To think that the phrase, 'In his name' (or 'her name') is really annoying when it comes to saying who owns a house or other valuable assset?

[marantha]

I am sorry but all this phrase means is that the person OWNS the house/car/other asset.
Married, living together, whatever. If the documents relating to an asset (e.g.property) is in your spouse/partner's 'name' THEY own it and not you.
Just feel that the phrase 'in his/her name' gives people a false sense of security in that they somehow own an asset that is NOT legally theirs.
Is it not misleading?

Blimey! I thought marriage just meant the romantic stuff!

I'd better hope we stay happily married then!

"What Melpomene said - if the mortgage and deposit are paid out of a joint ac to which you both contribute equally then the name on the deeds may well be irrelevant."

The mortgage came out of my sole account, I paid the deposit, the deeds and mortgage state my name, my ex never contributed (money wise or in any other way) to the household or the house and he still has a claim!

ColdComfortFarm is completely wrong to suggest that cohabitees cannot claim a beneficial interest in a house registered in their partner's name alone. The principles of constructive trust apply equally to married people and cohabitees - if you can establish that you have made a significant contribution to the purchase and/or upkeep/improvement of a property regisered in the sole name of your spouse or partner you can claim a share.

Georgimama I think, though, that in the case of cohabitees the onus is on them (the cohabitee) to prove a contribution had been made by them and JUST living there in a relationship would NOT be enough to have a claim whereas with marriage the spouse could have a claim regardless of any contribution. True or not?
Also, childcare and housework and 'moral support' would be classed as irrelevant when it came to a claim?

The last sentence above refers to cohabitees, by the way.

I am not completely wrong at all. The legal PRESUMPTION is that in the case of cohabitation a house is solely owned by the person whose name is on the deeds (and indeed is owned 50/50 if the house is in joint names). To claim a variation of that is difficult, normally involves specific proof of significant financial contribution towards the purchase of the house and moreover, would involve a hugely expensive court case. This is not the case with marriage, where there is a PRESUMPTION that assets are jointly owned, and the court can split those assets in the way that seems fairest, so often not 50/50 at all.

Thanks, ColdComfortFarm, that's much as I perceive it to be, however, it is still best for a married person whose home is in the name of their spouse to be careful and not just assume that a judgement will be made in that they get a portion of the home-especially if marriage is short-lived and childless and they've not contributed to mortgage.

You said "When couples cohabit, this is not the case, and whose 'name' a title is in is absolutely vital. An unmarried partner normally has no claim to property wholly owned by their partner" and that is not true, as evidenced by your subsequent post.