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

OP I assume that you have no agreement between you and so your own financial position is opaque wrt the joint assets. And I assume you won't get married.

If you went on the deeds it looks like you would be entitled to 50% whereas now technically you are probably entitled to very little. Your DP recognises this and so I think you should get an agreement drawn up as to your current position, ie based on your input, of how much of the joint assets you are currently entitled to, then regard that as your contribution into the property when you put your name on the deeds.
If you think you should have 50% anyway and try to get that then you will have an uphill struggle, so you may be better discussing your present joint financial position as a starting point.

You are at risk of i) disagreeing and splitting up and you getting nothing, or ii) disagreeing, staying together and you getting nothing so you may be better to go for iii) coming to some agreement even if it is not completely what you hope for or iv) getting married

OP my Mum has been stay at home since I was born (27 years ago) she has always been on the mortgage and deeds, why doesn't your DP want you on the mortgage/deeds?

OP - I think Xenia is right in that as an unmarried SAHM you have no security whatsoever.
Living together as a SAHM is the worst of 2 worlds.

DO and I are not married, but I have always woh f/t, have more equity in the house (as tennants in common) etc. If one of us was a sahp I would expect us to get marrried.

Discuss your position with him in a clear, direct and objective manner, and also tell him how insecure it makes you feel, as well as how insecure it makes you technicallly in legal and financial terms. If he says ' but you should love me and trust me enough, why do you need a boit of papaer' then the obvious rejoinder is 'if you loved and trusted me enough you would have no hesitation in securing mine and the children's home through marriage'.

If this is not acceptable to him I would get yorself a job, make him pay for the 50 % of childcare he needs to do his job, and start building your security yourself!

OP, well done for realising you are in a financially vulnerable position.

1.)Either get your name onto deeds (I am not on mortgage, so I am not liable either for payments, but am on the deeds. Also, we are married).

2.)or get married.

3.)If he wants neither, I think you'll have to get a job, and make sure your P pays HALF OF THE CHILDCARE. Don't make the mistake thinking that the childcare has to come out of your salary as you are "the woman".

You'll have to be smart, and toughen your stance a bit, for your children and your sake.

Your P sounds only half committed, and that's a dangerous situation to be in. he has the money, you have the responsibility for the kids. NOT a good deal, especially if you are not married.

so he thinks you are good enough to put your life on hold and bring up his 2 children, but he still has this whole thing going on his head, 'I work, its my money?'

nice!!

Have you discussed marriage? I agree with an other poster, you obviously have worries for this to of been bought up?

surely you're liable for half the mortgage if you're married? Is it not classed as a family debt in the same way as the home is classed as an asset of marriage?

Yes, I believe that is why is hasn't been changed. However, there are many women who mistakenly believe they will have some rights if they live with their partner and have children with them - the common law wife myth. Then it all goes wrong through relationship breakdown, or the death of a partner, and the women find themselves out in the cold.

I disagree that it is a 'default'. Men don't move in with women and have children by accident. They are entering a 'family' situation and I believe the laws should reflect this.
Star

Star??
Don't know where that came from.

You need to be on the deeds.
I would suggest if you haven't already done so you both need to draw up wills & be willing to share the contents with each other. He may say it's all going to the kids but if he stipulates in a trust until 21 then that too is the roof gone from over your head.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse and never has been.
And of course it's a default, they are being bound to a contract which they have not consented to.
I understand the argument 'men don't live with a woman/have kids/enter a family situation by accident' but it doesn't really hold up as a reason for imposing a default marriage because you can just as easily say "women don't accidently move in with a man,have kids and play happy families when they know they are not actually married by accident."
What happens for couples or individuals who know the law and never wish to enter marriage?They now have to contract to stop themselves from being assumed to be married?

You're in a very vulnerable position as an unmarried SAHM.

If one or both of you has an on-principle objection to getting married then you should at the very least insist on you both doing the paperwork to ensure property is held jointly, you've both written your wills for the benefit of the other and all the other things that happen automatically in the eyes of the law when you're married.

Or (arguably the cheaper option) you could just get married. If he's happy to live with you and for you to give up your independent financial security to look after the children you've had together, he bloody well should be committed to you, and willing to demonstrate this either by getting a solicitor to draw up the relevant wills etc or by marrying you to the same effect.

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 would add to this a check to make OP has ensured financial details such as National Insurance contributions are accruing in her name, as well as ensuring that any pension provision being contributed to out of their household income is being placed in a joint pension OR something which isn't entirely in the partner's name (possibly even her own individual private pension).

Posts like the OP are the exact reason why so many women "retire" into poverty. At least this OP has realised the fragility of her sitation, legally and financially, before that stage, which is something, I guess.

WhoseGotMyEyebrows living together and having children is a commitment while those children are dependent and no longer. In the case of a split it may be right to allow the children to stay in the house with their mother, if she is the PWC, regardless of the deeds, until they are of full age and out of education, but then there must be a sale and if he is on the deeds and she is not, it's his money. Cohabitation is not marriage and should not be treated as if it was.

I would argue that co-habiting and having children could, and possibly should be seen as entering a contract with someone. Especially when one side has given up their own livelihood to raise the couple's children.

Many women do find themselves in poverty for this reason - marriage is much less in vogue now, and society no longer finds it unacceptable to cohabit and have children. However - women who stay at home to look after children are underprotected by the law - I feel the law should catch up a bit. Many women put years of work into a household/bringing up children, essentially acting in exactly the same way as a wife, but can end up with nothing.

