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

Do you want to be married, CJ2010? If so, then if I were you, I'd ask him to marry me.

If you don't want to be married (some don't), but still want the protections, then yes I'd have the conversation about being on the deeds. But there are other protections you need too. What about pension provision for example? He should either be paying into a pension in your name or should agree to give you rights to his pension (like a wife would have). Also, wills - you should both have wills in place saying that your assets will go to the other partner on death (or half to the other partner, half to the children, which is very roughly what the married position is). Unlike the deeds issue, there is no reason for him to delay putting those protections in place. If you talk about those things, you'll quickly get an idea of his general view of being financially committed to you.

It's important of course that he doesn't get the wrong impression and think that you are asking for these things because you are intending to leave! That's why I would suggest marriage as a first option - because of course it commits you too.

Talk to him. I have to say that I can't imagine a scenario whereby you've got kids with someone and haven't hashed all this through long ago, but putting that to one side, you MUST talk.

Be prepared for him to get angry, defensive, but stand your ground.

Where is the money from the proceeds of the previous house? In his bank account?
Do you have access to any cash, any savings in your name?

I am a (married) SAHM. All our savings are in my name. It tax efficient, but also my security that DH can't run off and leave me penniless.
He doesn't plan to, and I am as certain as you can be that he won't, but I insisted on iy when I gave up work and became financially dependent on him.

Ravening I think there are plenty of feminist arguments in favour of marriage. It's the history of marriage, and some of the daft traditions around weddings, which are sexist - not the vows or the legal effects of marriage.

Tadlow Couldn't agree more about the 'choices' thing. It's definitely one of the ways in which feminism seems to have been de-clawed a bit - in popular perception it's either the haunt of angry misandrists or just another outpost of radical individualism. Neither of these things allow for much discussion, as you say, of the context in which choices get made.

Anyway. Sorry, OP - I'm now a bit off-track for what is after all your immediate practical issue. In answer to your last post, I'd start with discussing option 3 with him and seeing how he reacts. That should open up a discussion about joint lives and joint financial assets, and possibly even an opportunity for you to suggest that perhaps you should get married. If he loves you and wants to do right by his family then he can hardly object to taking steps to ensure that his partner and children are taken care of in the event of his death, can he?

Yes, I agree you need to talk to him.

The thing I think is crucial which doesn't come across on this thread is, plenty of people really don't know the legal stuff. It may well be they should, but they don't.

Your DP, who is presumably a nice man whom you love, is most likely just not aware of the size of this problem. He needs to know. He may actually just not have thought about it, in which case if you discuss it it may be easily resolved.

The big thing IMO is that you do work. You are contributing to your family unit.

Btw, If you and he don't want a wedding, it's worth considering just nipping down the registry office and doing it without a fuss.

What would you all do in my position?

Well on a practical level, where will the deposit for the house come from? ie. is this joint savings built up whilst you've been living together or savings he had prior to meeting you? If prior, are you also putting any savings towards said house?

You do need to sit & talk about whether or not you intend at some point to get married. Don't forget it's not all just about the house. What about any pension arrangements? Savings? You can't automatically assume you will get stuff because you live together.

The long & the short of it is that it seems you want the security and legal protections which come as part of being married. The obvious solution therefore is to get married.

You should and can have your name on the mortgage. I was a SAHM when we bought this house and my name is on the mortgage. DH would never even think of buying a house just in his name.

I have spoken to several men who deliberately won't marry their live in lover and mother of their children as they don't love her enough to commit to be togehter, she earns less and if they split up they want the entirety of their own assets which are solely in their name reserved for them and that can apply to richer women too. I am not keen to divest myself of yet more money on a second divorce if I end up with someone living in. Thankfully the law would give him no rights unless we chose to marry or to put assets in joint names.

I'd have the conversation sooner rather than later. And try not to have it in an argumentative sort of way. Talk as if you assume he's a reasonable man (even if you suspect he isn't ) then you won't come across as shirty, and he's more likely to listen/agree with you.
Say listen me and the kids would be in a VERY sticky situation should something happen to you, if you kick the bucket or if you get seriously ill. As we're not married the law won't recognise that I should be helped and should have a stake in the house etc. The house will go to your nearest relative if you die and not to me; it could leave me and the kids homeless. Or it might go to the kids which would leave me in a tricky situation. Now that we've got kids we need to sort this out. It's not fair on them if we don't. We both need life insurance. We both need to be on the deeds of any house we get (and yes, I can go on the mortgage even if I don't work) Frankly there's more paperwork involved in safeguarding our kids future if we don't get married than there would be if we did get married.
I can't rest easy knowing that if something happened to you then me and the kids would be left high and dry. We MUST sort this out. (If you use the example of him dying rather than of him buggering off and leaving you, then he's more likely to listen without getting snotty, ie. you don't trust me, blah, blah, blah..
It's true it IS very tricky to sort out if one partner dies and the other isn't on the deeds and there's no will and no life insurance; it's an absolute nightmare. I've met women in that position. you need to have the conversation. And yes it's easy to say consider getting married, but it is worth considering.

Do you want to get married?

Do you think he understands the financial shit this leaves you in?

Do you think he cares?

