Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Getting house in joint names

151 replies

CJ2010 · 22/09/2011 14:59

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

OP posts:
LadyMary · 22/09/2011 18:42

You are confusing two issues, Xenia. Marriage and whether she works in or out of the home.

GirlWithALlamaTattoo · 22/09/2011 18:55

Xenia, I agree with you to a point. But, if he doesn't want to enter into a lifelong financial commitment to the OP, it would have been nice of him to mention that before they had children together.

If they are a family, they should take the necessary steps to make things equal and to provide for what would happen in the event of one or the other's death. There's no reason that they shouldn't own the house jointly even if they choose not to get married. You can own a house with anyone you like.

If he doesn't want to be part of a family, working together for the good of all of them, equally through paid work or household work, the OP might do better to run away now and start building her own financial security.

Andrewofgg · 22/09/2011 19:39

If he doesn't want you on the deeds that says something about him that I don't like the sound of.

If you want to be on the deeds but not the mortgage that says something about you that I don't like the sound of. The lender won't care if you are on the mortgage as well as him.

niceguy2 · 22/09/2011 23:18

I actually think in practice the mortgage/deed thing is a red herring. Correct me if I am wrong but I'm fairly certain a bank will insist upon the mortgage having the same name(s) as the deeds.

Secondly as I've said in other threads, if you want the protection of marriage, get married. There's no point moaning about how you don't want to/didn't realise/whatever. None of those are defences.

If he doesn't want to marry you and give you the legal recognition and protection then you clearly have a choice to make.

mayorquimby · 22/09/2011 23:31

Agree with Xenia on the issue of non-married couples not getting assumed protection.
However the op clearly now has a decision to make.

workshy · 22/09/2011 23:49

do you have entirely seperate bank accounts or joint accounts?

if you have joint accounts then legally anything purchased from this account is jointly owned, regardless of how the money got into the account in the first place

-I have just been in this position -my ex and I were partners, he didn't want to get married because not a single member of his family had managed to stay married for more than 8 years (we were together for 13 years)
When we first set up joint account we both worked, he was full time, I was part time and looked after DCs. Times changed and I ended up working full time and he quit his job to start an imaginary business and actually contributed nothing financially for 4 years went part time and looked after the kids. In the time I was working full time we completely renovated the house and bought new appliances, tvs, furniture etc, we had no savings so was all paid for out of my salary, and I had covered the mortgage payments
NONE OF THIS WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE SPLIT!
joint account = joint ownership and I had to pay him 50% of the value of these items for him to leave them in the house when I bought out his 50% share of the equity, despite him never having paid a mortgage payment

in other words, if he sees the mortgage as his let him -but get a joint account!!!

KouklaMoo · 23/09/2011 01:06

I think the best security for you and the children is to get married - if he doesn't want to get married, and doesn't want your name on the mortgage or deeds I would be very suspicious.

Possibly though, he doesn't know how insecure things feel from your perspective - perhaps he just sees it as 'he's the earner, so it's his name on the mortage/deeds?'

You really need to talk to him - ask him are you buying a family home? Or is he just buying a house that he will let you and the dc live in? If it is the former, then for the dc's security you need your name on the deeds. That way in the event of his death, the house goes over to you, rather than part of his estate. That way he cannot just throw you out of the house in the event of a split. Do you have a joint account - you should.

I'm a SAHM mum and my name is on the mortgage and deeds. We are married though.

hayleysd · 23/09/2011 01:37

Ours is a joint mortgage ( I work though) but we also did something which i can't remember what it's called that means that ownership passes to the other automatically if one of is dies, we're not married so that may be to do with it and it would go to our families if we hadn't done this

ZonkedOut · 23/09/2011 02:13

I think everyone (including the OP) is assuming this guy doesn't want her on the deeds, when she hasn't even asked him directly about it. "I just know" could be doing him a misservice.

OP, ask him, clear the air about it then at least you will know how he feels, and probably why too, if you ask him to explain. Then you can state your side, and hopefully have a sensible discussion about it.

mynewpassion · 23/09/2011 02:43

I think that if your name is on the deed then you should also be financially responsible for the mortgage. Its only fair.

If you aren't on the mortgage, then he gets all the burden and you get the benefit.

You might be taking of your and his children. However, he's financially taking care of all four of you. Evens out.

Morloth · 23/09/2011 03:48

You need to be on both the mortgage and the deeds.

I would be very worried in your position. You are at his mercy here.

Not getting married is fine, but you need to understand that the marriage contract is just that a contract, if you don't have it, you will need to sort out a bunch of other contracts instead.

And yes, taking care of the children evens out with bringing in the family money IMO. You need to get yourself on an equal footing here.

