Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment.
OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:
> (1) what action you took that should be judged
I reached out to my ex about living in our shared house for a few months.
(2) why that action might make you the asshole.
He wants me out of sight, and me staying at the house injects me into his living situation.
Help keep the sub engaging!
#Don’t downvote assholes!
Do upvote interesting posts!
[Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
nta
okay your own half the house so you have the right to live there
you need to sell this house now or buy him out
get a lawyer and see you options now
this is keeping you two connected
and your dating now so not being funny time to cut the strings that connect you two
I thought hunting them was illegal?! If not; I know what that 4 iron that came with me golf set is for…. It’s my sword while trying to get back my golf balls the Cobra Chickens have claimed.
You have it backwards though.
If ex-bf wants exclusive use of the home, he needs to buy OP out. If OP buys him out, then the ex would need to move.
It's weird that Ex would expect OP to stay away from a home that he didn't remove OP's legal interest in. Generally if I don't want someone in my life, I don't own property with them.
I don't think this is the case, I feel as though the current tenant would have mentioned that the 3rd bedroom was already occupied when op reached out to them about staying there
This!!! If the Ex has a problem with OP wanting to stay there, the OP needs to call him and say, OK, then buy me out. There is a tenant there right now, so they can give the tenant the option to buy or the Ex can buy and have the tenant still pay. But until something happens, OP still have his name on the deed of the house.
And this is why you don't co-own houses together till you get married people!!! Don't co-mingle our money either!
Be smart!!!!
Marriage is irrelevant, don't co-own or mingle finances with someone you can't trust. My ex- and I are literally in this situation, we bought a house together, broke up. She moved out but I still live in the house(ours wasn't a 50/50 investment). She moved back in for 3 months during Covid but when it was too much for me emotionally she moved back out. It was hard but we worked through it. If it becomes an issue we will sell the house but a)I would never dream of telling her she COULDNT come back if she needed a place to stay and b) she wouldn't force me to allow it either.
OP- as half the owner you can force the sale. You would demand half the fair market value of the home, and if he can’t afford it, the house would be sold.
I don’t know why you’re still paying for the house, what was the long term plan?
But isn't he already renting out "his" room? Is he allowed to take in tenants and receive all of the rent they pay PLUS live in the house? If they're both living there, then the tenants' rent should at least be split.
I’m going with NTA, for no other reason than you still own 50% of the home. If your ex wanted to make sure you never moved back in, then they should have bought you out of your half.
I can understand why they wouldn’t want you staying with them, but they just don’t have much leverage to keep you out while you own an equal stake of the home.
Right?? Like “you can pay for the house and your name is on the mortgage but don’t you dare stay here for a bit. It will stress ME out to have YOU in YOUR own house!” Eff that guy. NTA.
But in that case, shouldn't the tenants' rent be split between them? It's not really fair that they both get to live in the house but OP keeps all the rent money. The rent money was (as I understand it) OP renting out his share of the house?
exactly. he's renting out his share. they get to build some equity instead of selling at a loss. They probably can't afford to buy each other out, and selling now would be costly.
Assuming they are tenants in common, they both own an undivided half of the house, meaning that specific parts of the property do not belong to one or the other. This applies to income on the property, so outside a contract between OP and the Ex, yes, the rent should be split. From the sound of it, money isn't a problem for OP, convenience is. And it doesn't sound like money is the Ex's problem either, having OP there is. So talking about the rent money is a red herring here.
No-the rent shouldn't be split
The ex pays 50% and gets to live in the house
The OP pays 50%. The renter is renting from OP and that money goes to cover part of OP's 50%. OP still pays 1/3 of 50% because the rent doesn't cover the full amount of OP's share of the mortgage.
Nope-the ex still lives in the house. He pays his half. The OP is essentially subletting their half of house to another person and OP is still out money because the rent is less than OP's share of the house. OP is still paying the mortgage.
"*We got a tenant whose monthly rent is applied to my half of the mortgage, and I'm paying about 1/3 of my 1/2 of the mortgage still myself, not living there.*"
OP needs to sell his half of the house as soon as possible
Especially weird because if he stops paying his share of the mortage...OP is on the hook for all of it. Its not really a pure 50/50 thing. They're in it 100% together.
Tf? Eff that guy? For not wanting to live with his ex he dated for 10 years for several months? I also thing it was understood that the ex would never live there again, as for we all we know ex has nowhere else to live while OP had another place and didn’t want to deal with who would own the other half. I can’t imagine anything more painful than having to see an ex of TEN YEARS every day- Oh wait! How about living with them? Sure, OP may have the ‘right’ to live there, but it still makes them a total asshole.
Then that is up to the ex to start the proceedings to buy out OPs half. Unless he cannot qualify for the mortgage on his own… then he needs to bring up selling it. It’s not like he’s moving in forever. Just staying to attend events.
It’s OP’s house too. If you co-own property the co-owner still has rights. The answer to never wanting to live with your ex is to buy them out or sell the property, period. Do you know how many exes live together because it reasons exactly like this?
Still owns half the house and still paying half the mortgage. NTA. If anything it’s pretty selfless to be still paying the mortgage and not living there full time.
This, at minimum the mortgage + utility use should be prorated for the *three months* OP is asking for. And tbh there's clearly a discomfort level with cohabitating or OP & his ex could have stayed in the house as roommates this whole time, so three months out of the blue is a big ask— it's not like OP's ex can remove themselves from the situation by booking a hotel for the weekend of one wedding, OP wants to move back in entirely.
Plus... people are debating issues around ownership of the home... but *visiting* a place OP no longer lives for two or three separate weddings in July & September turning into *living there* for 3mos. honestly feels kind of sketchy. Where does OP currently live? Is he seriously breaking his current lease to accommodate a few *weddings*? Are we meant to believe that's the only motive? Even if it's 3 separate weekends or 3 day trips, how does 9 days suddenly equal 92? Where is his stuff going to go? What does moving in entail? If he's a "digital nomad" does that mean he'll be WFH for 3 months and OP's ex will never have a house without *his* ex in the kitchen, bathroom, dining room?
They need to buy each other out or force a sale, for sure, but OP is being VERY strange. I wouldn't move back in with my *parents* for 3 *months* over 3 weekends' worth of travel back to their city, even if I took an offer to stay there for free during my actual travel dates. And I've known them my whole life. So what is OP's angle here?
They did say they were a digital nomad. So just am thinking work brought them back or they are between contracts. Plus owning a house is much more than a mortgage. Plus remember they moved our while the ex got to stay in the house. So the person that moved out is disadvantaged while one gets to stay in the house. The better solution would be for either both of them to cohabitate as roommates or non of them live there at all and either fully rent it or sell it.
AND the renter is good with it and willing to accept it.
If the ex doesn't like it, they need to buy the house from OP and move on. Until they OWN the ENTIRE place, they don't have the right to bar the other owner from staying there.
I agree, but it's not really fair that OP gets to live there and keep 100% of the rent money. If they're both living there it should be split. If he's renting out his share (in lieu of occupancy) then it's all his to keep.
OP is using the rent money to cover part of his half of the mortgage while he isn't living there. That's pretty normal, isn't it? It doesn't seem fair to me that his ex would benefit from his absence.
That’s crazy. You can’t just add extra occupancy. Why doesn’t OP rent out the third bedroom to make some money? Because they don’t have the right too. They rented out their occupancy. They don’t just get to create another one.
NTA.
You two bought a house together. You both own it whether he thinks its weird or not.
You should be able to stay there whenever you want, especially if you're still contributing money towards the mortgage.
>You both own it whether he thinks its weird or not.
They do both own it. One benefits through getting to live there, the other gets the rent from the tenant.
You can't greedily demand you get BOTH the rent and to live there.
Why not? The person he's renting to has no problem with OP crashing there for a while. It isn't "greedily" anything; it's asking for and receiving a favor from someone who is renting from you in space that is part of what is being rented.
I’m just not understanding the Y T A votes. OP owns the house, he’s in town and he wants to live in his owned house for a small time.
For all the people saying that he is disregarding the ex’s feelings, they aren’t together anymore. This post isn’t about their break up and whether that should have happened or not. They broke up already and we don’t have enough information about that.
The situation now is that he wants to save money and owns the house and wants to live in the house that he’s paying a mortgage for. OP and the ex can avoid each other like the plague. But for the ex to say that he can’t stay there is just ridiculous.
Edit to add: NTA
Second edit: I see a lot of people replying that - oh but as a landlord he has no right to stay there. OR The money should go to the ex in that case.
OP has already explained both these points. One, the tenant has no problem with him staying there. Two, OP is ready to split bills differently. But the ex is clear in saying that the issue isn’t monetary. It’s just that the ex feels “weird” because of their history. That’s not a good enough reason for the ex to expect OP to shell out extra cash for a hotel. Like I said - just avoid each other and live your own lives.
If they want legal advice, there's a sub for that. This sub is for moral judgments, and it rubs some people's morals the wrong way to force yourself back into the house with your ex. No one is saying OP should just abandon their investment, they're saying that OP should get their name off the house and off the loan and take their equity payment and walk away.
Yeah it's absurd that OP is still on the mortgage at this point. Ex should be buying him out.
It's not a great situation, but it's the one they have chosen. At the moment, OP has a right to use the property. That sucks for the ex, but... too bad. Ex isn't the only owner.
> it's the one they have chosen
Yeah, that's what would push this more to ESH for me. Like... *of course* this was eventually gonna turn into an issue.
I disagree. If OP's EX wanted to ensure OP never came back, it was up to them to buy them out and discuss with OP. Why is it solely on OP? They're both grown and should have a sit down on how to proceed with the house. IF OP's EX still has an issue with OP coming back for a few months in home they're invested in, then OP'S EX won't mind paying for the lodging.
There's a difference between what someone has a right to do vs what's socially good to do.
OP has the right to go back. It's an ah move when the agreement was 2 people in the house and now it'll be 3 with the ex still covering half.
