Dan and I married under Dan's condition that I move into his house, which I did. The house remains owned solely by Dan and is free and clear of any debt. The utilities run $250.00 per month. The taxes and insurance equates to $150.00 per month.

Once we married and I moved into Dan's home, the home that I lived in became a rental. Since it's been available for rent I have only been able to rent it out 50% of the time. The house remains solely owned by me and I collect the rent when it is rented out. I also pay the taxes, insurance and expenses on it.

This is the second marriage for both of us. We are in our late fifties and retired. Our children are grown.

We decided not to integrate our finances or assets. Both Dan and my (previous) homes are valued the same.

The question is:

Should I pay Dan for part of the utilities, taxes and/or insurance costs on his house while I am living there?
If so, how much is a fair amount?

AND, if so, should I also be required to pay rent to Dan in addition to paying part of the utilities, taxes and/or insurance? If so, how much?

As I said, this is causing a problem, as I am not in agreement with what Dan thinks is fair.

Please respond with your advice. Thanks!

Linda

I told you how I am and how I feel about it, which no doubt is result of how I was brought up. I was challenged on occasion by first husband and a guy I lived with but didn't budge no matter the pressure. You have to do what you think is right based on your own standards and principles despite what anyone else does. Based on that, it may be a very good thing that you kept your home to go back to instead of being trapped as he obviously intends by his magnificent ploy. He is more old schools than I am (being that he's older). I hope you won't allow him to get away with this.

- Dan and I married under Dan's condition that I move into his house
Huh? Did you mean that the way it sounds to me? That the marriage would only take place if you agreed to his condition that you had to move into his house? That would've been a deal breaker for me ("I'll marry you only if you'll xyz"). That, to me, paves the way for what you're experiencing now.

- It sounds to me as though you have a very cold business relationship. It doesn't sound like a marriage. Everything divvy's up nice and tight - what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. A follow-on to the condition that you had to move into his house?

- You didn't mention whether your house is fully paid off. Dan's is. Not that it really matters to this story, just curious.

I think it's a shame that you talk about Dan's house and your house, but not "our" home. However, perhaps you've intentionally posted that way to more clearly explain the situation. That's fine.

Anyway, it sounds like he's expecting you to "pay rent". Actually, now that I think about it, that does flow with the way you've represented your setup. If he were taking in a roommate, it wouldn't matter whether that person had another house at all. If that roommate moved in with Dan, that roommate would pay rent. Sounds like he's expecting you to have the same financial arrangement as a roommate would.

Wouldn't work for me at all. NOT that I'd not do my part or contribute to the family home, but that's not what this sounds like.

- If you and Dan had not married, Dan would still be paying utilities (though somewhat less), insurance and taxes. So for Dan to ask you for half of the utilities bill seems pretty reasonable. For him to ask that you pay 'rent' to live in a house that is paid for quite simply offends.

- If you and Dan had not married, you would not be receiving any income from your house, and would be responsible for all of the expenses there. So by living with Dan, presumably your financial situation has improved considerably.

- You didn't say whether renting your house was at a net gain or loss, and IMO, this is a significant point. Do you have a mortgage on your house?

If renting your house is a net gain for you, keeping ALL of the profits and paying nothing towards your joint expenses seems unfair. But if your house is a net loss for you, losing money AND paying for part of Dan's house also seems unfair.

If you did combine finances, half of the income from your house would be his, and half of the bills from both your house and Dan's house would be yours. And that is what I would propose as fair. That half of the net income from your house rental (after expenses) go toward household expenses at Dan's.

Less important what anyone else thinks is "right" to do - more important is how you "feel" in this relationship. How HE "feels"in this relationship. Sounds like there's a need for deeper conversation between you two, not just what is right and what is wrong.

Could you drag his backside to an estate attorney to draft up wills and estate plans? If it's his estate he's concerned about, and passing it along to his kids (and there's some validity to that, but then again, you're both still pretty young) -- Well, it would make sense for you both to put your cards on the table and figure out what 'fair' really means.

I think if you have set up your union in this way, keeping your assets separate, then that is what you have agreed upon. Perhaps the agreement needed more clarity before you married.

Nevertheless, perhaps Dan's insistence to have things the way he wants them, and no compromise, could be the problem with the whole relationship.

What is the big picture - what is best for the marriage ?

I assume your presence and activities within Dan's house amount to something. Cleaning, housekeeping, errands, cooking perhaps? In that sense, what makes you a "tenant" -- one who pays rent -- as opposed to a "housekeeper" or "personal secretary"-- one who is entitled to a wage? I would encourage you not to open that pandora's box. However, if he does, I wouldn't hesitate to turn it around instantly. Spouses often share expenses but they do NOT pay "rent".

Suggest you share all expenses (excluding taxes and insurance on Dan's home which remains his asset) but not "rent". I think "rent" within a marriage is an obnoxious term.

As time goes on and you may buy furniture, etc,. you must be careful to record what's his, yours, and "ours".

Your union can work just fine with separate accounts. Both of you should gain. Neither of you should have your assets depleted. "Rent" would be a net depletion for you because if you still lived in your own house, you wouldn't be paying it. I would resist that.

If you contribute to repairs and/or upgrades to Dan's house over time, that becomes your equitable interest in the property, too, which you'll want to record.

Overall, I think Dan's being kind of a jerk about this. He's creating more problems than he's solving. You may have married a pedant. If he persists, you may want to consider a "post-nuptial" agreement and put this nonsense to bed permanently.

How's the marriage going otherwise?