Andrewofgg · 23/09/2011 07:31

Oh Xenia how I agree with you. Pretending people have taken on a commitment when they have not is so, so wrong.

They have of course done it in Scotland - watch out for squalls when an English man lives for a time in Scotland with a Scottish woman - no DC - and then splits up and returns to England and she tries to sue in the Scots courts and he claims to be of English domicile and not liable - or has it happened?

CogitoErgoSometimes · 23/09/2011 07:48

"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."

It is certainly his right and therefore the the OP and her children are in the same vulnerable position as all other unmarried, dependent partners. The OP is asking how she gets peace of mind and financial security in the situation presented... not for the law to be changed. The answer is either 'get married' or draw up an agreement that covers what happens in the event of separation or death. It they want to replicate the conditions of marriage then the property would be held in both names and his will would be made out naming her as beneficiary.

Bubbaluv · 23/09/2011 07:51

I am a SAHM and am on our mortgage.
As the main caregiver of our children I AM making a contribution to the mortgage!

I am married, but I see no reason why I should not have a claim on our assets if I were not - given that we could not have accumulated what we have if I had not supported our family in the way I have. It may not have been in direct monetary terms, but it was most certainly significant.

Here (Aus) a couple who are deemed defacto spouses (married in every way but the certificate) have the same legal rights and people who have the bit of paper. They can choose to limit those rights with a contract similar to a pre-nup, but it ensures that people are not obligated to enter into an arrangement they are not comfortable with, for what ever reason, in order to protect their financial position.

I believe that financial considerations should not be a major consideration of marriage. Marriage should be a choice to aknowledge a realtionship in a traditional way (and not everyone's traditional) rather than a matter for your financial planner and soliciter.

NinkyNonker · 23/09/2011 07:56

I dislike the implication that there is something untoward to be assumed about people who are on the deeds but not the mortgage, like me. It can just be the most practical way of ensuring joint ownership. DH bought this house, we both contributed towards paying for it when I was working. Now I am not, but as a partnership that doesn't imply anything dubious about my motives!

GirlWithALlamaTattoo · 23/09/2011 08:04

NinkyNonker, did you have to sign something to say that your rights wouldn't come above the mortgagee's if your husband defaulted? I can't remember what it's called, but I think that's the usual way of getting around a spouse being on the deeds but not the mortgage.

WhoseGotMyEyebrows · 23/09/2011 09:25

Xenia 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.

Oh my, don't you hate SAHMs! The OP does have a job, even if you think it has absolutely no value, she is looking after their children full time. She can't contribute financially because of her full time job as a mum, that doesn't mean she isn't contributing anything towards family life. Do you really value looking after your own children as being so worthless? Because that's the way it comes across in every single post you right on this subject. Lucky kids!

WhoseGotMyEyebrows · 23/09/2011 09:27

Andrewofgg Oh Xenia how I agree with you. Pretending people have taken on a commitment when they have not is so, so wrong.

You don't think liveing together and having 2 children is a commitment then?! Worrying.

NinkyNonker · 23/09/2011 09:30

Dd is far more of a commitment than my marriage certificate, even though I am old fashioned and wouldn't have had her without it.

Yes Girl, I did have to sign something. But that was before the deed change so think I had to sign it purely because we were married so had the joint claim anyway, if that makes sense?

All this reminds me we need to update our wills.

WhoseGotMyEyebrows · 23/09/2011 09:33

Excuse my spelling/typos!

WhoseGotMyEyebrows · 23/09/2011 09:38

Also Xenia, you are incredibly money obsessed . . . do you really think that's what life is all about?

KouklaMoo · 23/09/2011 09:54

Bubbalove, I wish they would change the law to make that the case in the UK. I remember reading the wonderful Helena Kennedy's Eve was Framed and she argues that this simple change in the Law would make a big impact on poverty levels of single mothers/children. But they won't make the change because it would undermime the institution of marriage. Contrary to popular myth, the term 'common-law wife' has no legal status here.

Alibabaandthe80nappies · 23/09/2011 10:16

This is exactly why no woman should have children without being married. For all that people bleat about marriage being a device of the patriarchy, it is actually protection for women who have children and take any kind of hit to their career.

mayorquimby · 23/09/2011 10:16

"I am married, but I see no reason why I should not have a claim on our assets if I were not"

The reason I see is that if you want the protections afforded by marriage then you should get married. Adults have privity of contract, if an adult does not want the legal responsibilities or constructs which come with marriage they should not have them foisted upon them without their consent.

Alibabaandthe80nappies · 23/09/2011 10:18

Koukla - I am pleased that the law wasn't changed. The legal contract of marriage shouldn't be a default - people should choose to enter it.