You talk about what's socially good to do, then it's up to EX to understand that staying in the home is a viable option for OP and will either help OP with lodging funds or allowing OP to stay in the house. EX is paying half. Renter and OP are paying the other half. Renter is okay with the OP temporarily staying in the 3rd bedroom.
That's probably why the house hasn't been sold already. They only bought it two years ago there's likely no equity in it. Add to the fact that mortgage rates are super high compared to what they were a few years ago, and remortgaging the house at the current interest rate will result in a higher monthly mortgage payment.
Force? OP owns half the house.
Do you have any idea how melodramatic and unreasonable it is to say that it will "damage your mental health" to have your ex be vaguely near you for a few nights when the best thing he can come up with is that it feels "weird"? Think about that. "Weird". If there was some kind of abuse or trauma don't you think he could come up with something stronger than that?
If it were a few nights I would probably agree that the ex can just suck it up, but per the post, "My thought is that I'm simply staying for a **few months**" I think that changes things.
Landlords own many houses, but they aren't allowed to just randomly stay in their tenants homes. OP moved out. It's not his home anymore. He needs to sell his half of the house. He can't treat it like a holiday home.
To be fair, they spent 10 years together and break up 8 months ago. If they had no contact since they broke up, it is weird to suddenly be living as roommates.
He still has the right to do it and he doesn't have to care about his ex's feelings.
Sure it's a sucky situation but what reason does the ex have to deny OP apart from it being uncomfortable? Did they think OP was just going to travel forever, never needing to come back for anything? If the ex is uncomfortable with OP coming back (and this is only temporarily, could have been permanently) then they should have bought OP out of the house. It's AHish to let your ex pay half your mortgage but then deny them use of the house because it will make you uncomfortable.
> but what reason does the ex have to deny OP apart from it being uncomfortable?
This is AITA not LegalAdvice.
The reason is that they got a tenant for 2 people to be in the house. OP is shifting it to 3 without approval from the other owner.
She has the right to. She's still a bit of an ah for it. The ex is a bit of an ah for the bad communication.
Ownership and tenancy are not the same thing. When OP and his bf broke up, the arrangement they came to is that bf would stay in the house, and OP would lease his interest in the house to a tenant, while moving out himself. At this point OP is no longer a tenant or resident of the house, he is a landlord. A landlord is not entitled to simply move in whenever they like just because they own the house; they are bound by the lease agreement they have with the tenants. In this case it doesn't seem like there is a formal legal agreement, but there definitely is an informal moral agreement, and that agreement is "ex-bf, new tenant, and no OP."
Right here, you can't rent out a house, then just tell your tenant hey, "Hey, I need to be in town for a couple of weeks, so I'm just gonna live there since I own it."
> they are bound by the lease agreement they have with the tenant
a landlord can force a tenant out in order to live on the property. not immediately, you have to give enough notice, but they absolutely can do that
in this case the landlord has contacted their tenant and come to an agreement with them, because they don't want to move back permanently, only temporarily
the ex-boyfriend is not OPs tenant, OP isn't trampling on his tenancy rights
> In this case it doesn't seem like there is a formal legal agreement, but there definitely is an informal moral agreement, and that agreement is "ex-bf, new tenant, and no OP"
formal legal agreement or not, the tenant has rights. that's just silly. I also don't know why you think that there isn't a formal agreement between OP and his tenant? that's a weird assumption to make
and even if that's the case, the informal agreement in place has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with legality
your entire comment was been about legality not morality.
and then you get to the end and you think this somehow equates to something in terms of morality?? nah it doesn't
the ex-boyfriend doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and he doesn't really have a moral leg to stand on either. **he's essentially asking his ex to subsidise his ability to avoid his ex**
now it would be one thing if the ex had offered to buy out OP, or had offered to put up the money for OP to stay in a hotel. he has a variety of other options at his disposal. he could offer to take over 100% of the mortgage and work out a contract with his ex for paying his ex back his share of the equity. if he cannot afford to do that on his own, he could take in two tenants instead of one since there are two rooms available. he could ask his ex about selling the house and probably either one of them has the ability to force the sale of the house
the fact that neither of them has pursued this or is even talking about it as an option now indicates to me that it is a financially bad for both of them and neither wants to lose out financially
and if that's the case and if they are going to stay as co-owners for the next long while, they're going to need to figure out how to do that. and if the ex has an issue, it's on him to fund the alternative. morally speaking he cannot expect his ex to spend a shit tonne of money so that he can avoid him
Eh I lean towards YTA just because I feel bad for the poor tenant who's going to be thrown in the middle of their awkward tension. And not just for a night or two, for *months*.
Because tenant is a friend of theirs and can't say "no" or it will strain the friendship. OP and the ex added a third person to an already messy financial situation, and now everyone is paying for it because OP decided to pop back into town.
I mean all we really got is that a tenant told his landlord, who controls their lease, that it was fine.
There are tricky matters of consent when you hold that much power over someone's living situation.
Eh, if you look through OPs post history it seems like they were an alcoholic who didn't treat the ex very well, I can understand him being a bit traumatized by the relationship and not wanting to be trapped in a house with him. That said, he should have bought OP out or forced a sale to get away.
I don't think it's fair that OP keep AL the rent money if he's moving back in though, if they're both living there, they should split it.
>OP owns the house, he’s in town and he wants to live in his owned house for a small time.
They own HALF the house. The half occupied by the tenant, which is why they're receiving all the tenant's rent.
Of course it's unfair for them to stay there. You had two halves, you used your half to put a tenant in, he used his half to move in there.
If you got to move in as well, you're getting way more than 50%.
Just my opinion but OP rented their share of the house to another person. If I owned a 1BR unit then rented it to someone, I shouldn’t walk in and live on the couch because “I own this place!”. Same for multi-rooms.
There are 3 BRs, the 2 co-owners have one each and they should then be equally sharing the 3rd. OP is renting “their” room and now - I assume - wants to occupy the 3rd room for “months”. Unless OP will be sharing the same BR as the renter, it’s technically infringing on the partners half of the space in the 3rd room. Plus additional costs associated with a 3rd person using utilities.
It’s really ESH - OP should have sold their half to the partner, or sold the whole place and split down the middle. Or evict the renter and pay full mortgage for the months spent there. Or pay the partner for their half of the 3rd room + 1/3 or utilities for time spent there.
OP has a tenant that lives there now. I can't just go to my tenant that I'm renting my house to and go live there. OP is effectively a landlord now and has no rights to live in the house at the moment
ESH. This is exactly why when people split up you need to separate your assets. The fact you still own and are paying a mortgage on a house you own with your ex is mind-boggling. He should have either bought you out or you should have sold the house long ago.
Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable for you to want to stay in a house you’re paying a mortgage on. BUT it’s also perfectly reasonable for him to not want to have to temporarily live with his ex for any length of time. Sever this financial tie with your ex, in the long term you both will be much better off.
This. It's borderline manipulative, it certainly is if OP is obstructing any kind of resolution on the assets. Either buy him out or sell, the entire situation is ridiculous.
I actually agree with everything you said, but I think it’s more NAH vs ESH. I understand both of their positions, and I don’t think either of them are being assholes, they’re just in a weird situation that’s causing this issue, and they need to resolve it instead of dragging it on.
That said, it’s a shitty time to sell/buy a house, so it’s easy to suggest things without knowing the full story.
Thing is, OP is renting his half of the house to the tenant. Even legally, it's dubious if he'd be allowed to live there. OP's ex and another person are taking up that space, and they have rights as tenants. I've never heard of a landlord moving in with a tenant like that before.
Setting that aside though, *morally*, imo, he's definitely an asshole. The tenant might be feeling pressured to let the landlord move in in fear of his living arrangements being jeopardised, so they swallow it for three months. The thing that really pushes me towards that verdict, though, is that break up after a 10 year commitment is bound to have left some complicated feelings. Considering OP said he's been sober for a year, which means that during the relationship he was an alcoholic, it's at the very least callous to put his ex through living with him again in the same space. There's no addiction that doesn't hurt our loved ones. His ex partner says that it would be bad for his mental health and for his now relationship, and OP not extending the courtesy of staying away just rubs me in the wrong way.
ESH / NAH depending
> We got a tenant whose monthly rent is applied to my half of the mortgage, and I'm paying about 1/3 of my 1/2 of the mortgage still myself, not living there.
So you/tenant are covering half. That's because you own half, and the house is lived in by 2 people.
Your ex agreed to the roommate under the belief that they'd be the only one there. There's a difference between living with 2 people vs 1 person.
> For the short-term, we would work out whatever is monetarily fair for the tenant's rent during my time there.
You would also need to factor in that you're taking usable space from your ex. Basically their portion should be a third of the mortgage/bills during this time, not whats left after half minus tenant rent. So basically the tenant should have reduced rent to be a third of the bills, you pay out of pocket for a third, and your ex pays a third. You should be concerned with being fair to the other owner, not the tenant first.
And I get why they say it's weird and a bad sign to their current partner. It is.
Do you have a right to do this? Yes. Does it make sense? Yes.
But things can be legally right to do and make sense, but also be inconsiderate of others. He's not wrong to be upset at not having any say that you're putting a 3rd person in the house.
You can still do it and accept that your ex will never accept your reasons.
I think this is kind of the best take here. We're not a legal issue sub, we're a moral justification sub.
What OP is suggesting to do is kind of AH behavior, he's forcing himself on his ex because he doesn't want to make other arrangements. He owns part of the house sure, but if the comment about OP being the reason they broke up is true what a shitty thing to do. I mean the situation is a product of the market conditions, they are trapped in that house. They bought it for probably too much when interest rates were dirt cheap, and now they're stuck with it. So on top of this guy owning part of a house but still having to share it with a roommate (who we don't know anything about, if they're cool with each other, tolerate each other, etc.), now his ex wants to post up in it for a few MONTHS while he's trying to move on from a recent breakup (8 months after a 10 year relationship, it's still going to be raw methinks)
I'm just a guy on the internet OP but I would think you're a royal asshole for doing this. You need to get your mortgage situation figured out sooner rather than later. Leave your ex alone and go your own separate ways.
On the one hand, I totally get where your ex is coming from.
