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

Oh ktwoo that's awful! (and welcome)Was your name on the bills?

ktoo - what a terrible story. It exemplifies exactly how unmarried, cohabiting women are under protected at present. Your experience would have been completely different in Australia, as bubbaluv's post said - where there is a law that treats men and women cohabiting, who are essentially 'married in all ways but the certificate' the same as married couples.

WhoseGotMyEyebrows (great name btw!) thank you. Yes my name was on some of the bills and for the last 10 years I was the only one working as he had retired and I was paying the majority of them...plus everything for our son. But paying the bils doesn't count for anything I'm afraid even if you can prove you paid them all!! It's about making promises and proving that he has gained by your involvement...which thankfully he most certainly has gained.

Kouklamoo...not only Australia, but in Scotland "Common law Wife" is recognised as it is in other EU countries. My story may be ghastly atm..but I am happier now out of the situation that I was in and who knows I may even win my case!

To get your name on the deeds at the land registry you do need to also have the mortgage in both your names. You can't have your names on the deeds if your name isn't on the mortgage. You can put some sort of marital thingy on the property at the land reg that registers your interest in the property preventing him from selling it without your permission. It doesn't prevent him from borrowing on it without your permission though, it only means he has to inform you first. I'm not sure if you can do it if you're NOT married though. Get the mortgage in BOTH your names; it can be done even if you don't earn. Then your name can be on the deeds. Get life insurance for both of you. Consider getting married.

ktwoo It sounds to me like you really should pursue this and that you have a good chance, although I am no expert. Oh just read that your barrister thinks you have a case. Pleased to read that.

Windease No the marital thingy as you call it is not available if you are not married.

If you are both on the deeds, and you should be, the deeds can specify the proportions in which the proceeds are to be divided on sale which need not be fifty-fifty - it can be whatever you agree at the time you buy.

ktwoo - glad you're out of the situation now - might go back and read that Helen Kennedy chapter again actually, on the back of this. I wasn't actually aware it was recognised in Scotland and the eu. High time that England caught up methinks!

Good luck with the case.

windease...its easy to say consider marriage, sometimes it just isn't an option, I would have loved to have got married, plus this isn't addressing the problem that we have in this country. The law does need to be changed to protect women in situations like this, our law is very outdated. I'm not saying to change it so that every cohabiting couple has equal rights end of, but certain things need to be recognised; living together, having children, running business together is a contract even if there is no piece of paper to say so. Women have protection over the silliest of things...if a man walks into the office and says "hello sexy" and you take offence you can do something about it. Women have a great voice and we are powerful when we want to be...why is there no campaign to fight for the law to be changed in this country. I am surprised at how many women are still in vulnerable situations like I was, without actually realising it until it was too late....maybe the campaign starts here...womens hour next I feel...

Kouklamoo...I'm not sure it's recognised in all EU countries but certainly some of them. The government is afraid to change the law on cohabiting because of the huge increase in legal aid applications...at the moment women walk away as they have no rights. It's wrong. Men are not going to fight for a change in the law so we have to.

Perhaps the government is not going to change the law because they think it would be unjust, ktwoo?

As someone pointed out upthread: some of the claims would come from cock-lodgers (love that word, hadn't heard it before) who would take away a woman's hard-earned assets and her security in her old age. There are some rights too important to be granted or lost without a formal commitment, which is what marriage is.

I agree with Andrew - the problem with changing the law so there's an automatic presumption in favour of shared assets for cohabitees, regardless of marital status is that (quite aside from the uproar from social conservatives if you tried to do such a thing) it could have the unintended effect of being more, not less unjust.

As things stand, some people unfortunately believe mistakenly that they'll be entitled to shared assets even if they haven't legally declared their partnership. If there was a presumption in favour of shared assets I can imagine all kinds of cases where it could create a legal nightmare: for example how would it deal with house shares, short-term cohabitees, lodgers and the like? The only difference between two friends cohabiting and a cohabiting couple is that in the latter case there's assumed to be a sexual union; imagine having to prove the absence of such in a court of law, in a case where a lodger or friend was claiming to be a live-in partner. The cocklodger case has already been mentioned; how many of the women who are currently too naive to know their real position as unmarried SAHMs could we really trust to know, if the law were changed, that a cocklodger might end up being entitled to a share of their assets?

Overall while I see the argument that the decline in societal pressure to get married, combined with the 'common-law spouse' myth does leave some unmarried women high and dry when their relationship collapses, the fact does remain that there are structures in place that enable couples to declare their union in a legally-recognised way. The law is a blunt instrument, and I fear that if it tried to get involved in the huge grey area of relationships where people aren't willing to make that legally-recognised statement then it could end up doing more harm than good.

"at the moment women walk away as they have no rights. It's wrong."

I disagree, I think it's entirely right. If someone puts financial contributions into a house, even if it's in anothers name they will have an equitable share in relation to what they have contributed directly in financial terms.
If people want to have their assets viewed as joint assets as a married couple they can get married. If they don't they can remain unmarried.

I'm with Andrewofgg: there is already a perfectly good system for protecting partners who give up work to look after children. It's called marriage, and anyone who becomes an SAHP relying on an unmarried partner's earnings needs to know, before they get into that position, that if it all goes wrong they could easily end up with nothing.

