend to settle down and stay here - if you did, then a house purchase is something most people do and a valid investment to make that would not really have been perceived as very high risk. In fact, she is caught in this even more than you and you dont appear to feel an ounce of sympathy for her or wanting to help her out of the situation she finds herself in - instead, all you seem to be caring about is making sure you dont get caught up in it. Would you feel the same if she was was unlucky enough to be, say, diagnosed with cancer?[/QUOTE]

+1

up for anything

n900guy wrote: »

There are only two real courses of action:

1. Keep going with all your plans, and get used to having loads of debt

2. Cut your losses and move on

I am very much in the 2 camp. It's harsh but TBH I have no intention of paying off the debts of someone who really didn't have any intention of paying it off in the first place. The attitude was to make an easy 100k by selling it or marry someone. You will be very much responsible for paying that debt. The law is pretty highly stacked against men in Ireland. Relationships are about feelings but marriage is a legal decision. Unless she has a job that allows her to pay back that debt, it will quickly become yours unless you plan on both of working fulltime and her not having kids, etc., .

Your bitterness is shining through. :rolleyes: So many women out there who bought houses in the expectation of trapping some poor man into paying for it.

OP, I presume at the moment she is paying the mortgage repayments every month without any help from you as you only recently moved in there. If she is then she must be earning enough to keep on doing so. It doesn't cost much more for two to live than one so have you considered the option of her continuing with the repayments from her salary plus contributing towards a joint household fund and you contributing equally to that same fund and then saving a large proportion of the rest of your salary. That way you have funds in the bank if and when you both decide to have a child to keep the mortgage going for the time that she is out of work. I realise it might not sit well with you to fund her mortgage even for part of the time but if you want to be with her and raise a family with her it may be a sacrifice you need to make.

mood

OP have you discussed what will happen if you have kids? Does she want to be a stay at home mother? There are a lot of women who don't give up there job/career after having children. She may want to keep working or need to keep working. It wouldn't be unusual if she did. So, you being the sole bread winner may never be an issue! If you haven't discussed this I think you really need to.

solarsystem

OP when I started reading this thread I had some sympathy for you. However as I read on I'm afraid my sympathies turned to your girlfriend.

Quite frankly, it is not LEGAL advice you need here. The legal issues are the least of your worries. You need advice on how to be a man.

A man who loved his woman and had a pair of you know whats would not be on here whining about the effect her mortgage might have on HIM. He would be more worried about the effect that such a crippling life sentence would have on HER. Then he would do something to something to try to save HER from this tragedy, not whine about how to save HIMSELF.

I hope I am not breaking any rules of this forum when I say that, frankly, I think the biggest favour you could do your girlfriend is go back to your Mammy's house (at this age of your life!) and live there for free again and see can you save up another 2500 euro for yourself.

Let her get a real man, who will square up to the bank and cut a deal for her. The bank is far more scared of that mortgage than even you are. They will do a deal if the right man takes up the task.

By the way, I really really hope I am not breaking the rules when I say this, but for God's sake man, what kind of a 'big day' do you think you are going to give a girl for five grand? Grow a pair and spend your communion money.

Sorry to have been so harsh, but I got wound up as I read my way through the thread.

Sponge Bob

I' wait until the 3 year bankruptcy procedure comes in. No way a person earning €40k a year can pay half a €530k mortgage. Let your other half strangle the albatross around her and now your neck first.

Long as you don't marry, even if she is in or just out of bankruptcy, you can get a mortgage. She logically cannot, ever.

Just my view on it. Good luck to you both.

Ickle Magoo

solarsystem infracted for ignoring prior mod warnings.

Despite your confusion at what may or may not be in breach of forum rules, unsurprisingly, telling a poster to man up or grow a pair does not constitute mature, civil and constructive advice.

Please ensure you familiarise yourself with the [URL=" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181484"]forum charter[/URL] before posting again.

As per site rules - any issue with moderation action should be dealt with via PM

LegacyUser

OP I was in a similar situation myself, phd student with a partner who was working. Luckily for me she wasn't earning crazy money and had no interest herself in buying overpriced property. We had similar opinions on the property market and finance itself. If she had spent huge money on property and was so easily lead by others I would seriously have considered the relationship. How could I have a family with this woman if she was so blase and careless about life decisions. We would have been incompatible in my opinion and I would have probably ended it.

Your problem now is that you are as you say, in too deep. You probably should have ended it a long time ago. My fear is that you will continue with this relationship for better or worse but that the bitterness at the loss of lifestyle will cause serious tensions between you and might just erupt in 5 years time. If you are to continue together I'd seriously look at getting some counselling to allow you to accept her massive mistakes and faults.

Big Bag of Chips

There are an awful lot of "what ifs" in your post.

I'm not sure of the legal position of the mortgage once you are married but morally... would you keep all your money separately?

Would you pay equal share of bills/rent/groceries? Let her pay the extra for her mortgage and live on what you left over for the remainder? What if after paying mortgage and bills she didn't have enough for groceries and a night out?

Would you let her starve and go out by yourself?

She has this mortgage that needs to be paid, or needs to be haggled. Once you are married household income & expenditure becomes just that.. household. So things sort of get shared out. It's called a "partnership".