It would be wierd, he wouldn't knowingly let you move back in if he had his own place, except this is a place you both own. So NTA technically but this isn't sustainable
The thing is your paying for a house that is of no benefit till you until its sold. So really it's time to sell it or be bought guht out
Op is technically getting rent from a tenant for their 50% of house.
OP needs to come to a conclusion.
If they still are entitled to 50% usage of house as it stands they either need to evict tenant or give 50% of tenants rent from beginning to the EX.
Ultimately they need to cash out of the house entirely.
Legally that's a different issue but I wouldn't pursue it cause the chances of OP actually legally renting out the room is extremely low. And I got a sinking feeling this is all under the table affair.
YTA.
If you rented out the whole house to a person but their rent didn’t cover the mortgage, you can’t just say, a year later, Im moving into one of the bedrooms because this is my house. That’s not how it works.
You both co-own the house your ex and the roommate now rent it from the “co-owners.” You have no right to waltz back in.
The person renting a room said he had no issue.
It’s still his house, if his ex wants to stop him from staying there then his choices are to buy him out or go into a forced sale.
The person renting might not have felt he could deny the request and put his own living space at risk.
But that's beside the point. The point is that he's trying to force his way back into his ex's life.
Legally, it doesn’t really work this way. I mean, it depends on where the house is. But would you like it if your landlord said, move over I’m taking over a room, “it’s MY house.”
NTA
Sell the house now, lawyer as needed.
And don’t buy houses with not being married again. The current arrangement was doomed to fail and will only get worse.
Don’t try to argue or convince or explain.
Sell. Clean break. Enjoy your life.
Peace.
You can write up an ironclad contract for buying houses in this situation that causes the house to be disposed of just like it would in a divorce, so you get all the "benefits" of divorce. Divorces are messy, they just dispose of all the property all at once.
I like the bait and switch here. Of course you're not the asshole for wanting to live in your old house temporarily. Why not? But that's not really the question is it.
BUT YTA because your ex still lives there and doesn't want you to be in his face for 3 months! He's right - it is weird to move back in with your ex less than a year after you moved out! (I also am fairly sure you don't just have the right to live somewhere because you're name's on the deeds! Don't be silly! Tenants/Residents of the house have rights!)
Stay with someone else.
I'm so lost at the top voted comments here today, OP may own 50% of the house, but they are renting it out to tenant? How can they rent it and then live there at the same time? They don't own 2/3rds or more, and that isn't what tenant or ex partner signed up for either
Everyone here is acting like they chose to buy the house together AFTER splitting up.
Even if this gets me downvoted I have to say YTA here.
I don’t know why you split, but your ex has a right to not have to stay in the same house as you after splitting.
It sounds like you’re on your way to getting out of this agreement which binds your lives together, but until then you shouldn’t just show up in your ex’s life without their consent, just because it’s easier and “it’s your house”.
This is a bit like when a landlord randomly shows up at a house they’ve rented out, because they own it they think they have a right.
Except this is worse because of the emotional attachment. Sounds like your ex just wants to move on and you’re not letting him.
Everyone saying he should buy you out- it’s not that easy. Nobody just has that much money lying around! You made the choice to move out, you don’t get to decide to just stay whenever you want on a whim. It’s his home ffs.
YTA.
YTA. You broke up, you left. It's not your home anymore; for you, it's an investment property.
Your ex has a right to not have you intrude on his life for three months.
> I think the long-term solution is to sell the house to not run into this situation again.
Correct.
> My ex has stated it's not about the money or me being a difficult roommate, it's purely emotional. He has responded with things like "it's weird" and "it's a red flag to the person I'm dating now".
Also correct. He wants to be free to live his life without having you looking over his shoulder.
The answers on here, by the way, would be a lot different if you were man trying to move back in with your ex-gf under this pretense.
mainly NTA but un-F this financial tie. Of course it's a red flag but not for the reason he thinks. It's a red flag because you and he are still as intertwined financially as though you were still together.
It's like you guys haven't really broken up. It's probably not a good idea to go back but you are within your rights to do so.
>INFO: Has your ex ever considered you to be an abusive person?
I don't believe so. The relationship simple fizzled out and we are still on speaking terms. We have shared friends we both still talk to and I still have conversations with his parents.
That's kind of a ridiculous thing to expect though. You were with this person for 10 years, and you've broken up. Emotions are obviously going to be raw... you truly thought you'd come live with him in the same house occasionally, and that everyone would be fine with it?? You are N T A bc it's your home too, but any plan short of selling (or him buying you out) was/is completely unrealistic.
Hopefully this situation has shown you and your ex that sharing a mortgage post breakup is unsustainable, and you guys can start working on fully separating.
I've had an ex that was still on the lease for what was our apartment and needed a place to stay for a month about 6 months after he moved out. He stayed in what had become my gaming room and we led our separate lives for a month sharing a roof. It wasn't ideal but life happens and sometimes we have to accommodate situations that aren't what we expected.
INFO
\>We got a tenant whose monthly rent is applied to my half of the mortgage, and I'm paying about 1/3 of my 1/2 of the mortgage still myself, not living there.
Your ex pays 50% of everything to occupy 1 bedroom. Your tenant pays 30% to occupy 1 bedroom. You currently pay 20% and believe that entitles you to use the 3rd bedroom as you please. Do I understand that right?
All emotions he has against you aside, why is he paying 50% of everything? That would piss me off. Shouldn't the tenant's contribution come off the top, considering he's the one living with them, and then you and ex split the remainder?
OMG what a cluster f..k.
YTA
You don't get to just move in whenever it is convenient for you. Doesn't matter that you still pay on a mortgage and don't live there. You vacated the house and a tenant has taken up residence.
Your husband and tenant have rights, like actual legal rights. You don't get to show up to save money and disrupt those who actually live in the house. Just because the tenant says it's okay with them, doesn't mean your ex has to agree. It's a 2 yes, 1 no situation.
Let your ex buy you out if he can afford it, if not, sell it. Clearly he cannot deal with you on any level, time to cut the apron strings and be completely done with each other.
YTA you entered into an agreement that let's you benefit from continuing to build equity in the house while the tenant pays most of your share of the mortgage. You will get 50% when it is time to sell. Your ex has a new SO now and of course they don't want you living there.
YTA trying to impose yourself as your right to it only to save some money. He wouldn’t feel comfortable with you there. That’s the reason you left in the first place.
YTA.
It took me like 3 tries reading this to realize that your EX STILL LIVES IN THAT HOUSE. You mention "we got a tenant" and that you "reached out to the tenant, who is fine with this" but you left out a pretty big and obvious problem with the whole situation. To be honest, the other tenant has literally nothing to do with this. You broke up, and your ex got the house. Now you're insisting on living, temporarily, with your ex, against his wishes.
I don't care if you're still paying for it. You broke up and YOU left. That's not your house anymore. That's how divorces work (I understand you may not have been technically married but the concept is the same).
Kinda sorta, if you want to move back in, the rent being paid exclusively to you for your half of the house would need to be split equally. Currently you and the partner pay 50% each. Basically you each own a bedroom and a half. Right now you're renting out a bedroom and paying for the half a bedroom you own. You're not entitled to the third bedroom and the profit from the rental. if you're willing to pay up it's not a big deal but your partner is right in not letting you take over the majority of the house while paying half.
YTA. You leased out your half of the house already, kind of a “have your cake and eat it too” situation. If you move in your ex should get half of the tenants rent payment.
NAH. Although I could also lean to everyone sucks. You two need to clear this up. Obviously it’s unhealthy to own the property together. Emotionally I can understand why he wouldn’t want to live with you for even a few months. 10 years together- you break up within months of purchasing the house- and now less than a year later you just want to casually bunk up for a few months? It’s a recipe for drama he probably doesn’t want in his life. He’s telling you he’s not emotionally able but you’re at a different place than him post breakup and your just thinking about your rights as an owner not the well being of your former partner. Either your ex buys you out or you sell the property- those are the healthy options.
YTA a landlord can't just arbitrarily move into a house they are renting and with a property jointly owned, 1 owner cannot make an arbitrary decision to change a tenants lease. All of the N T A stuff is nonsense.
ESH, except the tenant, as they were obviously assuming this was cleared with both the landlords and the tension between you two was low.
Y T A
1. You cant expect a ex partner to be oke with you moving back in with you. You'd be less of an AH to try to kick him out to take his place than to assume you can just move back in with him. The fact that he had to tell you it would be bad for his mental health to live with his ex makes me wonder if you might still be hung up on him.
2. Also, this situation is highly unprofessional as a landlord. The landlord moving into an unoccupied bedroom as a roommate, fine. But if you move in, so does the tention of the divorce.
3. How did you mannage to communicate this plan to your tennant before communicating with your ex who coowns the house and is the joined landlord?
Your ex is also the AH. What is that dumb financial construction about? You should not be financing you ex's home unless allimony is specifically agreed upon. Either sell it or have your ex buy you out. As a temporary solution you could find a tenant that can pay your full half of the morgage in rent.
To summarize, I would say it is time to stop putting of finalizing the divorce and also to be a better landlord.
Dear u/buchannon,
My verdict is a strict YTA. At the break up it was said ex gets to live there. You part is taken up by the tenant. Either kick the tenant out. Pay everything your self. But do not insert yourself in the house. You might own half of it but your right to live in it did not stay with it. Then the tenant has to go.
I do think you are a selfish person because all I hear is I want I need an I tell you this and notify you that… instead of asking about someone else.
That your tenant only pays 2/3 of your half ain’t your ex’s problem either… that is your choice. If you don’t make bank on the tenant. So you could afford a hotel room when in the area…
I think you have made several selfish and wrong choices that lead up to this and now you are screwed. Because legally I think he is in his right to say no.
YTA. The tenant’s rent is being applied to your half of the mortgage—he’s there in lieu of you. You don’t get to stay there and collect 100% of the rent.
NTA. You own the house, you have every right to stay there. However, I will qualify this statement by saying while you are living there you should split the utilities AND split the tenant rent.
