The ultimatum game -- Hive justice edition

December 5, 2008 1:07 AM

Two roommates live in an apartment. One gets a girlfriend. She moves in. The landlord raises the rent. They can't agree on how to split the increase. What do you think is fair? Details inside.

I'm one of these roommates. To try to avoid any bias, I'll do my best to phrase this question in neutral language. All dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.

Roommates A and B move into a 2 bedroom, 2 bath apartment in May and sign a 12 month lease. They agree that roommate A gets the master bedroom (larger, own bathroom, better view), and as such will pay a larger share of the rent. For May and June the sum of rent and utilities is $1429 per month. A pays $745 (52.1%), B pays $685 (47.9%).

Roommate A gets a girlfriend, G. She moves in late June, so the roommates adjust the division of the rent. Also, the utilities increase somewhat (more water and electricity). For July through November, the total bill is approximately $1454. A+G pay $857 (58.9%). B pays $597 (41.1%).

Although the lease states that only two people may live in the apartment, it is only in November that the landlord approaches the roommates and informs them that they are in violation of the lease and will either pay more rent in December or be evicted. The rent increases from $1300 to $1400. After some very tense conversations between the various parties, A, B, and G agree to pay the increase. Also, to accommodate financial concerns, they agree to cancel their cable and internet service.

With the higher rent and lower utility bill, the total for December is $1466, a net increase of $12. A+G and B can not agree on a new division of the rent. This is where we are now. Here are the proposals from each party.

Leaving utilities out (which have always been split 50/50 for simplicity), when G moved in A paid $100 more of the rent and B paid $100 less. (With higher, 3-person utilities included, A+G paid $112 more and B paid $88 less). Therefore, A feels that this $100 that he has been paying to B should now be paid to the landlord instead. This would mean that A+G pay $813 (55.5%), and B pays $653 (44.5%). B will not agree to this as it means he would be paying more (if cable service is held constant) than he was when it was two people, which B does not consider equitable.

B believes that the the $100 increase should be split 50/50. B believes this is fair as it preserves the ratio of the total that was paid previously. A+G would pay $863 (58.9%), and B would pay $603 (41.1%). A+G will not agree to this. A+G believe that it is fair for them to pay more to have G live there and that they have been paying $100 more. A+G believe that to accommodate the increased rent, all that needs to change is that they pay that $100 to the landlord instead of to B, and this is fair because the presence of G has not detracted from the quality of life of B so B is not owed anything to "make him whole."


I would be grateful for your opinion on what division you think is fair, whether it's one of the two proposals above or something else entirely. Right now, we're stuck. No one is budging, everyone is stressed. It has seriously hurt and threatens to end what was a solid friendship between A and B. And it's not that much money. It's damn near tragic--but no one will give.

I'm asking for two reasons. First--maybe I'm wrong. If that's what the consensus is, I'll swallow my pride and pay the extra money. Second--if the consensus is the other way, maybe there will be a new argument, a new way of looking at the problem, that will help us find a mutually agreeable solution.

Thank you very much for reading this and for any insight you can share!

posted by kprincehouse to human relations (64 comments total)

The way I would work this situation if there were 3 residents would be split the rent 3 ways and the bills 3 ways.

As im sure there are communal spaces in the apartment be it the bathroom, kitchen and living space. [I know you have 2 bathrooms i did read :)]. Seen as the third person would be using these communal spaces they should have to pay a portion towards the overall rent, rather than 25% of their partners rent. As that extra person takes up extra space/time in all these communal areas.

Then from that point i would start talking percentages in terms of one person receiving the larger bedroom for an increased percentage in rent.

However I will say I do not rent with other parties so my view could be incredibly wrong!
posted by moochoo at 1:23 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

Wow is that ever overthought. You two (three) are perfect mefi roommates.

It would cause even more grief than your models, but honestly, I'd just split everything three ways. You're three roommates now, after all. Who cares where people sleep?
posted by rokusan at 1:23 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

Split rent and utilities 3 ways. Roommate B should not be subsidizing G's living expenses. Three roommates = three rents.

Incidentally, this is why you should never live with couples. For some reason, they always act like assholes about it.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 1:32 AM on December 5, 2008 [11 favorites]

Well, whatever happens B should pay *less* than he did before because B didn't plan on the third roommate using his kitchen and living room, and it's not his relationship. A should pitch something where he and his girlfriend absorb the extra monthly rent and yet give B an appreciable discount. Also, canceling cable / internet doesn't make sense because it would cost less for A & B with G coming in to pay a share.
posted by moxiedoll at 1:34 AM on December 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

I would split rent something like 30-30-40, and split utilities evenly. (I'm currently living in a 3BR with one other guy and a couple, and we do 20-20-30-30, which is a little steeper discount for the couple. If you sought to emulate our ratios, you'd get 29-29-42)

My basic opinion on this matter is that there's a huge enough window of what one could reasonably consider fair that it doesn't even matter (do you all ear roughly the same amount? does that matter?). You just have to come to an agreement that you all are happy with and none of you resent. If you can't do that you should move out or kick G out.
posted by aubilenon at 1:35 AM on December 5, 2008

I would argue that the presence of G has in fact detracted from the quality of life. It is the direct result of G moving in (illegally I might add) that the rent has increased. B did not ask to be painted into a corner by threat of eviction and accept the new terms, B should not have to pay the increase at all, A + G should be so lucky that B offers to split the increase.
posted by Advocate, I at 1:36 AM on December 5, 2008 [6 favorites]

1. Leaving utilities out (which have always been split 50/50 for simplicity)

Just as easy to split them three ways, which is what should have been done.