We need much, much better education about this. There hasn't been such a thing as "common law marriage" since 1753, but an astounding number of people still think it exists. If the government can spend a fortune telling us to eat 5 portions of vegetables a day, surely it can manage a campaign to educate people about their rights in a relationship?

Xposted - Othehugeraveningwolef puts it much better than I do.

I think it's absolutely vital we don't change the law. People are adults, not children. It takes 2 seconds on the internet to realise if you aren't married you have no rights over non jointly owned assets unless you contributed to the mortgage etc. Thsi is not h idden from anyone.

Many of us may choose to live with someone but not want them to claim on our finances or money and it is right that is the default position. Scottish law which changed this is a bad thing. England is much better and should remain so.

Of course lower earners who let us not forget are often men these days (let's not be sexist about it) just need to be told this is the situation. I have had lots of conversations with people who earn more and won't marry their partner. One chap who obviously I rejected (because of his status) ensures the house and the company, shares and all the wealth is protected simply by refusing to marry the mother of his second family. She was nearly 40, desperate to have a family (and now has two lovely children) and was prepared to tolerate that deal (and presumably his rather dire looks) as the best she was going to get. They should be free to be in that position. no one foces these women to stop work and be housewives. if they chose they could go out there and out earn the men , share the childcare costs with the man and not have these issues.

Agree with Tadlow - if any campaign is needed it's to make sure women are informed about the legal implications of the ways in which their choices about cohabitation, working, not working and whether to get married may affect their financial security.

So much stupid bollocks gets spouted about the 'romantic' aspects of marriage. But there seems to be this insulting presumption that women don't give a shit about any aspect of marriage except the dresses-and-table-favours stuff. When in fact marriage or some legal arrangement with the same effects is hugely in the interests of any woman who is considering spending time as a SAHM and taking a career hit in the process.

I don't understand at all why this isn't discussed more. Is it a conspiracy to infantilise women? Is it because it seems like a socially-conservative argument, and feminists don't tend to be social conservatives? I'm not sure, but I do wish there were more attempts to make sure women are protecting their own long-term security when entering into a relationship where they're becoming dependent to all or some extent on someone else's income in order to be available for their children.

Yes, why don't more women enjoy tax and pensions law? Is it the way their mothers bring them up? I know which I'd rather do - read the FT or buy a dress. Of course you can do both but we certainly need to ensure daughters are as fascinated by finance and business as we are. This starts right back when they are under 6 and want a pink dress and are encouraged to be inactive or when some parents go on about their wedding or when a father goes on about how pretty the daughter is and clever the son is.

Xenia, almost nobody enjoys tax and pensions law! I understand it, but I'm not kidding myself that I like it.

I haven't got a clue why this isn't discussed more. I remember having my time wasted at school with all sorts of random junk (under the title of "personal and social education"), but the legal effects of cohabitation versus marriage didn't even get a mention. And this was at a very high-flying girls' school.

The more I think about it, the more I suspect it's something to do with the way marriage has come to be seen as a bit 'archaic' and as maybe just a lifestyle choice. In other words, it's a bit old-fashioned, comes with all kinds of connotations around women-as-property and is maybe a bit irrelevant to modern women.

So women never get to hear about the practical, legal aspects of marriage - such as joint ownership of property even if one partner isn't earning - because no-one would want to explain that if you want to spend any time not working and taking care of children it's hugely in your interests to be married. If you explained that, you could be seen to be pushing women into an archaic 'traditional' role, or judging those who have chosen not to marry, or indeed implicitly criticising lone parents. So it doesn't get discussed, and women who've chosen to be unmarried SAHMs can end up losing out as a result.

Hmm. Just tried the phrase 'feminist arguments in favour of marriage' on for size. It sounded very strange. Perhaps a connection?

OTheHugeRaveningWolef, perhaps it only sounds strange because we're used to thinking of this in such a gendered way (and because feminism's work is only half done, so there are far fewer men than women staying at home or cutting back their hours to look after children)?

I think it's all part of the way that personal domestic choices are always presented as just that - individual choices - rather than part of a bigger political and cultural picture, which would enable you to see why some "choices" are easier to make than others.

Agree with Ravening about the educational aspects.

Marriage is portrayed as this huge romantic, emotional gesture and it's all tied up with love and sex and spending huge amounts on a wedding. The legal and practical aspects are rarely talked about.

My mother used to be involved in a church that asked couples who wanted to marry there, to take part in a wedding preparation day. They encouraged couples to talk about money and children and how they would make decisions within the partnership. It's a given that couples love each other but they encouraged couples to see that marriage is about more than romance.

Maybe we need to consider how couples are prepared for marriage in order to minimise the fall out when it breaks down?

We are renting at the moment and intend to buy a house next year. So, this problem will not get resolved until next yr. What do I do in the meantime?

1.Sit and stew?
2.Get him to marry me?
3.Have the conversation about me being on the mortgage and deeds when we buy a house? And get him to agree, if he doesn't agree, I'll know where I stand won't I? Then I can make plans for the future for MY kids. But, what if he just agrees to shut me up and the doesn't follow through when the time comes?

What would you all do in my position?

Talk.
Find out what his intentions are. Have you ever discussed marriage? Does he see your assets as joint and not just his?