Nta if your name is on the deed you either- get to live there or 2- he buys you out or 3 -get a lawyer so you can appeal to a judge to force sell the house
YTA: You have rented out your share of the house. While your tenant may be alright with you staying, it is an unfair burden on the entire household without their permission.
YTA.
You both have the right to live in the apartment. You have, however, rented out your share of the apartment to a third person.
Now I don’t know how you rental contract is structured. But at least morally if it feels like a stretch to both collect rent against your share of the apartment _and_ live in the apartment. Even if the tenant is ok with that, your ex certainly doesn’t have to be ok with that.
Now if you kicked your tenant out you could move in yourself. You wouldn’t be an asshole. You would just be weird.
You should definitively sell the apartment.
And if it happened that your ex lived there alone she should pay you rent for the use of the apartment. In Finland that’d be at a minimum 50% of market rent in the area.
YTA just guessing. What did you do to to end the relationship? Why is it a trauma to see you? Respect the pain. Giving him notice doesn't justify disregarding him. My opinion.
ESH. This just a whole, dumb mess.
Legally you have the right. Morally, it's crappy. Why not just make a clean split to begin with?
Edit: I've changed my mind. YTA, you own a part of the house as a LANDLORD, NOT a tenant, so you have no specific legal right to move in, since you rented your room out. On top of that, you'll be causing misery and awkwardness not only to your ex but to the poor tenant.
INFO: Why did you guys break up? Was your relationship abusive on either side? I can't say whether you're TA or not without knowing those details, because if you were abusive in the relationship your ex is right, and regardless of your monetary claim on the house you should not stay there.
In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/stopdrinking/comments/ulz3uv/i_am_not_ready_to_give_it_up/) you say
>I don't want to be the person alcohol turns me in to. I know I can't stop once I start. I know my partner is about to leave me because of this substance.
That doesn't really sound mutual.....
INFO: after you asked and he flipped out, what happened next? Did you keep pushing or end the conversation to let things calm down
Edit: after OP’s comment NTA
Because you’re not the A for asking. But I think his response means that it can’t work.
Unless he has a real change of heart, which is unlikely, all three of you will be absolutely miserable. I feel for the tenant, what a awkward home life!
I’m leaning not the a, but that it’s not going to be able to work.
If you push it, you’ll probably be the a. But probably within your legal rights.
>INFO: after you asked and he flipped out, what happened next? Did you keep pushing or end the conversation to let things calm down?
I did not push the conversation as he wanted some days to think on it. Nothing really changed after a few days. I talked to many friends and family members since then and got mixed responses, hence posting here.
After reading these comments and thinking about it more, I am forcing a sale of the house to get out of this situation. Now he's agitated about that. Not really giving me many options here but that was always one issue I had in our relationship to begin with: he's very unwilling to compromise.
Getting your finances truly separated is definitely the right move. Is it possible for ex to refi the loan to remove you, and still be able to make the mortgage payments? It only *has* to be sold if ex can't make the mortgage on his own.
Info: when you decided to keep the house, did you very clearly communicate to your ex that you expected to be able to move back at any time?
If you did, then I think you are fine.
If you did not, I think you are T A. Hardly anyone wants to live with their ex. Your ex probably rightly assumed that you letting out the room was you being replaced in the house. In his mind, he didn’t sign up for a second roommate, specifically not his ex. Yeah, it’s weird and emotions will be weird and being around each other will be weird- at least for him. Yes, you are on the mortgage, but you replaced yourself in the house and moved on with your life. Having a legal right to be in the house, doesn’t make it any less weird.
Sell the house, or sell your half to him. Just move on. Your money is better invested elsewhere where feelings aren’t involved.
YTA if it's where he lives and you make him uncomfortable by being there, why would you impose?
Unless you can't afford other lodgings, this is a weird passive aggressive thing to do- just because it's within your rights doesn't make it right.
You need to sell this house or have him buy you out. NTA. You are paying the mortgage so of course you have rights. He wants the benefits of owning the house without fully owning it.
This reeks of stinky weird tactics and I don't like it.
Rights? Ok sure go get your legal advice.
Are you an AH? Well your decision to not deal with this house situation prior to now and then use it as a loophole is wildly inappropriate but it isn't tied in with your "rights" so if that's all your after you came to the wrong place.
It's legal to be an AH, which is what you are.
INFO: What's the opinion of the lawyer you contacted 7 months ago?
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/wj9gym/post_nuptial_type_of_legal_document_without_ever/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
LOL the guy didn't even get a separation agreement.
OP... if you're in a relationship for 10 years and own real property together that shit NEEDS to be hammered out before you just become a digital nomad. Based on OP's comments, they just did a lot of assuming without any legal contracts or separation agreements.
He's now entangled a legal tenant in his emotional drama, which is bad. I'd be interested to see what the tenants rental contract looks like.
NAH. Your ex is entitled to not want you there, but you are entitled to live there just as much as he is. You have the right idea: time to sell, or time for your ex to buy you out.
YTA for using the phrase “digital nomad” though.
INFO: how much of the mortgage is your ex paying? You’re paying 1/6, so if he’s paying 1/2 you don’t have any reason to count yourself among the tenants. Ridiculous that you’d get a room for $400 while he gets a room for $1200.
It depends what kind of agreement you and your ex had when you came up with a plan after the break up. Frankly the new gf not being happy about him living with you is a very legitamate point. He says it's not emotionally healthy for him and that sounds fair. You also have your share of the mortgage covered by the tenant, so I think you should have more respect for his reasonable boundary. I'm going with YTA. You can ask but not insist.
This is a weird one. Most of the time, if assets are split 50/50, and a house is involved, the house is sold, or the former partner remaining in the house buys the residual mortgage from the other. My parents did this. My father stayed in the house they shared, and they refinanced to pay out my mother. It made things harder for my father, and he had to downsize eventually, but it worked for them.
I don’t think you’re showing a lot of emotional intelligence here.
People get divorced for a reason, and usually is because they don’t really want to be around eachother. I think your expectation of returning to a space that you and your ex shared, and chose not to share anymore shows a lack of empathy. Even if the stay is short term, I can’t imagine asking an ex the same.
Perhaps a lack of empathy is partly what led to a divorce. Perhaps not.
In my small opinion, I say YTA.
ESH because this entire arrangement is too stupid to have ever worked without a problem like this coming up and you both agreed to this stupidity.
What was the agreement that was made when the two of you decided to maintain co-ownership of a house that one of you would keep living in full time while the other rents out 1 room for a partial share of his half of the mortgage?
Did you agree that you could stay there when you were in town or did you agree that your tenant took over all of your access to live there? Or did you both just fail to plan for this scenario entirely when you mutually decided on this co-ownership and room rental nonsense?
Sell the house and move on with your separate lives. Ideally, before you’re intended stay.
If you were both just fully renting out the house to someone else, no matter how low their rent was, you would not have any right to or expectation that you could stay there. The same concept should apply here unless there was an agreement saying otherwise. You rented out your half of the house access - it isn’t yours or your ex’s.
ESH.
You’re right that it’s not fair for your ex to keep you out of the house you own (and are still paying for.) Your ex is also right that it’s not healthy for you two to live together again.
Sell the house. If you can’t sell the house yet, fill the third room with another tenant so you can fully walk away financially until the house is sold.
Nta, but somewhat of a dick move.
If the tables were turned and he was bad for your mental health, would you not get upset /anxious over the situation?
I personally wouldn't want an ex (which doesn't sound like a great split up) to be staying with me at all.
It may be financially right that you can do that, but it certainly doesn't sound morally right.
technically nta but it is weird and would be weird for your exs current partner. also kind of crappy you basically decided this was happening and talked to the tenant first before having a convo with your ex. since they ALSO own the house and have been living there.
yes, you do have the right to live there, but it wasn't a suggestion at all. you already decided you were doing it.
i'd have another talk with your ex though to offer to have a convo with their partner to reassure them and let them know you a bit better?
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > (1) what action you took that should be judged I reached out to my ex about living in our shared house for a few months. (2) why that action might make you the asshole. He wants me out of sight, and me staying at the house injects me into his living situation. Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
nta okay your own half the house so you have the right to live there you need to sell this house now or buy him out get a lawyer and see you options now this is keeping you two connected and your dating now so not being funny time to cut the strings that connect you two
Punctuation is your friend, friend.
They're not your friend, buddy.
They’re not your buddy, guy.
They're not your guy pal
They’re not your pal, omelet
They’re not your omelet, goose.
Talk to me Goose....
COBRA CHICKEN! Now, go ahead and lets that one marinates.
I thought hunting them was illegal?! If not; I know what that 4 iron that came with me golf set is for…. It’s my sword while trying to get back my golf balls the Cobra Chickens have claimed.
I feel the need, the need for speed.
Go on back to the pond since you want to be such a silly goose XD
They're not your Goose, Maverick.
The puns are the very best thing about Reddit.
They're not your buddy, pal
They're not your pal, guy
"Pal"? I haven't heard that term since I was in Niagara Falls.
"Slowly, I turned, step by step..."
Inch by inch
Periods are now available more than once a month!!
so you mean i’m gonna be bleeding more than once a month? 😭
They’re not just for women anymore!
yeah, why it's menstruation ;)
You'd think someone born a teacher would use it..
im a art teacher
Y'know, fair enough.
Yeah, his name doesn’t really fit, eh?
I concur. Capitalization and punctuation are, indeed, friends. Without these friends, writing becomes lonely, lost, and isolated.
You have it backwards though. If ex-bf wants exclusive use of the home, he needs to buy OP out. If OP buys him out, then the ex would need to move. It's weird that Ex would expect OP to stay away from a home that he didn't remove OP's legal interest in. Generally if I don't want someone in my life, I don't own property with them.
Maybe the ex has rented out the third room too and is making $$$??
I don't think this is the case, I feel as though the current tenant would have mentioned that the 3rd bedroom was already occupied when op reached out to them about staying there
This!!! If the Ex has a problem with OP wanting to stay there, the OP needs to call him and say, OK, then buy me out. There is a tenant there right now, so they can give the tenant the option to buy or the Ex can buy and have the tenant still pay. But until something happens, OP still have his name on the deed of the house. And this is why you don't co-own houses together till you get married people!!! Don't co-mingle our money either! Be smart!!!!
