Getting house in joint names

[CJ2010]

I know this is not the correct forum but it gets the most traffic and I need advice.

DP has always owned our homes jn his name but I want that to change when we buy next year. I don't work (SAHM) and I know he will argue that as I don't have a job I can't be on the mortgage. Can anyone clarify for me if this is true? I needs some financial security for me and the DC's. TIA

Yes, you do need to be on the deeds. If you're not and he dies then the house becomes part of his estate. That means it goes to whoever he decides in his will or, if he doesn't have a will, to his next of kin. If you're on the deeds then the house automatically goes to you if he dies (assuming you are "joint tenants" and not "tenants in common"). There is also the issue that others have mentioned of what happens if you split up.

There's nothing stopping you being on the mortgage but you don't need to be.

You should also both write wills and make sure you have sufficient life assurance. Please don't rely on him doing this. You both should take responsibility for your financial security.

You need to be on the deeds, and the lender is likely to want you to be on the mortgage too.

Didn't you talk about financial things before having two children with someone you weren't married to and giving up your job? I don't want to scare you but your position is incredibly precarious unless your DP has a will, life insurance with you named as a beneficiary and lasting powers of attorney - and that's just to cover what happens if he dies or is in a coma. I wouldn't be a SAHP with someone who wouldn't marry me: even a spouse is pretty vulnerable, but a co-habitee has no rights at all.

Oh, and you are contributing financially, in effect. If you weren't there, your DP would be paying for childcare, vast sums if your children are pre-schoolers, and a fair amount even if they're school age.

Sorry, cross-posted with nocake - great minds.

Be very wary of a man that wants to argue that, just because you don't earn any money, you're not entitled to be the part-owner of your own family's home. Be careful of any man that wants to be 100% in control of the finances and the property and treat it as his alone. Be suspicious of one that's happy to let you have his children but doesn't want to commit any of his assets to you either through marriage or otherwise

I would say that, if you remain unmarried and want financial security, you should insist on being listed on the deeds, the mortgage and also making very sure that his will is up to date and names you as beneficiary.

Out of curiosity, why aren't you married?

I would be very wary of someone who was happy for me to have and bring up his children but would not make financial commitments (marriage or house) to me.

Hi, If there is a chance you can't borrow enough money as you have 1 salary supporting 2 people rather than 1 salary supporting 1 person (although I doubt that as I am sure they take this all into account) you can always go on the deeds rather than the mortgage. Your solicitor will help with this.

On another note though, I would be concerned about his motives for not putting you on the mortgage (sorry!)

As someone else has pointed out already you would be able to borrow less if you were on the mortgage, i know this as i've just recently gone through the same thing, i'm not working but wanted some protection, as it was my parents house myself and my dp were buying, to counter this i have my name on the deeds of the house so he has the financial responsibility and i feel covered by this.

I also have the bills in my name as its me paying them, so should there ever be an argument in the future over us and the house he cant just walk away with a house while i get nothing... my parents divorce has well and truly screwed my way of thinking!!

All been said re the deeds etc. You can also get two types of joint mortgage one where you both own all of the property, so either of you can get debt based on the full value of the property, you both have to trust each other entirely.

Or

You can get a mortgage where you both own 50% of the property, usually used if two mates say, want to buy a property as an investment together but you can only get debt on your half of the property.

My ex was likely to secure debt on the whole of the old house so had to look into it a good few years ago now but don't think the fundamentals change.

Not sure how this helps you but if you get the first or the second you will be far more secure than you are now.

DH is sole on the mortgage on this house as I have a mortgage on another property. However when we got this house (before we were married) DH and I signed legal papers to say that in the event of a split the house was owned by both of us.

Your DP sounds a bit sneaky - not a nice trait in anyone.

sorry but even if she gets on the deeds, in the even of a split surely she will still have no equittable claim on the house if he has put in 100% of the cash?

But at least he can't sell the place over her head! Or throw her out if they split up.

fair point.

Not if the bills are in her name, the judge would then see that she was paying her way towards the household and see this as evidence as her sharing and providing towards the family home.

would be a lot better this way than if everything was in the husbands name...

to be honest id be worried why he didnt want you on the mortgage though and would be asking questions about that to him.

But they're not married so it's not a family home.
It's a house purchased jointly which would then be split in accordance with the direct equity each has put in surely? Courts will not try and enforce the rights of a contract (marriage) where the parties involved have not elected to contract themselves.

mayorquimby is right - it's more symbolic than anything else (though there are a couple of practical advantages). It's also an interesting test of the DP's attitude.

Yup it'd be a clear enough indicator to me of how he felt. Although not sure if I'd castigate him fully, it seems like a dickhead move but if there's some backstory of both never wanting to marry etc. then there may be some context, that's unlikely though.

His house, eh? Because he's doing all the earning cash outside the home bit?