2. B believes that the the $100 increase should be split 50/50.

Why? The increase was caused by G moving in. The "presence of G" benefits A and G, not you - unless you guys have some interesting arrangement you're not telling us.

Without looking at the numbers too closely (my head hurts just attempting it), are you OK with paying 1/3 of the rent? Because that seems to be the easiest solution, particularly since they have the larger bedroom etc..

The final option is to find a new place and keep the friendship that way.

Note: if you're not law students or lawyers, I'd love to know what type of person comes up with stuff like "the presence of G has not detracted from the quality of life of B so B is not owed anything to 'make him whole.'" Yikes.
posted by HopperFan at 1:38 AM on December 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

I'm surprised at the split-it-even suggestions. It seems really unfair for the couple-members to pay the same amount but not each get their own rooms. It also seems really unfair for the single person to pay roughly half of it. So: somewhere in between!
posted by aubilenon at 1:39 AM on December 5, 2008

I tend to agree with Little Miss Cranky: 3 way split for rent and utilities. (Yes, even if there are only 2 bedrooms.)
posted by uxo at 1:40 AM on December 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

It's not fair for B to pay more than he would have been paying if the girlfriend had not moved in. But I wouldn't split it all evenly, either. Basically, I'm with B. However, what's "fair" isn't necessarily the most important thing in the world. FWIW.
posted by smorange at 1:42 AM on December 5, 2008

First, split utilities 3 ways.

Second, B is being put out with regards to use of common spaces, which now have to be shared with an additional person. B should absolutely not pay more than the two person arrangement and should clearly pay less.

Third, you've written this in a very confusing way. I would say $1300 rent in non-equal rooms should be split $675/$625 (presuming the difference isn't massive). Add another person and raise the rent to $1400 and the rent should be split $825/$575 (or, if B is feeling generous, $800/$600, but it sucks to have to share a place three ways instead of two and only get $25/month out of it).
posted by paperzach at 1:43 AM on December 5, 2008 [3 favorites]

Utilities should be split equally between everyone living there. Things like "power used for cooking" are a function of the number of people eating, not the size of the bedroom.

In my own flats, people pay for rooms, and an equal share of expenses. If a couple have two rooms, they pay whatever was deemed fair for the rooms; if they have one room, they pay for that.

You can probably come up with formulae that more closely approximate peoples' actual use of resources, but I would tend to say, "screw it" - not least because it has the potential to spiral into ridiculous minutae: who uses the most appliances? Who has the longest showers?

I do wonder, incidentally, how much of the resentment is being fuelled by a perception that the cutback in utilities is "the fault" of the girlfriend, and how much may be an exacerbation of the normal distance created between friends when one gets serious about a new partner. Be sure you understand what you're actually fighting about.

Finally, seriously consider simply saying to the landlord, "OK, we're moving out." Walk away from the situation. If A & B want to stay living together as friends, move into a new place with a clean-sheet agreement that accommodates G as a flatmate from the start, or go your separate ways. You've already strained your friendship significantly, and you're only likely to strain it more, and possibly the relationship between A+G as well.
posted by rodgerd at 1:51 AM on December 5, 2008

Logically, A&G should pay 66.6 percent of the utilities and 66.6 percent of all communal space, plus 100 percent of all space they treat as their own. B should pay 33 percent of utilities and 33.3 percent of all communal space and 100 percent of all space he treats as his own.

You can calculate it by simple square units if you like (a 100sq.unit room in a 1000sq.unit apartment is 10 percent of the rent, which you then devide as above). Of course, some rooms are really much more valuable than others and therefore should be weighted differently in the rent calculation, but this line of reasoning will lead only to fisticuffs.

In reality, B's share of the rent will be whatever A&G demand, because A&G are now the ruling coalition. B needs to find a new place to live and A&G need to start fresh with a roommate who knows from the outset what he or she is getting into.
posted by pracowity at 1:53 AM on December 5, 2008 [4 favorites]

Sorry for writing it in a confusing way! The odd numbers are due to including the utilities in the figures.

Here's a (hopefully more clear) summary:

May and June ($1300 rent split 680/620, two people, cable): Total $1429
A: $745 (52.1%)
B: $685 (47.9%)

July through November ($1300 rent split 780/520, three people, cable, more water): Total $1454
A+G: $857 (58.9%)
B: $597 (41.1%)

December A+G proposal ($1400 rent split 780/620, no cable): Total $1466
A+G: $813 (55.5%)
B: $653 (44.5%)

December B proposal ($1400 rent split 830/570, no cable): Total $1466
A+G: $863 (58.9%)
B: $603 (41.1%)
posted by kprincehouse at 1:53 AM on December 5, 2008

For the rent: Here is an arrangement which has worked for me in the past (and I've suggested here before): Ignoring the differently-sized rooms, B is getting more than 1/3 use of the apartment (since there are three of you), and less than 1/2 use (since you get a room each). So B should pay more than 1/3 of the rent, but less than 1/2. Therefore, split the rent halfway between 1/3 and 2/3, i.e. A+G pay 7/12, and B pays 5/12.