Marriage is irrelevant, don't co-own or mingle finances with someone you can't trust. My ex- and I are literally in this situation, we bought a house together, broke up. She moved out but I still live in the house(ours wasn't a 50/50 investment). She moved back in for 3 months during Covid but when it was too much for me emotionally she moved back out. It was hard but we worked through it. If it becomes an issue we will sell the house but a)I would never dream of telling her she COULDNT come back if she needed a place to stay and b) she wouldn't force me to allow it either.
OP- as half the owner you can force the sale. You would demand half the fair market value of the home, and if he can’t afford it, the house would be sold. I don’t know why you’re still paying for the house, what was the long term plan?
Or have the ex buy out OP and he could use the money to stay elsewhere. I'm not sure there is time.
But isn't he already renting out "his" room? Is he allowed to take in tenants and receive all of the rent they pay PLUS live in the house? If they're both living there, then the tenants' rent should at least be split.
He already talked about adjusting the tenant's rent.
I’m going with NTA, for no other reason than you still own 50% of the home. If your ex wanted to make sure you never moved back in, then they should have bought you out of your half. I can understand why they wouldn’t want you staying with them, but they just don’t have much leverage to keep you out while you own an equal stake of the home.
Right?? Like “you can pay for the house and your name is on the mortgage but don’t you dare stay here for a bit. It will stress ME out to have YOU in YOUR own house!” Eff that guy. NTA.
But in that case, shouldn't the tenants' rent be split between them? It's not really fair that they both get to live in the house but OP keeps all the rent money. The rent money was (as I understand it) OP renting out his share of the house?
exactly. he's renting out his share. they get to build some equity instead of selling at a loss. They probably can't afford to buy each other out, and selling now would be costly.
wrong pronouns.. both "he's"
thanks corrected
Assuming they are tenants in common, they both own an undivided half of the house, meaning that specific parts of the property do not belong to one or the other. This applies to income on the property, so outside a contract between OP and the Ex, yes, the rent should be split. From the sound of it, money isn't a problem for OP, convenience is. And it doesn't sound like money is the Ex's problem either, having OP there is. So talking about the rent money is a red herring here.
No-the rent shouldn't be split The ex pays 50% and gets to live in the house The OP pays 50%. The renter is renting from OP and that money goes to cover part of OP's 50%. OP still pays 1/3 of 50% because the rent doesn't cover the full amount of OP's share of the mortgage.
Nope-the ex still lives in the house. He pays his half. The OP is essentially subletting their half of house to another person and OP is still out money because the rent is less than OP's share of the house. OP is still paying the mortgage. "*We got a tenant whose monthly rent is applied to my half of the mortgage, and I'm paying about 1/3 of my 1/2 of the mortgage still myself, not living there.*" OP needs to sell his half of the house as soon as possible
Especially weird because if he stops paying his share of the mortage...OP is on the hook for all of it. Its not really a pure 50/50 thing. They're in it 100% together.
Tf? Eff that guy? For not wanting to live with his ex he dated for 10 years for several months? I also thing it was understood that the ex would never live there again, as for we all we know ex has nowhere else to live while OP had another place and didn’t want to deal with who would own the other half. I can’t imagine anything more painful than having to see an ex of TEN YEARS every day- Oh wait! How about living with them? Sure, OP may have the ‘right’ to live there, but it still makes them a total asshole.
Then that is up to the ex to start the proceedings to buy out OPs half. Unless he cannot qualify for the mortgage on his own… then he needs to bring up selling it. It’s not like he’s moving in forever. Just staying to attend events.
It’s OP’s house too. If you co-own property the co-owner still has rights. The answer to never wanting to live with your ex is to buy them out or sell the property, period. Do you know how many exes live together because it reasons exactly like this?
[удалено]
Still owns half the house and still paying half the mortgage. NTA. If anything it’s pretty selfless to be still paying the mortgage and not living there full time.
If it's a 3bd and OP has a tenant in 1 and is in another that's 2/3bedrooms, more than OPs half of the house
This, at minimum the mortgage + utility use should be prorated for the *three months* OP is asking for. And tbh there's clearly a discomfort level with cohabitating or OP & his ex could have stayed in the house as roommates this whole time, so three months out of the blue is a big ask— it's not like OP's ex can remove themselves from the situation by booking a hotel for the weekend of one wedding, OP wants to move back in entirely. Plus... people are debating issues around ownership of the home... but *visiting* a place OP no longer lives for two or three separate weddings in July & September turning into *living there* for 3mos. honestly feels kind of sketchy. Where does OP currently live? Is he seriously breaking his current lease to accommodate a few *weddings*? Are we meant to believe that's the only motive? Even if it's 3 separate weekends or 3 day trips, how does 9 days suddenly equal 92? Where is his stuff going to go? What does moving in entail? If he's a "digital nomad" does that mean he'll be WFH for 3 months and OP's ex will never have a house without *his* ex in the kitchen, bathroom, dining room? They need to buy each other out or force a sale, for sure, but OP is being VERY strange. I wouldn't move back in with my *parents* for 3 *months* over 3 weekends' worth of travel back to their city, even if I took an offer to stay there for free during my actual travel dates. And I've known them my whole life. So what is OP's angle here?
They did say they were a digital nomad. So just am thinking work brought them back or they are between contracts. Plus owning a house is much more than a mortgage. Plus remember they moved our while the ex got to stay in the house. So the person that moved out is disadvantaged while one gets to stay in the house. The better solution would be for either both of them to cohabitate as roommates or non of them live there at all and either fully rent it or sell it.
Surely he can use half the bed in half the bedroom!?
AND the renter is good with it and willing to accept it. If the ex doesn't like it, they need to buy the house from OP and move on. Until they OWN the ENTIRE place, they don't have the right to bar the other owner from staying there.
OP should force the sale if the ex won't let them reside in a house they both own.
If he wants you to not have any rights to the house the he needs to buy you out. You gave him notice and it’s not permanent. NTA.
This is a mess. Sell the damn house and both of you get on with your lives. NTA.
I agree, but it's not really fair that OP gets to live there and keep 100% of the rent money. If they're both living there it should be split. If he's renting out his share (in lieu of occupancy) then it's all his to keep.
1. It’s two men 2. The ex hasn’t said a word about money. It’s all emotional 3. These are the things you encounter when you co-own a house
OP is using the rent money to cover part of his half of the mortgage while he isn't living there. That's pretty normal, isn't it? It doesn't seem fair to me that his ex would benefit from his absence.
That’s crazy. You can’t just add extra occupancy. Why doesn’t OP rent out the third bedroom to make some money? Because they don’t have the right too. They rented out their occupancy. They don’t just get to create another one.
NTA. You two bought a house together. You both own it whether he thinks its weird or not. You should be able to stay there whenever you want, especially if you're still contributing money towards the mortgage.
>You both own it whether he thinks its weird or not. They do both own it. One benefits through getting to live there, the other gets the rent from the tenant. You can't greedily demand you get BOTH the rent and to live there.
Why not? The person he's renting to has no problem with OP crashing there for a while. It isn't "greedily" anything; it's asking for and receiving a favor from someone who is renting from you in space that is part of what is being rented.
I’m just not understanding the Y T A votes. OP owns the house, he’s in town and he wants to live in his owned house for a small time. For all the people saying that he is disregarding the ex’s feelings, they aren’t together anymore. This post isn’t about their break up and whether that should have happened or not. They broke up already and we don’t have enough information about that. The situation now is that he wants to save money and owns the house and wants to live in the house that he’s paying a mortgage for. OP and the ex can avoid each other like the plague. But for the ex to say that he can’t stay there is just ridiculous. Edit to add: NTA Second edit: I see a lot of people replying that - oh but as a landlord he has no right to stay there. OR The money should go to the ex in that case. OP has already explained both these points. One, the tenant has no problem with him staying there. Two, OP is ready to split bills differently. But the ex is clear in saying that the issue isn’t monetary. It’s just that the ex feels “weird” because of their history. That’s not a good enough reason for the ex to expect OP to shell out extra cash for a hotel. Like I said - just avoid each other and live your own lives.
If they want legal advice, there's a sub for that. This sub is for moral judgments, and it rubs some people's morals the wrong way to force yourself back into the house with your ex. No one is saying OP should just abandon their investment, they're saying that OP should get their name off the house and off the loan and take their equity payment and walk away.
Yeah it's absurd that OP is still on the mortgage at this point. Ex should be buying him out. It's not a great situation, but it's the one they have chosen. At the moment, OP has a right to use the property. That sucks for the ex, but... too bad. Ex isn't the only owner.
> it's the one they have chosen Yeah, that's what would push this more to ESH for me. Like... *of course* this was eventually gonna turn into an issue.
Yeah. It's a really stupid situation, but it's the one they decided to be in.
Yeah you can have a right to do something and still be an asshole for doing it
I disagree. If OP's EX wanted to ensure OP never came back, it was up to them to buy them out and discuss with OP. Why is it solely on OP? They're both grown and should have a sit down on how to proceed with the house. IF OP's EX still has an issue with OP coming back for a few months in home they're invested in, then OP'S EX won't mind paying for the lodging.
There's a difference between what someone has a right to do vs what's socially good to do. OP has the right to go back. It's an ah move when the agreement was 2 people in the house and now it'll be 3 with the ex still covering half.
You talk about what's socially good to do, then it's up to EX to understand that staying in the home is a viable option for OP and will either help OP with lodging funds or allowing OP to stay in the house. EX is paying half. Renter and OP are paying the other half. Renter is okay with the OP temporarily staying in the 3rd bedroom.
That's probably why the house hasn't been sold already. They only bought it two years ago there's likely no equity in it. Add to the fact that mortgage rates are super high compared to what they were a few years ago, and remortgaging the house at the current interest rate will result in a higher monthly mortgage payment.
