Ladybird said >> that he ultimately pays back to himself as he owns the house.
Ladybird, I find your attitude to the father's business idea to be somewhat irrational. Whatever is the discount that he is offering over market rent, that is what he is paying to the baby's mother. He is not paying that amount 'to himself'. This should be clear and obvious.
The fact that he is left with a house in the end is fine -- the same thing would be true in any sustainable business investment. It would be true for example if he bought a house, rented it out, and paid her cash.
Are you falling into zero-sum thinking, confusing what is good for the man as being therefore bad for the others? There is nothing wrong with the man looking for a business arrangement that satisfies his interests.
>> there is NO guarantee that the house will be left to the child.
Yes. And what on earth is wrong with that? What ever house would be guaranteed to be left to the child if follows the arrangement you are proposing?
>> Nothing stopping him selling if he perceives a rise in house prices at any time in the future or needs the money.
Yes, but he'd then have to pay the baby's mother cold, hard cash in maintenance then, which is the situation that you are proposing now as the superior one. If she rents anywhere from anyone, she is exposed to that possibility of having to move out because the landlord wants to sell. Why is it worse if the landlord is her baby's father? Do you somehow think it is more likely if the landlord is her baby's father? I think it is less likely all told, because it upsets the landlord's maintenance arrangement, which is another consideration for him.
>> I'm not even going to go into the amount of control this man would have over the woman's life and depending on his personality the ability to crucifiy her (and consequently the child) for life.
Can you explain what these are? I have no idea what you're talking about here. Do you mean by being a bad landlord?
Having said that I find some of your objections somewhat irrational, they are not entirely so. There are valid reasons why either party might dislike the situation.
However, I don't see much problem provided all of these conditions are satisfied:
(i) the baby's mother has evaluated the situation from all angles with good understanding, having been well-informed, and finds it favorable
(ii) if the arrangement proves to be unsatisfactory for her, she can change it; she is not effectively locked in for life. (In practice, I don't think a court would uphold an arrangement that locked her in permanently.)
(iii) the man follows the few points of advice I gave above to ensure that an adverse possession claim cannot be successful against him on the property
(iv) the man is a good landlord, following diligently the required duties of landlordship
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?