For utilities: I think you should pay 1/3 each, since your expected use of the utilities is approximately equal.
posted by beniamino at 1:55 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

(To offer a perhaps more pertinent example of minutae: What happens when B gets a girlfriend? She spends 3 nights a week there, does B have to start paying a greater amount based on the girlfriend's use of shared space?)
posted by rodgerd at 1:56 AM on December 5, 2008

Sorry, I meant B's contribution should be halfway between 1/3 and 1/2. Of $1400 rent, A+G would pay $1400*7/12 = $817 and B would pay $1400*5/12 = $583.
posted by beniamino at 1:59 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

rokusan:
Wow is that ever overthought. You two (three) are perfect mefi roommates.

Heh :). When I'm in an emotionally stressful interpersonal situation, I try to analyze my way through it. It's... it's all I got. My roommate works differently. This presentation, as much as I went to pains to keep it neutral, is a reflection of how I've tried to wrap my head around the problem.

HopperFan: Note: if you're not law students or lawyers, I'd love to know what type of person comes up with stuff like "the presence of G has not detracted from the quality of life of B so B is not owed anything to 'make him whole.'" Yikes.

Hah, yeah. I have an economics degree, so there's your answer :). I was trying to find language to explain B's position without making my bias--I think it's outrageous--to be too clear.

There are enough responses now for me to see the general trend, so I'll go ahead and break the neutrality (rather flimsy, since you and I imagine others saw through it) and say that I'm B in this story. Paying 1/3 of the rent would be, well, very good for me. I've gone for a larger share because A is strapped financially (G brings in next to no money) which is not my problem, but A is my friend and I'm happy he found someone. I think I've been generous not to insist on an even three way split, which is why B's refusal to pay more (he's polite but I can tell he doesn't feel he owes anymore and wants to tell me to f off) has really upset me.

rogerd: I do wonder, incidentally, how much of the resentment is being fuelled by a perception that the cutback in utilities is "the fault" of the girlfriend, and how much may be an exacerbation of the normal distance created between friends when one gets serious about a new partner. Be sure you understand what you're actually fighting about.

I (B) have more disposable income than A+G. I suggested turning off the cable because I know that they're strapped (A is going back to school, et cetera). I'm not upset about it at all, as there's an unencrypted wireless network in range and I'd rather read than watch TV anyway.

We've also talked to the landlord and reached an arrangement to break the lease early, at the end of January. I can't live with these people.

LittleMissCranky: Incidentally, this is why you should never live with couples. For some reason, they always act like assholes about it.

Too fucking true. Lesson learned.
posted by kprincehouse at 2:09 AM on December 5, 2008

I was a member of a couple splitting a two bedroom with a third person.

We split rent & utlities & tv liscence & food (we shared) three ways. Yeah, as the couple, we only had one room, and it was not much larger than the other. But we ended up using 2/3 of the rest of the space - or maybe more, because we spent more time outside of our bedrooms. I camped out at the main table a lot of the time, for instance.
posted by jb at 2:09 AM on December 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

There's no question that utilities should be split three ways. Two people sharing a bedroom may deserve a rent break and if you'd all gone in on an apartment together you could have worked that out ahead. But you didn't, so B should be paying a third or not much more.

the presence of G has not detracted from the quality of life of B so B is not owed anything to "make him whole."

If you really want to stay friends stop torturing legal concepts to describe your disagreement. Also, if you think sharing an apartment with two people who have recently fallen in love doesn't detract from one's quality of life, no matter how much you like them, you are high. Speaking of detractions, B used to have cable, a landlord who thought he was ok, and the ability to walk around his own home sans pants.

Ultimately, A jeopardized the lease and brought a lot of other complications into what was previously a smooth relationship. Now is not the time to for him play the two against one game or be a miser. If he values the friendship and fairness in general, he and his girlfriend should pay up.
posted by melissa may at 2:09 AM on December 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

Incidentally, this is why you should never live with couples. For some reason, they always act like assholes about it.

We may have been overtalkative compared to our laconic roommates, but considering that we are still very good friends with both, I don't think we were assholish at all.
posted by jb at 2:10 AM on December 5, 2008

Ì agree with the 30-30-40 suggestions. A and G aren't getting a room each, no, but the shared living space is between three people, and rent isn't just for a bedroom. Utilities are split equally. A is being unreasonable.
posted by carbide at 2:11 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

Oops. In my previous comment, which is why B's refusal to pay mor Make that A's refusal to pay more.
posted by kprincehouse at 2:12 AM on December 5, 2008

Oops again: "explain B's position" should be explain A's position. I'm B!
posted by kprincehouse at 2:13 AM on December 5, 2008

Logically, A&G should pay 66.6 percent of the utilities and 66.6 percent of all communal space, plus 100 percent of all space they treat as their own. B should pay 33 percent of utilities and 33.3 percent of all communal space and 100 percent of all space he treats as his own.