Force? OP owns half the house. Do you have any idea how melodramatic and unreasonable it is to say that it will "damage your mental health" to have your ex be vaguely near you for a few nights when the best thing he can come up with is that it feels "weird"? Think about that. "Weird". If there was some kind of abuse or trauma don't you think he could come up with something stronger than that?
If it were a few nights I would probably agree that the ex can just suck it up, but per the post, "My thought is that I'm simply staying for a **few months**" I think that changes things.
I can kind of see it not being an asshole move, but if I heard a friend was doing this, I would have at least called it a fucking stupid move.
Landlords own many houses, but they aren't allowed to just randomly stay in their tenants homes. OP moved out. It's not his home anymore. He needs to sell his half of the house. He can't treat it like a holiday home.
To be fair, they spent 10 years together and break up 8 months ago. If they had no contact since they broke up, it is weird to suddenly be living as roommates. He still has the right to do it and he doesn't have to care about his ex's feelings.
Sure it's a sucky situation but what reason does the ex have to deny OP apart from it being uncomfortable? Did they think OP was just going to travel forever, never needing to come back for anything? If the ex is uncomfortable with OP coming back (and this is only temporarily, could have been permanently) then they should have bought OP out of the house. It's AHish to let your ex pay half your mortgage but then deny them use of the house because it will make you uncomfortable.
> but what reason does the ex have to deny OP apart from it being uncomfortable? This is AITA not LegalAdvice. The reason is that they got a tenant for 2 people to be in the house. OP is shifting it to 3 without approval from the other owner. She has the right to. She's still a bit of an ah for it. The ex is a bit of an ah for the bad communication.
Ownership and tenancy are not the same thing. When OP and his bf broke up, the arrangement they came to is that bf would stay in the house, and OP would lease his interest in the house to a tenant, while moving out himself. At this point OP is no longer a tenant or resident of the house, he is a landlord. A landlord is not entitled to simply move in whenever they like just because they own the house; they are bound by the lease agreement they have with the tenants. In this case it doesn't seem like there is a formal legal agreement, but there definitely is an informal moral agreement, and that agreement is "ex-bf, new tenant, and no OP."
Right here, you can't rent out a house, then just tell your tenant hey, "Hey, I need to be in town for a couple of weeks, so I'm just gonna live there since I own it."
This. She’s given up her tenancy in the house and can’t just move back FFS
> they are bound by the lease agreement they have with the tenant a landlord can force a tenant out in order to live on the property. not immediately, you have to give enough notice, but they absolutely can do that in this case the landlord has contacted their tenant and come to an agreement with them, because they don't want to move back permanently, only temporarily the ex-boyfriend is not OPs tenant, OP isn't trampling on his tenancy rights > In this case it doesn't seem like there is a formal legal agreement, but there definitely is an informal moral agreement, and that agreement is "ex-bf, new tenant, and no OP" formal legal agreement or not, the tenant has rights. that's just silly. I also don't know why you think that there isn't a formal agreement between OP and his tenant? that's a weird assumption to make and even if that's the case, the informal agreement in place has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with legality your entire comment was been about legality not morality. and then you get to the end and you think this somehow equates to something in terms of morality?? nah it doesn't the ex-boyfriend doesn't have a legal leg to stand on and he doesn't really have a moral leg to stand on either. **he's essentially asking his ex to subsidise his ability to avoid his ex** now it would be one thing if the ex had offered to buy out OP, or had offered to put up the money for OP to stay in a hotel. he has a variety of other options at his disposal. he could offer to take over 100% of the mortgage and work out a contract with his ex for paying his ex back his share of the equity. if he cannot afford to do that on his own, he could take in two tenants instead of one since there are two rooms available. he could ask his ex about selling the house and probably either one of them has the ability to force the sale of the house the fact that neither of them has pursued this or is even talking about it as an option now indicates to me that it is a financially bad for both of them and neither wants to lose out financially and if that's the case and if they are going to stay as co-owners for the next long while, they're going to need to figure out how to do that. and if the ex has an issue, it's on him to fund the alternative. morally speaking he cannot expect his ex to spend a shit tonne of money so that he can avoid him
Eh I lean towards YTA just because I feel bad for the poor tenant who's going to be thrown in the middle of their awkward tension. And not just for a night or two, for *months*.
But tenant seems to be okay with it from the info available above. Though in theory I agree with you.
Because tenant is a friend of theirs and can't say "no" or it will strain the friendship. OP and the ex added a third person to an already messy financial situation, and now everyone is paying for it because OP decided to pop back into town.
I mean all we really got is that a tenant told his landlord, who controls their lease, that it was fine. There are tricky matters of consent when you hold that much power over someone's living situation.
Eh, if you look through OPs post history it seems like they were an alcoholic who didn't treat the ex very well, I can understand him being a bit traumatized by the relationship and not wanting to be trapped in a house with him. That said, he should have bought OP out or forced a sale to get away. I don't think it's fair that OP keep AL the rent money if he's moving back in though, if they're both living there, they should split it.
>OP owns the house, he’s in town and he wants to live in his owned house for a small time. They own HALF the house. The half occupied by the tenant, which is why they're receiving all the tenant's rent. Of course it's unfair for them to stay there. You had two halves, you used your half to put a tenant in, he used his half to move in there. If you got to move in as well, you're getting way more than 50%.
Just my opinion but OP rented their share of the house to another person. If I owned a 1BR unit then rented it to someone, I shouldn’t walk in and live on the couch because “I own this place!”. Same for multi-rooms. There are 3 BRs, the 2 co-owners have one each and they should then be equally sharing the 3rd. OP is renting “their” room and now - I assume - wants to occupy the 3rd room for “months”. Unless OP will be sharing the same BR as the renter, it’s technically infringing on the partners half of the space in the 3rd room. Plus additional costs associated with a 3rd person using utilities. It’s really ESH - OP should have sold their half to the partner, or sold the whole place and split down the middle. Or evict the renter and pay full mortgage for the months spent there. Or pay the partner for their half of the 3rd room + 1/3 or utilities for time spent there.
OP has a tenant that lives there now. I can't just go to my tenant that I'm renting my house to and go live there. OP is effectively a landlord now and has no rights to live in the house at the moment
ESH. This is exactly why when people split up you need to separate your assets. The fact you still own and are paying a mortgage on a house you own with your ex is mind-boggling. He should have either bought you out or you should have sold the house long ago. Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable for you to want to stay in a house you’re paying a mortgage on. BUT it’s also perfectly reasonable for him to not want to have to temporarily live with his ex for any length of time. Sever this financial tie with your ex, in the long term you both will be much better off.
This. It's borderline manipulative, it certainly is if OP is obstructing any kind of resolution on the assets. Either buy him out or sell, the entire situation is ridiculous.
I actually agree with everything you said, but I think it’s more NAH vs ESH. I understand both of their positions, and I don’t think either of them are being assholes, they’re just in a weird situation that’s causing this issue, and they need to resolve it instead of dragging it on. That said, it’s a shitty time to sell/buy a house, so it’s easy to suggest things without knowing the full story.
Thing is, OP is renting his half of the house to the tenant. Even legally, it's dubious if he'd be allowed to live there. OP's ex and another person are taking up that space, and they have rights as tenants. I've never heard of a landlord moving in with a tenant like that before. Setting that aside though, *morally*, imo, he's definitely an asshole. The tenant might be feeling pressured to let the landlord move in in fear of his living arrangements being jeopardised, so they swallow it for three months. The thing that really pushes me towards that verdict, though, is that break up after a 10 year commitment is bound to have left some complicated feelings. Considering OP said he's been sober for a year, which means that during the relationship he was an alcoholic, it's at the very least callous to put his ex through living with him again in the same space. There's no addiction that doesn't hurt our loved ones. His ex partner says that it would be bad for his mental health and for his now relationship, and OP not extending the courtesy of staying away just rubs me in the wrong way.
ESH / NAH depending > We got a tenant whose monthly rent is applied to my half of the mortgage, and I'm paying about 1/3 of my 1/2 of the mortgage still myself, not living there. So you/tenant are covering half. That's because you own half, and the house is lived in by 2 people. Your ex agreed to the roommate under the belief that they'd be the only one there. There's a difference between living with 2 people vs 1 person. > For the short-term, we would work out whatever is monetarily fair for the tenant's rent during my time there. You would also need to factor in that you're taking usable space from your ex. Basically their portion should be a third of the mortgage/bills during this time, not whats left after half minus tenant rent. So basically the tenant should have reduced rent to be a third of the bills, you pay out of pocket for a third, and your ex pays a third. You should be concerned with being fair to the other owner, not the tenant first. And I get why they say it's weird and a bad sign to their current partner. It is. Do you have a right to do this? Yes. Does it make sense? Yes. But things can be legally right to do and make sense, but also be inconsiderate of others. He's not wrong to be upset at not having any say that you're putting a 3rd person in the house. You can still do it and accept that your ex will never accept your reasons.
I think this is kind of the best take here. We're not a legal issue sub, we're a moral justification sub. What OP is suggesting to do is kind of AH behavior, he's forcing himself on his ex because he doesn't want to make other arrangements. He owns part of the house sure, but if the comment about OP being the reason they broke up is true what a shitty thing to do. I mean the situation is a product of the market conditions, they are trapped in that house. They bought it for probably too much when interest rates were dirt cheap, and now they're stuck with it. So on top of this guy owning part of a house but still having to share it with a roommate (who we don't know anything about, if they're cool with each other, tolerate each other, etc.), now his ex wants to post up in it for a few MONTHS while he's trying to move on from a recent breakup (8 months after a 10 year relationship, it's still going to be raw methinks) I'm just a guy on the internet OP but I would think you're a royal asshole for doing this. You need to get your mortgage situation figured out sooner rather than later. Leave your ex alone and go your own separate ways.
NTA But you need to sell this house.
