My bf and I were talking about the future today and he mentioned that seeing as his deposit for our future home would be significantly (90%) larger than mine, that he would want us to be tenants in common on the mortgage, ie he would own 90% of the house. I don't want us to buy until we are married. We plan to have kids. I see his point he doesn't want to risk losing the money he has made if we divorced early or something, but to me, raising children, I would want the security of knowing he couldn't just leave me one day without financial support. I have told him I wouldn't take his money if we split and didn't have kids. Am I being wrong to think that finances are combined in marriages and the house should be in both our names?
I think if you are planning to move in together and have children, you need to either get married first or else to get serious legal advice about how to ensure reasonable financial security in case you ever do split up.
It would worry me that the two of you don't seem to be on the same page here - it sounds like he's still treating this as something short-term, while you are thinking about permanence and children. It may be sensible to think through the 'what ifs' but it's hardly a ringing endorsement of your relationship if his highest priority is to protect his money.
I have a higher share as I put in more. I am engaged. We have a child. I also made sure I have a deed of trust. This is in case anything ever goes wrong and for my reassurance. Plus if I saved and put in significantly more why should my partner who did not benefit? He suggested I have a higher share. We have joint wills if I die it will go to him as we are not married yet. I do not think it is unfair although 90% is quite high which will not benefit you at all. I have 65%