Yeah, this is what I was going to say.
posted by Nattie at 2:21 AM on December 5, 2008

I'm surprised at the split-it-even suggestions. It seems really unfair for the couple-members to pay the same amount.

I think it's completely fair. I mean, it's lovely and all that they wish to sleep together, but they don't get some kind of discount for it.

To see how silly it can get to do anything other than even thirds, imagine it's just two people, and think about figuring out who uses "more of" the living room, or the kitchen, or whatever. It's silly. It's all one rented space.

I mean, if the couple moves out and rents a place together, just the two of them, they'll split the rent and bills two ways, right? No matter how many "rooms" are in the space. You don't rent "this bedroom and that bedroom and this bathroom", you rent the entire space together, and it's all your responsibility.

Who gets to use what self-defined and informal sub-space to store their stuff and/or sleeping bodies is a secondary, unrelated issue.
posted by rokusan at 2:22 AM on December 5, 2008 [4 favorites]

I agree with the general theme that the utilities should be split 3 ways. The reason I was fine sticking to the 50/50 is because I'm the one who handles all the bills, mails the rent check, et cetera, and I'm pretty good at keeping track of it. I care about the percentage of the net--a dollar is a dollar. They're not going to change their usage to reflect a different incentive structure (that is, use less water if they pay more of the water bill), because they just don't consider things like that.

Thank you everyone for reading my difficult little novel and taking the time to respond. It seems like the consensus is that my proposal, a 58.9% / 41.1% split of the total cost, is at least fair, if not generous.

It helps a lot to have this perspective.

The landlord and I get along well, but he's pissed at my roommate. I left out a lot of the emotional details in the interests of brevity and impartiality, but they've not handled this responsibly at all. To make matters more fun, I sent in the check for the additional $100, since they refuse to pay it. Plus, all the bills are in my name, plus, my roommate still owes me money from previous bills.

Ugh. What a nightmare. I'm never living with roommates again.
posted by kprincehouse at 2:26 AM on December 5, 2008

Ok, now that you've brought the personal back into interpersonal I can say you sound like an extraordinarily nice guy who is clearly in the right. The only question now is, do you want to keep pushing this with them, or is it worth it to spend a little extra money each month to buy some peace until you can move? As someone who also roomed with a friend with weird entitlement issues, I'd opt for the latter. Given their general flakiness, I'd also get the final agreement on paper. My sympathies.
posted by melissa may at 2:33 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

We've also talked to the landlord and reached an arrangement to break the lease early, at the end of January. I can't live with these people.

Then the point is moot unless you're right skint. Leave as quietly as possible (get a small place by yourself starting February) without further harming your friendship with A. There's a good chance that A will soon be done with G, after which you and A will want to be friends again. Friends, but not roommates.
posted by pracowity at 2:45 AM on December 5, 2008

nth-ing square footage splittage (each person pays half or whole bedroom sq footage, and 1/n of the square footage of the communal space)... that's generally how apartments/houses are sold/rented when all else is equal (same apartment building, for instance). People generally understand this, and it's definitely accurate to the outside world.

Utilities split evenly per person... not sure how one would argue against that easily.
posted by djpyk at 2:54 AM on December 5, 2008

Uutilies should be 1/3rd each.
Rent - is complicated. but 30 30 40 sounds about right
posted by mary8nne at 3:24 AM on December 5, 2008

melissa may: The only question now is, do you want to keep pushing this with them, or is it worth it to spend a little extra money each month to buy some peace until you can move? As someone who also roomed with a friend with weird entitlement issues, I'd opt for the latter.

That's a perfect description of the issue I'm trying to resolve for myself, now. It looks likely that my roommate won't pay more, which means I will. And if my choice is between paying $100 I don't feel I owe, and paying that same $100 and holding on to this resentment and bitterness, well, the choice is clear. Resentment doesn't make me happy.

In 2007 I graduated college then moved across the country to live with my then girlfriend. That failed, and I moved back, broke, to live with friends while I looked for a job. A not only bought me food dozens of times on a "pay me back when you can" basis, but he also was instrumental in me finding my current job, and to this day I'm grateful to him for those things. That friendship is worth much more than $100 to me.

In my life I've, too often, put my own considerations second in order to avoid conflict. I'm trying to do that less--trying to stick up for myself more--because I find that avoiding conflict in this way just foments a quiet bitterness that I keep to myself. If I accept that I'll pay the extra money, will I ever be able to truly, absolutely forgive the $100 debt I'll feel A owes me? Will he always be "that irrational jerk who owes me money?" I think, to a large extent, I'm pushing for something I consider fair because it'll be easier for me to keep the friendship then--he won't be an irrational jerk, he'll be a friend I had a disagreement with in the past but now we're ok. Does that make sense?

It may be the best course of action for me and my emotional well being is to work very hard on accepting the situation as it is and forgiving completely the perceived debt. It is, after all, only $100, and he was just a few months ago a close frend. This is easier said than done, especially when my roommate is being, well, kind of a jerk about the whole thing :). And around in circles I go, heh. I'll have to think about this more. Thanks for your comment, and for your sympathies.

pracowity: Then the point is moot unless you're right skint. Leave as quietly as possible (get a small place by yourself starting February) without further harming your friendship with A. There's a good chance that A will soon be done with G, after which you and A will want to be friends again. Friends, but not roommates.