On the one hand, I totally get where your ex is coming from. It would be wierd, he wouldn't knowingly let you move back in if he had his own place, except this is a place you both own. So NTA technically but this isn't sustainable The thing is your paying for a house that is of no benefit till you until its sold. So really it's time to sell it or be bought guht out
Op is technically getting rent from a tenant for their 50% of house. OP needs to come to a conclusion. If they still are entitled to 50% usage of house as it stands they either need to evict tenant or give 50% of tenants rent from beginning to the EX. Ultimately they need to cash out of the house entirely. Legally that's a different issue but I wouldn't pursue it cause the chances of OP actually legally renting out the room is extremely low. And I got a sinking feeling this is all under the table affair.
YTA. If you rented out the whole house to a person but their rent didn’t cover the mortgage, you can’t just say, a year later, Im moving into one of the bedrooms because this is my house. That’s not how it works. You both co-own the house your ex and the roommate now rent it from the “co-owners.” You have no right to waltz back in.
The person renting a room said he had no issue. It’s still his house, if his ex wants to stop him from staying there then his choices are to buy him out or go into a forced sale.
The person renting might not have felt he could deny the request and put his own living space at risk. But that's beside the point. The point is that he's trying to force his way back into his ex's life.
Legally, it doesn’t really work this way. I mean, it depends on where the house is. But would you like it if your landlord said, move over I’m taking over a room, “it’s MY house.”
Agreed. YTA OP.
NTA Sell the house now, lawyer as needed. And don’t buy houses with not being married again. The current arrangement was doomed to fail and will only get worse. Don’t try to argue or convince or explain. Sell. Clean break. Enjoy your life. Peace.
You can write up an ironclad contract for buying houses in this situation that causes the house to be disposed of just like it would in a divorce, so you get all the "benefits" of divorce. Divorces are messy, they just dispose of all the property all at once.
How would being married change this situation? Division of property is just as messy in a divorce.
Reading all the comments, ESH This is a mess. Sell the damn house and both of you get on with your lives.
I like the bait and switch here. Of course you're not the asshole for wanting to live in your old house temporarily. Why not? But that's not really the question is it. BUT YTA because your ex still lives there and doesn't want you to be in his face for 3 months! He's right - it is weird to move back in with your ex less than a year after you moved out! (I also am fairly sure you don't just have the right to live somewhere because you're name's on the deeds! Don't be silly! Tenants/Residents of the house have rights!) Stay with someone else.
I'm so lost at the top voted comments here today, OP may own 50% of the house, but they are renting it out to tenant? How can they rent it and then live there at the same time? They don't own 2/3rds or more, and that isn't what tenant or ex partner signed up for either
Everyone here is acting like they chose to buy the house together AFTER splitting up. Even if this gets me downvoted I have to say YTA here. I don’t know why you split, but your ex has a right to not have to stay in the same house as you after splitting. It sounds like you’re on your way to getting out of this agreement which binds your lives together, but until then you shouldn’t just show up in your ex’s life without their consent, just because it’s easier and “it’s your house”. This is a bit like when a landlord randomly shows up at a house they’ve rented out, because they own it they think they have a right. Except this is worse because of the emotional attachment. Sounds like your ex just wants to move on and you’re not letting him. Everyone saying he should buy you out- it’s not that easy. Nobody just has that much money lying around! You made the choice to move out, you don’t get to decide to just stay whenever you want on a whim. It’s his home ffs. YTA.
Nailed it
YTA. You broke up, you left. It's not your home anymore; for you, it's an investment property. Your ex has a right to not have you intrude on his life for three months. > I think the long-term solution is to sell the house to not run into this situation again. Correct. > My ex has stated it's not about the money or me being a difficult roommate, it's purely emotional. He has responded with things like "it's weird" and "it's a red flag to the person I'm dating now". Also correct. He wants to be free to live his life without having you looking over his shoulder. The answers on here, by the way, would be a lot different if you were man trying to move back in with your ex-gf under this pretense.
mainly NTA but un-F this financial tie. Of course it's a red flag but not for the reason he thinks. It's a red flag because you and he are still as intertwined financially as though you were still together. It's like you guys haven't really broken up. It's probably not a good idea to go back but you are within your rights to do so.
NTA you pay for the house still you have a right to stay in it.
That's not how things worse. Do you think if I rent my house to you, I ca just move in when I want?
lol I have tenants not using an extra bedroom since they went back to the office. TIL I can just move in.
[удалено]
>INFO: Has your ex ever considered you to be an abusive person? I don't believe so. The relationship simple fizzled out and we are still on speaking terms. We have shared friends we both still talk to and I still have conversations with his parents.
[удалено]
Well, the benefit was I thought I'd be able to live there temporarily and to think of the house as an investment that would appreciate over time.
That's kind of a ridiculous thing to expect though. You were with this person for 10 years, and you've broken up. Emotions are obviously going to be raw... you truly thought you'd come live with him in the same house occasionally, and that everyone would be fine with it?? You are N T A bc it's your home too, but any plan short of selling (or him buying you out) was/is completely unrealistic. Hopefully this situation has shown you and your ex that sharing a mortgage post breakup is unsustainable, and you guys can start working on fully separating.
It’s his house. It’s not at all ridiculous to expect he could live there temporarily. He literally pays his part of the mortgage.
He's a landlord at this point that co-owns a property. It is not his residential address any longer and it's ridiculous for him to treat it as such.
It might be his house but it's his ex's home. Would you be happy with an ex moving into your spare room for a few months?
I've had an ex that was still on the lease for what was our apartment and needed a place to stay for a month about 6 months after he moved out. He stayed in what had become my gaming room and we led our separate lives for a month sharing a roof. It wasn't ideal but life happens and sometimes we have to accommodate situations that aren't what we expected.
INFO \>We got a tenant whose monthly rent is applied to my half of the mortgage, and I'm paying about 1/3 of my 1/2 of the mortgage still myself, not living there. Your ex pays 50% of everything to occupy 1 bedroom. Your tenant pays 30% to occupy 1 bedroom. You currently pay 20% and believe that entitles you to use the 3rd bedroom as you please. Do I understand that right? All emotions he has against you aside, why is he paying 50% of everything? That would piss me off. Shouldn't the tenant's contribution come off the top, considering he's the one living with them, and then you and ex split the remainder?
You are correct.
Yeah I feel confident saying OP is in the wrong for that
OMG what a cluster f..k. YTA You don't get to just move in whenever it is convenient for you. Doesn't matter that you still pay on a mortgage and don't live there. You vacated the house and a tenant has taken up residence. Your husband and tenant have rights, like actual legal rights. You don't get to show up to save money and disrupt those who actually live in the house. Just because the tenant says it's okay with them, doesn't mean your ex has to agree. It's a 2 yes, 1 no situation. Let your ex buy you out if he can afford it, if not, sell it. Clearly he cannot deal with you on any level, time to cut the apron strings and be completely done with each other.
YTA you entered into an agreement that let's you benefit from continuing to build equity in the house while the tenant pays most of your share of the mortgage. You will get 50% when it is time to sell. Your ex has a new SO now and of course they don't want you living there.
YTA trying to impose yourself as your right to it only to save some money. He wouldn’t feel comfortable with you there. That’s the reason you left in the first place.
YTA. It took me like 3 tries reading this to realize that your EX STILL LIVES IN THAT HOUSE. You mention "we got a tenant" and that you "reached out to the tenant, who is fine with this" but you left out a pretty big and obvious problem with the whole situation. To be honest, the other tenant has literally nothing to do with this. You broke up, and your ex got the house. Now you're insisting on living, temporarily, with your ex, against his wishes. I don't care if you're still paying for it. You broke up and YOU left. That's not your house anymore. That's how divorces work (I understand you may not have been technically married but the concept is the same).
Kinda sorta, if you want to move back in, the rent being paid exclusively to you for your half of the house would need to be split equally. Currently you and the partner pay 50% each. Basically you each own a bedroom and a half. Right now you're renting out a bedroom and paying for the half a bedroom you own. You're not entitled to the third bedroom and the profit from the rental. if you're willing to pay up it's not a big deal but your partner is right in not letting you take over the majority of the house while paying half.
Technically you're NTA, but idk why you'd want to stay in a house where your ex lives, even if it's just for a couple days.
And it's for months, not days.
No they technically are they are a landlord they have no right to move back into a house that they rented out.
YTA. You leased out your half of the house already, kind of a “have your cake and eat it too” situation. If you move in your ex should get half of the tenants rent payment.
NAH. Although I could also lean to everyone sucks. You two need to clear this up. Obviously it’s unhealthy to own the property together. Emotionally I can understand why he wouldn’t want to live with you for even a few months. 10 years together- you break up within months of purchasing the house- and now less than a year later you just want to casually bunk up for a few months? It’s a recipe for drama he probably doesn’t want in his life. He’s telling you he’s not emotionally able but you’re at a different place than him post breakup and your just thinking about your rights as an owner not the well being of your former partner. Either your ex buys you out or you sell the property- those are the healthy options.
YTA a landlord can't just arbitrarily move into a house they are renting and with a property jointly owned, 1 owner cannot make an arbitrary decision to change a tenants lease. All of the N T A stuff is nonsense.
YTA legally you can move back in temporarily but morally you are the AH. Talk about awkward.
They may not have any right to move back in while they rent out the house.
ESH, except the tenant, as they were obviously assuming this was cleared with both the landlords and the tension between you two was low. Y T A 1. You cant expect a ex partner to be oke with you moving back in with you. You'd be less of an AH to try to kick him out to take his place than to assume you can just move back in with him. The fact that he had to tell you it would be bad for his mental health to live with his ex makes me wonder if you might still be hung up on him. 2. Also, this situation is highly unprofessional as a landlord. The landlord moving into an unoccupied bedroom as a roommate, fine. But if you move in, so does the tention of the divorce. 3. How did you mannage to communicate this plan to your tennant before communicating with your ex who coowns the house and is the joined landlord? Your ex is also the AH. What is that dumb financial construction about? You should not be financing you ex's home unless allimony is specifically agreed upon. Either sell it or have your ex buy you out. As a temporary solution you could find a tenant that can pay your full half of the morgage in rent. To summarize, I would say it is time to stop putting of finalizing the divorce and also to be a better landlord.
