Advanced search

Buying a new home under his sole name

(55 Posts)
Queenxaos Sun 08-Oct-17 10:35:56

My husband and I have been married for several years and have young children. We are buying a new home and he has decided he wants to do it in his sole name as it is easier for him to do the paperwork because he works in the city, near to our lawyers. I have not worked since we had the children and I have no problem with his plan. The deposit and mortgage will be paid by him as I have no savings. Does this mean I don't own our family home?

Bluntness100 Sun 08-Oct-17 10:40:13

Yes of course it does. And it’s not more difficult to have you on the deeds. Something more going on here.

Stringofpearls Sun 08-Oct-17 10:47:15

It does sound quite strange to me too. My husband organised pretty much everything for our house, but I'm still on the ownership documents. All I had to do was sign everything, so I'd say perhaps just do that but insist your name is still on it.

Holland00 Sun 08-Oct-17 10:49:53

I'd be insisting my name was on those deeds!
What is his actual reason for doing it singly? Other than he's closerhmm

JoJoSM2 Sun 08-Oct-17 10:50:27

That’s dodgy. It’s only a couple of signatures for you to own your home jointly so his arguments are pretty poor.
Also, you’re a family with ‘family money’ and not his and hers so I wouldn’t stand for this nonsense.

liquidrevolution Sun 08-Oct-17 10:55:17

You have worked since you have had children - you have an unpaid role as SAHM which is just as hard as a 'real job'.

Get your name on the deeds.

mistermagpie Sun 08-Oct-17 10:55:33

No you don’t own the home. I am married but bought our family home in my sole name for various boring reasons. My husband obviously doesn’t own our house, although I think it would be a ‘marital asset’ in the event that we were to divorce.

What I would say, is that buying a property in your sole name when you are married is actually quite unusual (at least according to my solicitor) and was also more complicated than if we had been named jointly in the purchase. It certainly isn’t a more straightforward option because the non-named spouse needs to essentially sign away their rights to the property so that they cannot be pursued in the event you don’t pay the mortgage.

Your husband might be attempting this because often a spouse will be named as a dependent if they are not named jointly on the mortgage (not in my case though but usually this happens). That’s even more likely given that you don’t work. Having you as a dependant affects his affordability so it’s possible he wants to pretend you don’t exist for the purpose of the purchase? He might have more underhand reasons though to be honest, it’s an unusual situation as I say.

AtSea1979 Sun 08-Oct-17 10:58:13

I'd be worried he was planning long term without you.

Kit30 Sun 08-Oct-17 11:02:03

As you're married (and assuming you're in the UK) you do have rights over the marital home and your interest is presumed as a matter of equity. Even so, imo your husbands attitude seems a bit strange. You'll be asked to sign away your rights of occupation in favour of the mortgage holder. You can refuse and insist on being added to the deeds/ charge certificate for your consent as mortgage holder will insist on it as condition of granting the funds.
First thing is to speak to DH, second thing is to get legal advice on your position

Queenxaos Sun 08-Oct-17 11:06:09

Your husband might be attempting this because often a spouse will be named as a dependent if they are not named jointly on the mortgage (not in my case though but usually this happens). That’s even more likely given that you don’t work. Having you as a dependant affects his affordability so it’s possible he wants to pretend you don’t exist for the purpose of the purchase?

This is true , I'm being a dependent was an issue for our lender. So that's why I agreed not having my name on this. We haven't exchanged contracts yet. I can't see any other underlying reasons, I want to know how can this affect me? In an event of a divorce I would get my share won't I?

JoJoSM2 Sun 08-Oct-17 11:09:12

Well, if you sign away the rights to the house, then it might be tricky in a divorce situation? I’d definitely speak to a solicitor or even two to get their opinions.

Muskey Sun 08-Oct-17 11:12:07

Please don't sit back and not have your name on the deeds. My niece did the same and ten years on from splitting with her partner it still comes back to haunt her.

Lunde Sun 08-Oct-17 11:12:47

Very dodgy - don't do it. Insist on you name being on the house.

When DH and I bought a house I had no income and didn't even have a residence permit at the time but the house was bought in joint names.