I can afford the $100 without much problems. Removing myself from this situation and getting a place of my own is, for sure, my top priorty. As for A being done with G, well, they got engaged last week. I wish them the best. Maybe I should just call the $100 a wedding present and be done with it. I wish it were that easy!
posted by kprincehouse at 3:24 AM on December 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

Removing myself from this situation and getting a place of my own is, for sure, my top priorty.

Yes! This!

Also, not the question, but your landlord is also kind of a dick. I suppose it's reasonable to ask for more money if the landlord is covering utilities, but if he isn't what justifies asking for more money? I suppose it's beside the point but have you checked that those types of restrictions on residency are legal where you live? If you do want to get out of the apartment and he gives you trouble that might be some leverage.
posted by miss tea at 3:50 AM on December 5, 2008

Oops. Now I saw this: We've also talked to the landlord and reached an arrangement to break the lease early, at the end of January. I can't live with these people.


Sorry! Not enough coffee.
posted by miss tea at 3:51 AM on December 5, 2008

they got engaged last week.

There's still a better than 50 percent chance he'll be single again soon. Don't let something as temporary as marriage get in the way of friendship.
posted by pracowity at 3:57 AM on December 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

You're totally in the right, and being generous. I'm with the split the rent into thirds folks. If another personal anecdote helps- my first post-college apartment was a 2 bedroom apartment shared between 3 friends- one of my friends and I shared the larger bedroom (and we weren't even sleeping together!), all 3 of us paid equal thirds of the rent. The roommate with the smaller bedroom had her boyfriend move in with us for the summer (sharing the small bedroom with her), and we then split the rent into equal fourths, regardless of bedroom space ratios. Utilities were always split equally between everyone living in the apartment. That said, sometimes sucking it up if you can afford to do so saves lots of headaches and painful feelings.
posted by banjo_and_the_pork at 4:00 AM on December 5, 2008

B will not agree to this as it means he would be paying more (if cable service is held constant) than he was when it was two people, which B does not consider equitable...the presence of G has not detracted from the quality of life of B so B is not owed anything to "make him whole."

Well, the presence of G is actually causing B a financial loss, no? I would consider this completely unacceptable in B's position, and I can't really see a good argument from A's side to justify it.

However-
That friendship is worth much more than $100 to me.... If I accept that I'll pay the extra money, will I ever be able to truly, absolutely forgive the $100 debt I'll feel A owes me?

Most likely - people have been able to forgive others for much worse transgressions than being cheap and abandoning their friends in favour of a new relationship. Maybe A feels like crap about not paying his bills but can't make himself stop buying his girlfriend dinner? Maybe he's remembering the help he gave you, and thinking bitter thoughts about how he never quibbled about money when you needed it. Maybe anything. If you really believe that you have a great friendship here that you'd like to keep, and that you are overall benefitting by being friends with him, then you will be able to forgive him. Quite possibly not right away, of course.
posted by jacalata at 4:01 AM on December 5, 2008

I think, to a large extent, I'm pushing for something I consider fair because it'll be easier for me to keep the friendship then--he won't be an irrational jerk, he'll be a friend I had a disagreement with in the past but now we're ok. Does that make sense?

It makes all kinds of sense.

This is the problem with describing and attempting to resolve interpersonal conflict with strict rationality. What makes bitterness linger is when you attempt to set aside messy feelings and history to tell a pure parable of fairness. There's nothing wrong with your feelings, with being hurt at a friend's lapse into jerkishness. That's when it's helpful to do exactly what you're doing and take the broader view. Clearly, he's not always selfish and has helped you generously in the past. That's not to say you should always think in terms of tit for tat -- it's more that at this point, you can choose to trust he's a good guy having a lapse. That won't stop the lapse from hurting, but it can help guide your decision-making about how best to handle things.

I fell out with the friend I mentioned before and every so often she hoves into view thanks to a mutual social circle. I still feel bad, even though she was being wrong in a way I could also do detailed math to justify; I wish I'd been less concerned about justice than with hanging on to someone with a lot of amazing qualities. It sounds like you're in a similar place. So don't let go of your feelings, let them tell you what's important. The more you write, the more it sounds like winning the argument isn't it.
posted by melissa may at 4:13 AM on December 5, 2008 [6 favorites]

Just my opinion, the "December B Proposal" is what I'd consider the obviously-reasonable course. You three had an apparently-acceptable division of the rent before the rent went up, and it seems reasonable that the ratio of payments should be the same before and after the rent bump— however you're calculating it, you're using the same proportions of stuff as you were in November, but each share is costing a bit more. On the other hand, I don't think the A+G proposal is obviously bogus, either. As a sanity check, either way B is still paying less than what he (you) paid before G moved in.

I'm inclined to take a mathematical approach (common areas and utilities always evenly split N ways; bedrooms divided unevenly according to desirability; etc.), but pragmatically, it just comes down to what each of you are willing to pay. If the three of you were moving into this place fresh, you would presumably look around, check out the sizes of the bedrooms, etc., and negotiate some ratio of payments which you were OK with, even if it wasn't based in a precise proportional reckoning. That's what you're doing now, under cover of mathematical reasoning. And you're unhappy because A+G have stopped negotiating without getting to consensus. (Basically what aubilenon said, and I agree that if the three of you have stopped being able to come to agreements about this kind of thing, you (or G, I suppose) should move out.)
posted by hattifattener at 4:18 AM on December 5, 2008

The presence of G has increased the rent by $100, G should pay the $100. All other rent and utilities should continue to be split as before.
posted by missmagenta at 5:19 AM on December 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

"Fair" is subjective. It's what you all agree is fair.