So by that reckoning, they're not his kids. Because that's the 'bit' he's not doing. They're all yours - and next time he has an opinion on their upbringing/schools/bedtime etc., you can tell him it's none of his business... oh and he has to ask you first if he wants to go to their graduations/weddings/etc....

Yes, thought not!

Sigh. This is a really SIMPLE one.

You are a family. A family where the tasks are split with different people doing different tasks. One of these is working outside the home doing a task for other people, you get given bits of paper for doing it which you exchange for things you need like loo roll, cars, and baked beans. That is his task. There is another set of tasks mainly concentrated inside the home, which focus on childcare. If there isn't a person inside the family set onto this task, it is outsourced, and costs lots of the pieces of paper, and you buy far fewer cars/beans/loo roll, or indeed HOUSES!!!

It does not matter who does what task, because they all need to be done in order for the family to function. One task isn't worth more than another, because they all need to be taken care of in order for things to be as they are.

The pieces of paper and the things that are bought with them belong equally to everyone.

How can it be 'his' money? If you weren't there, he wouldn't be able to go out and earn it - all his cash would be going on a nanny. Or, he'd be able to have lots of cash, but no children and nice home and family.

You need to go on the deeds. You have made this family possible just as much as he has, and his career track is defined just as much by the fact that you stay home and raise his children as by what degree/qualifications he has or what jobs he has done. If you weren't there or were working full time, his life would be RADICALLY different. Your home is yours as much as his.

If he disagrees, ask him how he would feel if you decided one day to leave, and take 'your' children, and tell him he had no rights to them, at all, because you did the stay at home bringing them up thing, and his contribution was thus nothing. He'd be enraged. But that is what he is effectively saying to you in terms of the 'working out of the home' side of things.

You must be on the mortgage. Must. The fact that he isn't suggesting this, or even supportive of it, says a lot about him as a person.

How long had you been together?

It may not be as sinister as not wanting OP on the deeds, just thoughtless taking for granted that nothing changes.

Technically you need to be on the deeds. But then morally you should be on the mortgage too. Trying to be named on the deeds but not the mortgage is morally just as wrong as the DP not wanting his P to have part of the house.

But I've been in this situation twice now and it's not as clear cut as others seem to think it is.

How much equity has he put into the house in relation to you? How long have you been together? Have you discussed marriage? What's his stance on that? What's his family history? Lots of bitter divorces? Has he perhaps been through one? All these things drive his behaviour. It's easy to bleat about fairness but fair is relative. If he feels he's put £100k of equity in and you haven't put a penny in. Then yes as a SAHM parent you have a value but you get a lot of childminding for £50k.

But ultimately it does boil down to one single thing. And that thing is:

"Does he see you together forever or does he think at some point there's a chance you will split up?"

Sounds to me like he may think that so is protecting his own interests. In which case this becomes more a relationship issue. If he's not then he won't mind getting married will he? And then your issue is moot as legally you will be protected.

I'll no doubt get a flaming for daring to suggest it's understandable that he doesn't automatically and happily pony up half the house whilst at the same time others suggest getting on the deeds whilst ducking the mortgage. Fire away!

As I said I'd need context too niceguy2. A lot of the time it's an automatic to side with the op because it's their side we get. And if there's a split and the op says "the house is in my name." a lot of people will tell them to get rid of their no longer dp.
As I said I'd need slightly more info before I set in stone my opinion of him as acting like a dick.

No flaming niceguy2, I'm one that said she needed to be on the deeds but didn't need to be on the mortgage. But I was talking about what she needed to do to protect herself and DC, and just being on the mortgage gives them no protection at all.

But I will call you on " If he feels he's put £100k of equity in and you haven't put a penny in. Then yes as a SAHM parent you have a value but you get a lot of childminding for £50k." Because I do not believe that money actually has to change hands for a contribution to exist. And a partner is not just childcare. Plus, it is not just about the OP and her DP. It is about the DC and their security.

And I fully agree that "it does boil down to one single thing." And the fact that the OP is nervous about her security does suggest something in the current relationship has put this into her mind.

If you are not married you have absolutely no rights and indeed why shoudl you? You haven't earned a penny of the mortgage so why should you have the house>? Why not get a job and contrbiute 50% to mortgage and childcare and then put that into a joint property? Taht is the fair way.

If you are not married you have none of the rights whatsoever that a married person has in relation to a house not in their name.

1. Jane is married to Jim. The house is in the name of one of them. The marriage breaks up. All their assets in whoever's name are added together and debts taken off. If there is enough money the assets are split 50.50 and they get a clean break,.

1. Ruth is just living over the brush with Jim and has had illegitimate children with himn. She doesn't work. She and Jim split up. She has not contrbiuted to the mortgage. Ruth gets none of the equity in the house. This is entirely right and proper. People shoudl be able to determine if they want the rights and obligations of marriage or not.

The chap in the original post has chosen to keep his assets separate so if they break up his unmarried partner has no claim on them. That is his right and it is very important we preserve that right. I was delighted the Govern ment abandoned stupid attempts to change this just the other week.