Too often, the division of who pays for what, in a partnership or marriage, is skewed. Not necessarily OP, since they've been together for years and probably have sorted all that out. So this is written for others who may read this.
If the agreement is that one partner will pay the mortgage, and the other the groceries, that automatically leads to an imbalance. If there's a split, the house still exists, but the groceries are long gone. Similarly, if one pays for the mortgage and the other for the decor and fittings: in that case such items (like carpets or taps) can often not be re-used fully in a next home. If the non-mortgage partner pays for, say, the alterations, then they are both contributing, but perhaps not equally, and less steadily, as the mortgage is a fixed amount, while renovations can end up costing more than planned. The earnings of one partner may need to be offset against the free labour provided by any partner who stays at home full-time to do the homemaking or to care for the childen or to nurse ill siblings or aged parents, or who is investing time with no income while starting a business.
No one model is right or wrong for all couples. The point is that the conversation should be had, before signing
- the mortgage contract,
- the personal contract between the two, of what they would do, who would compensate whom, how much and how within which time-frame, in case they were ever to split up, and
- the joint life insurance to protect the remaining partner (and to pay up the mortgage) should one die.