That said, if A gets a dog, it seems unfair for B to pay for the vet bills and food.

GF is an impact and represents a change of initial assumptions in the arrangment. It is incumbent on the party precipitating the change to disproportionallly assume the increased burden. B should be held harmless, at the very least, IMO. In fact, B's quality of life can certainly be said to have changed, and perhaps decreased. For an equivalent rent, B now how less allocated square footage, more competition for limited apartment resources, and decreased availability of services over the original arrangement (i.e., no cable or internet.)

A and GF should be ultrasensitive to this and pay MORE than their algebraic share. B is getting the short end of the stick.

Advice for B... learn to say "No". A deal is a deal.

Advice for A.... stick to your word. A deal is a deal.

Advice to GF... most marriages fail, and relationships have an even shorter half life. Party A and you can look forward to a life of legalistic wrangling, and hair splitting over what is right and wrong. Seems like an ominous, inauspicious start to life together.
posted by FauxScot at 5:54 AM on December 5, 2008

Geez, give it a rest.

Split everything three ways. Your rent would then work out to roughly $466 each, which is cheaper pretty much all around. Alternatively, you could split the original rent three ways ($434 each) and then G and A should cover the $100 increase since it's their fault the rent went up.

The couple shouldn't get a discount for sharing a room, since that's what they WANTED. If they wanted separate bedrooms, G shouldn't have moved in.

I no longer have roommates in part because of stupid stuff like this. At one point I lived in a four bedroom apartment, where each rent was based on the square footage of the room and utilities were calculated by time spent in the apartment vs. away from it, and whether one watched television or had a computer. Imagine the drama when a roommate who claimed to never watch cable was caught watching infomercials in the middle of the night--she'd been robbing us!

Where else my opinions are coming from: my boyfriend and his roommate live in a two bedroom, two bathroom apartment, which they split evenly even though my boyfriend got the room with the balcony and his roommate makes twice as much as him. If I were to move in with them we would split rent and utilities three ways. If the rent went up, my boyfriend and I would pay the increase because it would be my fault the rent increased. If the rent at my current apartment doesn't increase by a ridiculous amount, I'll be staying right where I am, because I don't want to have a roommate while living as a couple, and if I were living somewhere and my roommate wanted to move a significant other in, I'd throw a hissy fit. Living with couples is a bad idea.
posted by peanut_mcgillicuty at 6:42 AM on December 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

In any situations where some people are single, some have SO's (and the SO's always share the room) ... the rent (and utilities, and sometimes food etc.) is split by # of people.

Girlfriends aren't bookcases, ergo, they do indeed represent a significant change (if not straight detraction) in QOL of the non-committed roomate; and they do not consume a mere 6.8% of resources in a house where she represents 33.3% of the bodies.
posted by shownomercy at 7:04 AM on December 5, 2008

I'm glad you're moving out, because there's absolutely no reason that you should be paying that $100 for something you had nothing to do with. Nada. none. Your roomie and his gf are being an ass about it.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 7:10 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

If you want to be a true Mefite with absolute fairness at the forefront (forgetting all the feelings, etc) do the division based on square footage. Seriously.

Divide the square footage where people use it, and pay the rent accordingly. Bills are all split 3 ways.

For example: in a 1500 square foot apartment w/ 2 bathrooms, it would look something like this.

Room 1 with roommates A + G: 600 sf
Bath 1 for A + G: 50 sf
Room 2 for roommate B: 500 sf
Bath 2 for B: 50 sf
Rest of the Apt: Total square footage - the square footage above = 300 sf

Now divide rent accordingly.
I love math.
posted by namewithhe1d at 7:20 AM on December 5, 2008

I'm not following the numbers, but you mentioned that G moved in in June and the LL only is raising rent for December onwards. So A+G have had 5 months without 'penalty'.

They should pony up and pay the rent increase themselves.


(and B should get 2 girlfriends, a gay lover and run a home-based business out of one of the bathrooms).
posted by Xhris at 7:32 AM on December 5, 2008 [4 favorites]

I think your analysis needs to be even more precise. Because splitting things three ways seems unfair to the couple and splitting them in half is unfair to you, I have developed a new mathematical formula that I hope will become standard in situations like these. With a little effort, it could be applied to any number of roommates.

First, you need to calculate the total square footage of your apartment as well as the square footage of the bedrooms and the common areas. Ideally, you would calculate the size in square inches for maximum accuracy.

Now you need to determine the cost per square inch of your apartment by dividing the monthly rent by your total number of square inches.

It seems obvious that each party should be responsible for payment of the rent on their own bedrooms, so you can simply multiply the rent per square inch by the number of square inches per bedroom to determine the amount of rent owed by the couple for their bedroom/bath and by you for your bedroom.

Sloppy thinkers will wish to divide the common area cost three ways and have the couple responsible for 66.66666666666666% of the cost (attained by multiplying the cost per square inch by the number of common area square inches). However, this is clearly imprecise. I would suggest a square inch per minute metric. In order to properly calculate this, you would need to determine the total amount of in-apartment time per month spent by each party on average. It will be important to include commute time and average amount of outside the apartment time in this calculation. You also need to add minutes to each group's tally for any guests that have over during the course of the month. If you have two guests for two hours, that would be 240 common area minutes on your tally. In the unlikely event of a guest or guests that are friends of both parties, their minutes divided proportionately in a ratio determined by who they are most friendly with. To prevent disputes, you should have each mutual guest fill out a friendship percentage allocation form. Once you have a complete schedule of common area monthly minute usage, it is a simple matter of dividing the minutes for each party by the total minutes to arrive at a common area billing ratio to be applied to the common area square inch monthly rent.

There is some risk that when you present these figures to your roommate that he will think that you are being unfair to him. As a gesture of good will, I would suggest that you agree to eliminate any cents or fractions of cents that should be accrued to him by your calculations and take the high road by paying the extra yourself, even though this could possibly be an amount approaching (but not equaling!) $1.00.
posted by Lame_username at 7:33 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

Roommate B shouldn't be expected to foot the increased bill from the landlord. I think the offer from him to pay $603 is reasonable. There is a factor of extra hassle that he has to deal with in the form of another person to live around. Even assuming that roommate B agreed to let G live there, it is a case of extra hardship without benefits for him. Splitting the rent on a per-person basis doesn't take this into account. There is a value associated with less benefits and in this case that should have a dollar value.
posted by JJ86 at 7:51 AM on December 5, 2008

OK, given your updates, your attitude here needs an adjustment.

He's having hard times and you aren't, you can afford the $100 and he can't, he's trying to start his life with this girl and needs a little extra leeway to make it work.

I mean, come on man. You're going to fight over $100 that you don't even need? WHY?

This isn't roommate calculus, it's good friend calculus, that says you help your pal when they need it and you're able to help.

He bought you food, man, FOOD, when you were hungry. Do you know how valuable a friend that is? And you can't suck it up and give him a break? He falls in love, meets the love of his life, and you're making it hard for him?

Just, the $100 doesn't even matter and you're able to do it for him, just like he'd do the same for you. So suck it up, apologize, be happy that your friend has found love, buy him a six pack in apology, and help him move.
posted by sondrialiac at 8:09 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

nthing splitting both utilities and rent in 1/3ds.
posted by craven_morhead at 8:15 AM on December 5, 2008

In reference to splitting three ways (and venturing into the theoretical), if there were three roommates with no relationships beyond friendship involved, and the three of them had to split two bedrooms, would people still expect each to pay 1/3? I personally would want a discount if I didn't have my own sleeping space.
posted by Sand at 9:13 AM on December 5, 2008

If you're moving in January, WHO CARES? It's December now. This has just become an exercise to prove you're right about something. Friendship is more important than that.
posted by desjardins at 9:14 AM on December 5, 2008 [1 favorite]

Maybe I should just call the $100 a wedding present and be done with it. I wish it were that easy!

It IS that easy, FFS. You're the one making it difficult.
posted by desjardins at 9:21 AM on December 5, 2008 [2 favorites]

I'm half of a couple. We moved into a 2 bed and then advertised for a room mate, the rent included an extra £100 for the extra person. I've just run the numbers and it almost exactly a 60-40 split on the rent with a straight 3 way split on the utilities (except for internet which the other tenant doesn't use). In real terms this leaves the other tenant with a good deal for the area in terms of rent (and a lot less than a he would be paying sharing with one other) while for us its cheaper than a one bedroom on our own, and a better deal in terms of living space.

A 3 way split would have been crazy cheap for him and been in 1 bed territory for us, so that seem a practical split. In your case that is also expecting a complete renegotiation of the original deal.

In every shared house I lived in (except the current one) its always been rented on a per room basis so this probably colours my view of the situation: it's pretty common in the UK (currently me and my partner hold the lease and legally sublet). Whenever I've dealt with this in the past, if it is not couples taking two rooms and paying accordingly, its always splits the bills and the rent share stays the same -- people should either be happy to live with that situation or not.

So in your situation there would be no question of them swallowing the raise, but the rent would have stayed the same (which would more or less have ended up with the couples position), but I also would not be trying to backwardly renegotiate, so I think you are being quite reasonable.

If you are looking for a compromise/strategy that be acceptable to all I think you need to do two things:

1. If you can separate out the utility component and pay equitably i.e. a three way split. Regardless of the final outcome it helps to establish fairness.Even if you just roll over at this point you are still better off financially if they agree to an equal split on this.

2. Work out the rent and increase and find a compromise you can live with. I lived in co-ops for a long time where we were landlords and tenants so I've spent a lot of time and effort figuring out the best to deal with disputes between housemates. Where you have a dispute its foolish to think that everybody can come away happy. If this was the case you wouldn't really have a dispute. Its also never going to be the case that its this side over that side (sometimes its the case that one party has done something bad and has to go but disputes always have two sides).

