Mums partner 6 yrs want's her to lend him all her life saving for a loan to buy larger house she won't be on deed for.

She could, but if things fall apart that could mean forcing him to sell in order to recoup the money and that might not be easy

There's rather too much info missing, especially around what the mum's own financial contribution has been so far, but I still agree that lending the money would be silly - at least without thorough professional advice

You could ask a solicitor that question but I don't think it would matter what happened to his company as the debt would be secured by a charge against the property. By it's nature that money is secured against the house.

No one could claim money from the property for an unsecured debt (e.g. customer or supplier of the business/mim's partner) until the secured debts were paid.

E.g. if your business went bust and you sold your property to pay debt the solicitor would settle the mortgage before any other money was distributed because the mortgage is secured by a charge against the property.

To say it's a faff - yes it probably is a little - but it's a faff that could stop your mum losing her life savings. You are comparing the faff of a charge to saying no to lending but what if it is the small faff versus yes to lending.

I bet he does. The answer is NO. End of. Massive CF.

Haven’t read the full thread sorry. The only way I’d be doing this is with a charge over the property in your mum’s name so she would get paid her 250k when the property was sold before anything goes into his estate etc. She also needs to speak to a solicitor about having something written up to say she can live there for life with her youngest if anything happens to him. Basically she needs to see a solicitor. It’s so important if be speaking to 2 personally.

Anyway whether she lends the money or not they should own the family home together. He’s holding too much control.

Yes and it's quite conceivable that there'll suddenly be some reason why he can't sell the house and oh no what a shame but don't you worry darling we'll sort it out eventually, you know I love you and what does it matter, we trust each other and ...yada yada yada.

It's just not smart. She needs to safeguard her security.

theres a few suggesting making it a loan against the property. I’d only lend the money if my name was on the deeds. Don’t do a charge against the property, what if he decides not to sell. The money is a safety net she might need.

OP, I haven't voted because it's unclear which way round your AIBU goes, but just wanted to say I could not agree more with all the previous posters saying no, don't do it, terrible idea.

This has red flags and alarm bells all over it.

And to all the other posters blithely suggesting "legally binding" contracts, come on! A contract is only ever as "binding" as your ability to enforce it. Pursuing the lost money through the courts would probably cost the OPs mum another quarter of a million.

OP, you seem to be painting a picture of a wealthy man with your talk of shares and trusts etc. Any person with assets (including an unsold house... does he really own it?) will be able to access a bridging loan at an advantageous rate. In fact, if they were real, his bank would be falling over themselves offering him one.

Utterly, utterly dodgy.

I hope you give her wise counsel and she's sensible enought to take it.

She can formally loan the money to him and secure the loan against the new house, like a mortgage. That would mean that on sale of the house she would have to be repaid.

Absolutely not. No. Never.

No. There are too many things that could go wrong and she could end up losing the lot with not much ability to get any of the money back realistically. I would also be thjnking if I am not good enough to marry then I am not good enough to hand my assets over. If it all goes tits uprelationship wise she would be left with no money and big legal fees to try to get her money back which can take years. Better to not even open that can of worms. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure!

How much is the house they are living in worth?

She could "buy" it from him?

Not likely!! That's a deffo no!!! Not placing her on the deeds!! Doesnt discuss his will with her!!! In other words everything is being left to his children when he passes away!! Tell her to keep her money where it is!!!

And 980 votes …

Eleven pages saying ‘no’ OP, I think that firmly answers your question!

Definitely not

and one more point to consider, this transaction bears all the risk on your mom, the partner doesn't risk anything and doesn't extend any of his securities to her. Totally one sided.

Well exactly, how about he puts your mom's name on the deeds of the current house owning a value equivalent to the loan size and only then trabsfer the money ao she has a guarantee that once the house is sold she gets her money back. it would have to be very tightly checked by a good solicitor, and even so problems could happen.

Regardless of how great the relationship might be and how deeply she trusts him, this has to be treated separately as a non romanticised, head firmly screwed on transactions.
All sorts if things can happen and she can end up destitute and with no home. Things do happen all the time even if intentions are clean and good. Having to go through courts could mean years and all the money lost on solicitors fees.
It is a very very bad idea and if your mom partner truly cares about her and is a person with solid character and morals he would not ask her to do this without being solidly protected.
Even if he signed a contract agreeing to pay it back within a time frame still a bad idea because enforcing that would cost a fortune in time and money.
Whichever way you look at this it ia a very bad idea. I am talking from a perspective of someone who was badly cheated financially by partners that did not give any reason not to trust them and knowing many people who also lost money and with that their peace of mind, ability to retire etc.
Even the living arrangements sound odd if I understand correctly. What happens if the partner dies or wants to end the relationship if the house is his? Your mom will be on the street.
There was a thread a few weeks ago about a poor woman who just celebrated 20 years with her partner, grown up children etc. He didn't want to get married. Over Christmas he became besotted with someone else and gave the woman 2 weeks to leave as it was his house. For 20 years she didn't protect herself and didn t see it coming.

I hope for her sake she doesn't go through with it.

I’m sure I’ve watched a Netflix documentary about a guy who does exactly this, REPEATEDLY for different women and leaves them. He stayed with them years until he convinced them to “loan” life savings for a new bigger house for them all, and then he disappeared each time. Absolutely not! His intentions might be legit but no no no.

Tell her to say no and if he asks why she can say “it’s too complicated”.

Has he asked DM for a formal loan of her savings, (legal paperwork, etc), or does he want to lend it informally?

What's the complication with his DC regarding him marrying?

@Moniworries you keep going on about the step children. if they are his then surely he will be taking them with him? you are not obligated to look after them or house them!

This gives me the shivers.
I know of two friends groomed for their money. One over ten years before he divorced her taking millions. We all smelt it and she fell out with us. Wife number three. Youngest child educated on her dollar. She couldn't have children.
Your mum has a nest egg, any solvent man can have a bridging loan.
'No gold, it doesn't grow old' (as in forever).
I don't like men who look to women for loans. It smacks of ponces. Old fashioned yes and I earn more than my DH but he wouldn't expect anything from me.
He can get a loan.

She doesn’t need to be on the deeds to lend the money and be secure. She can hold a charge over the property to the value of the loan. Once he repays her the charge becomes discharged. Will require solicitor and there’ll be expenses incurred but it would be in both of their best interests to do so. I’d assume he’d need to provide proof of where the money was coming from in any case..,