Just as a matter of interest, are you paying any rent to her and/or the other owner at the moment? If you are that would go a small way towards helping with the mortgage too.

A lot of your questions seem to focus on what will happen in the future, if you have kids, if she wants to give up working... these are things that need to he discussed and planned before you decide to start trying for a family.

-will you be able to afford ALL bills (including mortgage & childminder/creche)
-does she want to give up work
-can you both afford for her to give up work
-can you afford, where you stand at the moment to have children

Thinking about money and debt can be sensible, but is also quite clinical and cold when you are talking about love.

Talk to a solicitor, if you are paying rent, this may be seen as contributing to the mortgage and therefore having a stake or "interest" in the property. This will also give you some authority to discuss options with the lender.

If you stay with this girl, regardless of whether or not you are legally liable for the mortgage, you will in effect "soak" up her debt because she will have less disposable income than you so I'm sure you will help her out rather than seeing her do without.

The Corinthian

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Thinking about money and debt can be sensible, but is also quite clinical and cold when you are talking about love.

They don't have to marry just because they're in love.

This is where you begin to hear the "but...but..." comments from those who try to rationalize the (financial) security of marriage with the ideal that money has no part in love and marriage is about love. Please.

As I said at earlier in the thread, other than inform himself, the OP need only ask himself one question; does he trust her?

I'm not suggesting that she's some form of gold-digger. Not at all. She may well be utterly true to him, but that does not mean that they're reading from the same page today or in ten years time.

Just as a couple may 'agree' to only have one or two children today, that does not mean that they will keep this or any other present agreement. The World is full of marriages where they 'agree' to have two children, only to have two of the same gender and then either (typically the woman) will 'accidentally' have a third in the hope of having at least one of the other. Or they may 'agree' that they will both continue working, and then after the first child the mother may end up never returning to the workplace; maternity leave, originally planned for a few weeks, will become months and before you know it three years have passed.

If you're a man, a husband, there's not much you can do about any of this. You can't force her to go back to work. You can't force her to have an abortion. Your only possible options are to have a vasectomy to avoid the first case and none to avoid the second. Or to leave, in which case you're going to be financially crippled and at best a weekend dad.

And this is because people change. The person you marry today will not be the person next to you in five or ten years time. And while this is perfectly normal, it is important that one should trust that they will not change for the worse before you enter a union that will have serious implications for you in the long run.

Love is about love. Marriage is about a financial and social compact. So anyone, especially men, have absolutely every right to be "quite clinical and cold" about the latter. To suggest otherwise smacks of asking one to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Big Bag of Chips

I didn't really specifically mean it in the context of marriage... but if he stays with her, married or not he is in someway going to absorb the debt by subsidising her because she will have less disposable income.

Where the marriage is concerned is where he needs to contact a solicitor.

The Corinthian

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

I didn't really specifically mean it in the context of marriage... but if he stays with her, married or not he is in someway going to absorb the debt by subsidising her because she will have less disposable income.

But it is about marriage and it's longer term implications for the OP. He wouldn't even be posting about it if he wasn't going to get married, so pretending that this is not about the "context of marriage" is a bit silly.

Big Bag of Chips

The Corinthian wrote: »

But it is about marriage and it's longer term implications for the OP.He wouldn't even be posting about it if he wasn't going to get married, so pretending that this is not about the "context of marriage" is a bit silly.

Well in that case the only reply should have been seek legal advice and the thread locked!

I didn't think my reply was that "silly", because it is more complicated than just marriage.

There is so many more strands and threads to his life/potential life depending on whether or not they marry. Finishing the relationship doesn't seem like an option he is considering, so we are assuming he's going to stay with her, whether or not in marriage.

If he marries, it could hold legal obligations for him, and would definitely involve legal consequences.

But if he stays with her without marriage, that would still involve moral obligations/consequences... because if he loves her, he's not going to let her "go without."

The Corinthian

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

I didn't think my reply was that "silly", because it is more complicated than just marriage.

Not really, because this entire discussion hinges on marriage.

I'll concede that there is more to it than simply his informing himself on the legal implications - which is why I have repeatedly posed the question of trust - but ultimately this entire discussion is hinged on him taking a leap into that institution, for better or worse.

If there is anything that faces a man that would require "quite clinical and cold" thinking it is that and muddying the waters with sentimental nonsense about love is not going to do him any favours.

But if he stays with her without marriage, that would still involve moral obligations/consequences... because if he loves her, he's not going to let her "go without."

Actually it also involves legal implications too. In Ireland you don't have to get married any more to be subject to the legal and financial implications of marriage - you just have to live together long enough.

With this in mind, and given they've been together for a decade already, the entire discussion could already be moot. Like it or not, he may already be obliged to carry her financially in the future.

Big Bag of Chips

The Corinthian wrote: »

With this in mind, and given they've been together for a decade already, the entire discussion could already be moot. Like it or not, he may already be obliged to carry her financially in the future.

Exactly... so its not really, soley about marriage at all!:P

Ah, I know what you're saying. We're actually saying much the same thing in the end.