The key is finding something that both parties can be equally unhappy about but agree to, as resolving the dispute is a better outcome. We have a intrinsic sense of fairness, that's pretty emotional over rational, and disputes get perpetuated because people feel that the other side will get the better deal. N.B. this is exactly what happens with both proposals -- the cost to the party proposing barely goes up, while the other party seems to take a disproportionate share of the increase (and maths don't matter a damn compared to feeling in this sort of situation). So you have to find an equitable compromise, which might be as simple as splitting the difference between the two proposals. Otherwise you are having to negotiate on the basis of how much stuff is going to go up -- i.e. the increase in how much you are paying is the same for both of you. it would be better for you if this didn't factor in the amount paid for utilities, but you might have to settle for X where X is the amount that would take care of the increase November to December and still be the same dollar amount for both of you.
posted by tallus at 10:04 AM on December 5, 2008

Split utilities 33-33-33, split rent 30-30-40.
posted by dunkadunc at 10:06 AM on December 5, 2008

I think the only unasked question here is how much it would cost for the couple to get a 1BR apt in that town on their own? That is, these razor margins of the cost of space-sharing might be a little less important if they know their $863 will not go quite as far if you're not there. Remember, one of the main reasons people move in together is because it's cheaper than living alone. Use this to your advantage, if only to illustrate whatever scheme you do wind up going with. It might make a nice kicker if you end your presentation with the prices of some of the apartments that they would be choosing from if you moved out on your own.
posted by rhizome at 10:10 AM on December 5, 2008

Split utilities three ways. B should pay the same rent he was paying before the $100 increase; A+G should pay the extra $100.
posted by equalpants at 11:48 AM on December 5, 2008

In reference to splitting three ways (and venturing into the theoretical), if there were three roommates with no relationships beyond friendship involved, and the three of them had to split two bedrooms, would people still expect each to pay 1/3? I personally would want a discount if I didn't have my own sleeping space.

In my opinion, it depends on their reasons for splitting two bedrooms. If the three together can't afford a three bedroom or something happens to render a third bedroom impossible/unusable and two friends must share one room, they should get a discount. If two friends start off living there splitting 50/50 or close to it, and one roommate invites a platonic friend to move in to share his/her bedroom for whatever reason, they shouldn't get a discount but should each pay a third of the rent. They each have equal access to the common space, but the solo-room roommate shouldn't have to subsidize the rent for the other two, despite their sharing a room. They knew the situation going into it.

In this particular situation, I don't really see the comparison. The girlfriend moved in EXPRESSLY to share a room with her boyfriend, so this is actually a perk, not a burden, and should not result in a discount, especially because their choice was a violation of the lease and resulted in the raise in rent.
posted by peanut_mcgillicuty at 12:03 PM on December 5, 2008

WOW, I faced this EXACT situation a few years back, to the letter. OF COURSE it should all be split evenly. My roommate at the time brought a girl in to live with us and decided that the rent should therefore be 50-25-25 because it had been 50-50... I don't live there anymore.
posted by Cosine at 1:32 PM on December 5, 2008

I will say this - this situation will deteriorate before it improves. Set up whatever will be most painless, and get out. I've been through these situations before, and I'll tell you the friendship is worth far more than a few month's rent, and the quickest way to destroy any friendship? Put money in it.

Resolve and leave and meet him for a beer.
posted by OrangeDrink at 1:36 PM on December 5, 2008

split it three ways, you should pay less as couples are often (in my experience always) a pain and a half to live with. And good luck!
posted by Acer_saccharum at 6:35 PM on December 6, 2008

Adjusted for your updated info:

It's only a month or two. Eat it, stay friends, and move on.
posted by rokusan at 11:43 PM on December 6, 2008

That would seriously piss me off. (Btw- thirds and she/or they can eat the $100.)
What it comes down to is that it seems that it's ok to shaft you. He was a good friend to you, but doing it this way doesn't give you the benefit of being a good friend also. Just a chump.

Not nice. I would wanna help out too. But not like that. They could've handled it a bit differently.

Make it clear that you'll pay it!! ...but money aside, in a world where you were all filthy rich.. what would they think was fair? (You may need to make it clear this is just for your peace of mind, not to give you leverage against them :)

Yeah, that would eat at me. I'm a friend not some schmuck. Really takes any joy out of it.
posted by mu~ha~ha~ha~har at 2:35 PM on December 8, 2008

A happy epilogue: We talked it out, listened to the other's perspective. It comes down to a difference in what we thought had been previously negotiated. We both acknowledged that the friendship means a lot. I told him that if they were truly strapped for money and struggling and asked me to do this as a favor, I would do it without hesitation. I described how I felt we when negotiated the rent after G moved in, that we negotiated a ratio--and it was fair to keep that ratio the same when the rent increased $100. He came around and agreed to split the increase 50/50 as I originally proposed. We both agreed that it's best to go for the early move-out, still, as it's time for A+G to live on their own and for me to do the same.

It sure is a nicer apartment to live in now that this is settled. We're all back to smiling and joking like we always did before. Plus, talking about this gave us a venue to talk about other roommate-conflict concerns (I don't mop enough, they park me in, etc), so things are actually better than they were before the rent went up. Hah!

Thanks again, everyone.
posted by kprincehouse at 6:21 AM on December 10, 2008 [2 favorites]