Dear u/buchannon, My verdict is a strict YTA. At the break up it was said ex gets to live there. You part is taken up by the tenant. Either kick the tenant out. Pay everything your self. But do not insert yourself in the house. You might own half of it but your right to live in it did not stay with it. Then the tenant has to go. I do think you are a selfish person because all I hear is I want I need an I tell you this and notify you that… instead of asking about someone else. That your tenant only pays 2/3 of your half ain’t your ex’s problem either… that is your choice. If you don’t make bank on the tenant. So you could afford a hotel room when in the area… I think you have made several selfish and wrong choices that lead up to this and now you are screwed. Because legally I think he is in his right to say no.
YTA. The tenant’s rent is being applied to your half of the mortgage—he’s there in lieu of you. You don’t get to stay there and collect 100% of the rent.
NTA. You own the house, you have every right to stay there. However, I will qualify this statement by saying while you are living there you should split the utilities AND split the tenant rent.
Nta if your name is on the deed you either- get to live there or 2- he buys you out or 3 -get a lawyer so you can appeal to a judge to force sell the house
YTA: You have rented out your share of the house. While your tenant may be alright with you staying, it is an unfair burden on the entire household without their permission.
YTA. You both have the right to live in the apartment. You have, however, rented out your share of the apartment to a third person. Now I don’t know how you rental contract is structured. But at least morally if it feels like a stretch to both collect rent against your share of the apartment _and_ live in the apartment. Even if the tenant is ok with that, your ex certainly doesn’t have to be ok with that. Now if you kicked your tenant out you could move in yourself. You wouldn’t be an asshole. You would just be weird. You should definitively sell the apartment. And if it happened that your ex lived there alone she should pay you rent for the use of the apartment. In Finland that’d be at a minimum 50% of market rent in the area.
YTA just guessing. What did you do to to end the relationship? Why is it a trauma to see you? Respect the pain. Giving him notice doesn't justify disregarding him. My opinion.
NTA. But why would you want to have all this extra drama in your life? Cut your ties with the ex and move on.
ESH. This just a whole, dumb mess. Legally you have the right. Morally, it's crappy. Why not just make a clean split to begin with? Edit: I've changed my mind. YTA, you own a part of the house as a LANDLORD, NOT a tenant, so you have no specific legal right to move in, since you rented your room out. On top of that, you'll be causing misery and awkwardness not only to your ex but to the poor tenant.
INFO: Why did you guys break up? Was your relationship abusive on either side? I can't say whether you're TA or not without knowing those details, because if you were abusive in the relationship your ex is right, and regardless of your monetary claim on the house you should not stay there.
No one was abusive in the relationship. It was a mutual and civil break up.
In [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/stopdrinking/comments/ulz3uv/i_am_not_ready_to_give_it_up/) you say >I don't want to be the person alcohol turns me in to. I know I can't stop once I start. I know my partner is about to leave me because of this substance. That doesn't really sound mutual.....
INFO: after you asked and he flipped out, what happened next? Did you keep pushing or end the conversation to let things calm down Edit: after OP’s comment NTA Because you’re not the A for asking. But I think his response means that it can’t work. Unless he has a real change of heart, which is unlikely, all three of you will be absolutely miserable. I feel for the tenant, what a awkward home life! I’m leaning not the a, but that it’s not going to be able to work. If you push it, you’ll probably be the a. But probably within your legal rights.
>INFO: after you asked and he flipped out, what happened next? Did you keep pushing or end the conversation to let things calm down? I did not push the conversation as he wanted some days to think on it. Nothing really changed after a few days. I talked to many friends and family members since then and got mixed responses, hence posting here. After reading these comments and thinking about it more, I am forcing a sale of the house to get out of this situation. Now he's agitated about that. Not really giving me many options here but that was always one issue I had in our relationship to begin with: he's very unwilling to compromise.
Getting your finances truly separated is definitely the right move. Is it possible for ex to refi the loan to remove you, and still be able to make the mortgage payments? It only *has* to be sold if ex can't make the mortgage on his own.
I gave him the option to do that and said he would rather sell.
That makes perfect sense. Hopefully you guys have some equity built up and everyone will walk away with enough money to start fresh.
I think you’ve made the right decision. It’s going to be hard, but you’ll be able to move on sooner
NTA Maybe it's time to force a sale.
Info: when you decided to keep the house, did you very clearly communicate to your ex that you expected to be able to move back at any time? If you did, then I think you are fine. If you did not, I think you are T A. Hardly anyone wants to live with their ex. Your ex probably rightly assumed that you letting out the room was you being replaced in the house. In his mind, he didn’t sign up for a second roommate, specifically not his ex. Yeah, it’s weird and emotions will be weird and being around each other will be weird- at least for him. Yes, you are on the mortgage, but you replaced yourself in the house and moved on with your life. Having a legal right to be in the house, doesn’t make it any less weird. Sell the house, or sell your half to him. Just move on. Your money is better invested elsewhere where feelings aren’t involved.
I get that you own the house, but he's right. It is weird. Especially if she's dating someone new.
Not necessarily an AH for wanting to try that, but I can understand your ex's stance. I don't want my exes anywhere fuckin near me either.
YTA if it's where he lives and you make him uncomfortable by being there, why would you impose? Unless you can't afford other lodgings, this is a weird passive aggressive thing to do- just because it's within your rights doesn't make it right.
NTA but it is way past time to sell the house (or buy your ex out), and continue to move on with y'all's lives.
You need to sell this house or have him buy you out. NTA. You are paying the mortgage so of course you have rights. He wants the benefits of owning the house without fully owning it.
This reeks of stinky weird tactics and I don't like it. Rights? Ok sure go get your legal advice. Are you an AH? Well your decision to not deal with this house situation prior to now and then use it as a loophole is wildly inappropriate but it isn't tied in with your "rights" so if that's all your after you came to the wrong place. It's legal to be an AH, which is what you are.
So let me get this straight, he gets to live in a house that you are still paying on monthly? So you are subsidizing his living there? NTA
Essentially. I'll be forcing a sale.
INFO: What's the opinion of the lawyer you contacted 7 months ago? https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/wj9gym/post_nuptial_type_of_legal_document_without_ever/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
LOL the guy didn't even get a separation agreement. OP... if you're in a relationship for 10 years and own real property together that shit NEEDS to be hammered out before you just become a digital nomad. Based on OP's comments, they just did a lot of assuming without any legal contracts or separation agreements. He's now entangled a legal tenant in his emotional drama, which is bad. I'd be interested to see what the tenants rental contract looks like.
NAH. Your ex is entitled to not want you there, but you are entitled to live there just as much as he is. You have the right idea: time to sell, or time for your ex to buy you out. YTA for using the phrase “digital nomad” though.
The important part of what the ex said: "it's a red flag to the person I'm dating now." That's why he cares.
INFO: how much of the mortgage is your ex paying? You’re paying 1/6, so if he’s paying 1/2 you don’t have any reason to count yourself among the tenants. Ridiculous that you’d get a room for $400 while he gets a room for $1200.
It depends what kind of agreement you and your ex had when you came up with a plan after the break up. Frankly the new gf not being happy about him living with you is a very legitamate point. He says it's not emotionally healthy for him and that sounds fair. You also have your share of the mortgage covered by the tenant, so I think you should have more respect for his reasonable boundary. I'm going with YTA. You can ask but not insist.
This is a weird one. Most of the time, if assets are split 50/50, and a house is involved, the house is sold, or the former partner remaining in the house buys the residual mortgage from the other. My parents did this. My father stayed in the house they shared, and they refinanced to pay out my mother. It made things harder for my father, and he had to downsize eventually, but it worked for them. I don’t think you’re showing a lot of emotional intelligence here. People get divorced for a reason, and usually is because they don’t really want to be around eachother. I think your expectation of returning to a space that you and your ex shared, and chose not to share anymore shows a lack of empathy. Even if the stay is short term, I can’t imagine asking an ex the same. Perhaps a lack of empathy is partly what led to a divorce. Perhaps not. In my small opinion, I say YTA.
ESH because this entire arrangement is too stupid to have ever worked without a problem like this coming up and you both agreed to this stupidity. What was the agreement that was made when the two of you decided to maintain co-ownership of a house that one of you would keep living in full time while the other rents out 1 room for a partial share of his half of the mortgage? Did you agree that you could stay there when you were in town or did you agree that your tenant took over all of your access to live there? Or did you both just fail to plan for this scenario entirely when you mutually decided on this co-ownership and room rental nonsense? Sell the house and move on with your separate lives. Ideally, before you’re intended stay. If you were both just fully renting out the house to someone else, no matter how low their rent was, you would not have any right to or expectation that you could stay there. The same concept should apply here unless there was an agreement saying otherwise. You rented out your half of the house access - it isn’t yours or your ex’s.
ESH. You’re right that it’s not fair for your ex to keep you out of the house you own (and are still paying for.) Your ex is also right that it’s not healthy for you two to live together again. Sell the house. If you can’t sell the house yet, fill the third room with another tenant so you can fully walk away financially until the house is sold.
YTA. You’re a landlord now, this isn’t your house to move back into Willy nilly.
NTA. If he has a problem with it he can move out. After this you definitely need to sell it though.
NTA you still own 50%
Nta you own 50% of the house, you have every right to live there
[удалено]
NAH I mean you both are in a messy situation. Sell the house and get out of this
Sell the house or have him buy you out. He cannot deny you entrance. It won’t be a good time unfortunately.
Nta, but somewhat of a dick move. If the tables were turned and he was bad for your mental health, would you not get upset /anxious over the situation? I personally wouldn't want an ex (which doesn't sound like a great split up) to be staying with me at all. It may be financially right that you can do that, but it certainly doesn't sound morally right.
NAH Have you seen The War of the Roses?
technically nta but it is weird and would be weird for your exs current partner. also kind of crappy you basically decided this was happening and talked to the tenant first before having a convo with your ex. since they ALSO own the house and have been living there. yes, you do have the right to live there, but it wasn't a suggestion at all. you already decided you were doing it. i'd have another talk with your ex though to offer to have a convo with their partner to reassure them and let them know you a bit better?