Helena Kennedy makes a very strong case for it in her book.

How are they under-protected by the law? The law makes available to them a social contract which will protect them, if adults choose not to avail of this option that does not mean they are under-protected, it means they have decided not to avail of the protection available to them.
I honestly can see no reason or justification for the courts to try and establish a contract where the parties concerned have not elected to contract themselves.

"possibly should be seen as entering a contract with someone."

On what grounds? is there offer,acceptance and consideration? will this apply to couples who never wish to marry?what about couples where one party has earlier stated their position on never marrying but the other has stuck around because they hoped they'd change their mind or because they didn't really believe them? what about the kind of feckless cock-lodgers you sometimes read about on here, do they now get a share of the equity in someone elses house? How about abusive partners, will women now have marriage imposed upon them if they fall regnant by them?

I think the main way that dependent partners in relationships are 'underprotected' is when they don't realise what a vulnerable position they are in. And, even when they wake up to the reality, it is very difficult to then get the necessary commitment out of the other partner. People cannot be either forced to marry or forced to sign contracts. The dependent partner is then left with the choice either taking the risk or ending the relationship... neither of which is very satisfactory.

I'd like to see more responsibilities come into play when a relationship results in children. We're comfortable with the concept that an unmarried, absent parent is still responsible for a child and pays maintenance. There must be a way to expand on that.

Because a wife who is a full time mum gets a share of the family's wealth, which she has contributed to. And gets to stay in the marital home until her children are 18. The co-habiting mother doesn't, yet she has contributed just as much as the 'wife' to the family home and wealth, no? She may get access to benefits & the csa, but let's face it, that doesn't exactly give her a fabulous standard of living does it? Especially if she was cohabiting with a high earner.

Cogito you put that so well, thank you.

YANBU

Yes, marriage exists as a safety-net but one party cannot be forced into that contract.
Personally, I think the married women's act needs updating to take account of modern relationships. Although it's very useful to protect SAHMs and children, it also allows women in less vulnerable situations to profit from the breakdown of the marriage. Mind you, there's probably plenty of women here who think it doesn't give enough protection.

"The co-habiting mother doesn't, yet she has contributed just as much as the 'wife' to the family home and wealth, no?"

But that's why it's good advice to say 'don't have children until you're married'... or at least got some firm commitment. Anyone reading this thread who is about to start living with their particular high earner and who is thinking seriously about having children, giving up their job, becoming a SAHM and relying 100% on that high earner for their lifestyle has had due warning that they are not protected by the law.

Koukla If the (unmarried) couple actually has a conversation when they have children where they say what will happen in the event that they split up, and they both agree to those consequences, then yes, there is a contract. (Pretty hard to prove mind you if unwritten).

But if both partners just have made unspoken assumptions then no there isn't. One partner could be assuming that they will have no obligations (apart from child maintenance) if they split. The other partner could be assuming he/she will get a fair share of everything if they split. No agreement, so no contract.

And as others say there is no justification for the law to impose a contract - the couple is perfectly able to enter into marriage or other protective contracts if they want, so if they have chosen not to, those consequences shouldn't be imposed on them. And indeed it could be pretty undesirable for all the reasons mayor gives.

. "The co-habiting mother doesn't, yet she has contributed just as much as the 'wife' to the family home and wealth, no? "

Yes but unlike the wife she has made the choice to remain independent of her childrens father.
Fathers have financial obligations to their children because they are responsible for them, they have no responsibility towards another adult where both have decided not to enter a contract which would tie them in the eyes of the law.

Ladies...I have just joined mumsnet to get my voice and women like me heard. YOU MUST get your name on the deeds of the property otherwise you will find yourself in the predicament that I am in. I lived with my partner for 25 years since I was 20, 1 dc, 3 businesses together, but my name was not on the deeds of the property that "we" bought...his words to me were when I asked "you can't afford to pay the mortgage you don't earn enough, and anyway you don't need your name on the deeds it's just as much yours as it is mine" He most definately is a scumbag as I never received a penny towards our childs upbringing not even for xmas or birthday...I contributed masses to the "doing up" of the properties as well...when we split he wasn't even prepared to give me 10%!!! I am now homeless living back with my parents and struggling while he lives in the farm that "we" bought! so I am now fighting to take it to court but can only afford to do so with legal aid help...so ladies...however scared you are to face this full on with your partner...you must do...please for goodness sake do not end up like me, I was young and naieve and he was 17 years my senior and wised up and a complete shit. Thankfully our son boarded throughout this and is now at uni. JUST DO IT. NAME ON DEEDS GIRLS. x

Reading all your comments with great interest...my partner never wanted to get married..."waste of time" and he was very manipulative, controlling and verbally abusive...I was pretty afraid of him...but I got out and now I have a fight on my hands. Women are only legally protected in situations like this when married...this was definately a marriage apart from that one piece of paper. I have found out that sqatters have more legal rights than us unmarried mothers/women. I do have a case according to my barrister but it's going to be one hell of a fight! Put your name on the deeds, I know its tough sometimes especially if you're in a situation like I was in, but at the moment it's the only answer. The government are looking into changing the law on cohabiting and it has changed slightly in favour of women in situations like this but we still have to fight and we still have to prove a lot of things...