StatisticallyChallenged Sun 08-Oct-17 11:15:16

We had to do this - the reduction in borrowing for DH being classed as a dependent would have meant we couldn't afford to buy. However, we're in Scotland where the laws around marital homes are a bit different and essentially here it makes no difference for DH in terms of what would happen if we were to split.

The bank knew he existed, but once he was on the mortgage it really changed the numbers ( I think it reduced our borrowing limit by about 50k!)

Bluntness100 Sun 08-Oct-17 11:57:01

My mortgage was done on my salary only as my husband was changing companies, we are both on the mortgage and both on the deeds. He provided no documentation in terms of working or not working , the fact we were married is enough.

I don’t know what your husband is doing, but either he is one very very confused man or he’s up to something under hand. You don’t need to be down as a dependent.

Is the mortgage stretching him financially?

TheCraicDealer Sun 08-Oct-17 12:18:11

There are many reasons where people have only one spouse on the deeds, some of which are listed here. You’ll see none of them are “it was easier”, which is essentially what your DH is claiming. It would be different if he was upfront about it and said it was because of the affordability/dependency issue, but he’s gone with some claptrap about signatures on paperwork. It really makes you wonder what he’s at- best case scenario he’s worried about looking like he can’t fulfil his “duties” as a provider, but that would be a pride issue which he needs to be honest about.

If you are named on the deeds of the house you’re in now I would refuse to move and say I’d rather live in a home I know is mine than to another where I feel like a lodger with childcare duties. I understand he couldn’t proceed with the sale without your agreement or a convoluted legal dispute so you do have some leverage here. Don’t just sit back and take it.

Rufus27 Sun 08-Oct-17 12:25:02

I disagree with those thinking it's definitely dodgy. It depends on your situation and your relationship.

I am not on the deeds nor mortgage of our current house and we're not married, which many would say is naive on my part and suspicious on his. The truth is that it is simply for legal and financial reasons. We could borrow more at a lower rate by having a single applicant on a better income - my earnings lowered our potential to borrow. It was also affected by the fact I already had a small mortgage on a different property at the time.

Having said all this, I would never ever have let myself get in this situation with any of my ex DPs. I just knew, in my present situation, with my DP, I was OK with it.

SoupDragon Sun 08-Oct-17 12:30:53

This was the case with my marital home. Solely in XH's name but I added myself onto the deeds as a charge under "home rights" which meant he couldn't just sell it without my knowledge. Anyway, it was a marital asset, caused no problem during the divorce and is now solely in my name.

Queenxaos Sun 08-Oct-17 13:00:01

I had a chat with my DH, he claims our mortgage applications won't be successful if we applied as a couple. Which is true as I haven't been any employment for past 7 years. Also do I have to be in a joint mortgage to be on the deed? That's what I get from what he says. Is there a way I can be added to the deed later on?

FactsAreNotMean Sun 08-Oct-17 13:03:58

For new purchases banks do seem to insist that you can only be on the deeds if you are on the mortgage - historically they didnt.

Not working would result in you being refused a mortgage, but it would change what you can borrow from most banks. People who haven't got the calculations done both ways wouldn't necessarily realise this though

Butterymuffin Sun 08-Oct-17 13:07:18

There might be good reasons for this but 'it'll be easier if I just do the paperwork' doesn't sound like one. Hash it out with him. Go and see the bank on your own if needsbe to make sure you're getting the full story.

newmumwithquestions Sun 08-Oct-17 13:09:40

Please don't do this

Onecallaway Sun 08-Oct-17 13:11:23

My exh and I were both on the mortgage even though he had not had regular employment for years. He did not have to provide any pay slips etc. It makes no difference that you are not working.

JoJoSM2 Sun 08-Oct-17 13:11:40

Have you actually met with a mortgage advisor? Just because you don’t work outside the house, doesn’t mean you can’t get the mortgage in joint names. It just means that as a couple you’ll be able to borrow a bit less. With regards to adding you later, it’d be down to your husband to decide if he wanted to or not. You also need to consider things like the unlikely event of something happening to your husband. If you’re ‘joint tenants’, you’d automatically own all of the house. It’d be a lot more complicated in other circumstances. Also, as per SoupDragon’s post, consider things like ‘home rights’. You should really seek professional advice.

Onecallaway Sun 08-Oct-17 13:12:10

Obviously my salary alone was enough to cover the mortgage.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: