DH and I are planning to buy our first house. We're very lucky and have enough in my savings to buy outright. However we can't decide if it's better to do that or get a small mortgage. Our options are;
Option 1) Buy property outright, 100% will be from my savings.
Pros of option 1 as far as I can see are that we don't have a mortgage - amazingly lucky I know and we really do realise we're very fortunate.
Cons as far as I can see are that if we split DH would be entitled to none of it (except if it had increased in value due to renovations for example). Also would it feel imbalanced as he'd feel he'd brought nothing to the table? Also we both feel that living cost-free due to being lucky enough to have inherited this money isn't quite right. We have considered we could put away each month what we'd otherwise pay in mortgage, and that'd be a fund for house renovations if needed. We'd pay into that 50:50.
Option 2) Buy property with a large deposit from my savings (e.g. 90%) and ring fence that. Get a mortgage for a small proportion, which we pay off equally - this would be a small amount each month, easily affordable to us. In event of us splitting (touch wood won't happen), the deposit I put in would be ring fenced and go back to me, and the proportion that's mortgaged would be split 50:50.
Pros of option 2 as far as I can see are it feels a bit more equal - as we'd both be putting in. It's also more within our principles to pay something for our living costs as opposed to living cost-free.
Cons of this approach are; is it silly, given that we could afford the house outright? The money we didn't spend would stay in savings and hopefully the interest gained would outweigh the mortgage fees. But even so, is it silly to pay when you don't need to borrow the money?