I suppose you could explain very, very clearly to him that you want to be together but that you have no financial security and that if he isn't prepared to provide it for you then you will have to take action, such as going back to work where he will be required to pay half the childcare. You could also say that it is reflective of his commitment to you and that you don't want to stay with someone who won't commit and would leave you in this situation. That's a pretty make or break conversation though!

windease puts it in a much less controntational way!

Jumping the thread wildly .... and Im sure its been pointed out ..... the mortgage makes you responsible for the debt of borrowing .... you only need to be included on the deeds of registry to co-own the property but not have any debt tied to you.

There is a down side to that; should your relationship fail, you will be deemed to have assets.

But, to recount a story, father of a friend died. House in his name. She'd never worked, no bills in her name, no bank account, no passport. It took nnearly a year to sort out the estate. Absolutely no money or assets of her own. If she hadn't had a son who could support her, she would have starved to death whilst everything was sorted out.

Now your DP (so thats only a co-habitee, not a husband?) can set up a will trust, making all property/assets to your mutual children with you having a life time interest and use of assets.

My OH and myself aren't married. When we bought our current house I was named on the deeds and the mortgage even though I was a sahm then.

I'm a SAHM and my DP and I recently bought our first house together. He put in far more equity than me and as he has previously gone through a bitter divorce we had some uncomfortable conversations about who owns what.

My name is on the mortgage and the deeds but we also had a solicitor draw up a 'Deed of Trust' which basically lays out how much each of us takes from the property if we split up.

It sounds like you have some difficult conversations ahead of you CJ2010 but you must have them and make sure you and yours are covered. Good luck.

I think if you are in that situation and the working spouse chooses not to pay you an allowance for childcare which would be what he would have to pay a nanny say, then that shoudl be reflected inthe equity split in trust deeds. You could provide that for each year the non working live in partner has done childcare 9 - 6 that is valued at say £25k plus inflation and your half of that childcare had you worked woudl have been about £12,500 and the % you own in the house rises to reflect those efforts each year at that rate so after say 5 years you have saved him say £62,500 beig huis half of childcare costs and then you would be entitled to an additional £62,.500 of the equity after the 5th year etc etc.

For non marrieds as others have said above the house is only one part of all this. You need wills. You need life insurance proceeds in trust for each other or the child. You need to remember if the assets exceed thresholds 40%^ inheritance tax is paid on death but not if you were married and take advice on that too.

The situation in the UK sounds like something out of the 1950s!
You have to get married to have financial security!? What a joke!

I am unmarried. I have DC and my own mortgage and house with my name on the deeds.

If I marry and then split up, the man can claim on the house because of that marriage regardless of name on deeds (so I risk the home I have worked so hard to gain for my family)

If I cohabit he would only have a claim if the mortgage had been paid out of a joint account(or I put him on the deeds) is my understanding?

On that basis (Bubbaluv) I would like to retain the ability to choose to reject 'financial security' for a new partner because I need to protect my (and my DC's) financial security.

------------
Regards position of OP: If I chose to have children with my new partner I would expect to make provision for that child. It's a tricky situation because I'd also want to protect the provision I currently have for my existing DC...... BUT that DC is also mine so I would offer as much security as I could.

Marriage and children is a massive financial commitment for the wage earner.
Children are an even bigger commitment for a person without a wage. Everyone needs to recognise that.

I think Niceguy has a point that how much of your pre-existing wealth should be handed over is the interesting bit. My view is that 'enough' should be handed over to secure the situation that the parent was in when the decision was taken to have children. One parent should not walk away with a 'debt equivalent ' (DC) whilst the other parent lacks responsibility for that jointly decided 'debt'. Knowing what I know now about divorce I'm afraid romance is dead...... I'd be looking to have a relationship with a partner who would not leave me poor. Sorry but...

If I picked a guy for his looks/his bedroom abilities/scintillating conversation/parenting skills/cooking and housekeeping ability I'd have to accept that none of those things would offset the risk to my wealth when we separated.

Bubb, it's the opposite. Adults including high earning women are protected and treated as adults able to take their own decisions. It ensures women keep jobs and work hard and don't become domestic servants. If people choose to marry then they have rights to claim support from each other. If they just happen to want a live in partner then they are not saddled with supporting that person. It makes a lot of sense.

Toothbrush that is entirely right and if I moved a man in here I would also protect my fairly high earnings and reasonably large assets in the same way by choosing not to marry. The current English system must be retained. Women are not dependent chattels and can make their own way and earn their own money. If they cannot find someone to marry and keep them then they shoudl not be able to leech off him just because they move in with him and vice versa.

This article is the opposite of my views but it does link to the recent Government press release saying the law (in my view thankfully) will not change.

www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2011/09/13/the-experts-government-wrecks-cohabitation-reform-in-just-150-words/

If a man won't marry you and you are lot poorer than he is (a) get a job or (b) find one who will . Don't move in until you're married used to be the traditional advice for the less well off of a couple. Once someone has all they want from you without having to marry why would they go that step further and marry?

"You have to get married to have financial security!? What a joke!"

Not like the 1950's. The OP in this situation is entitled to work, earn money, have property, hold investments and pay tax in her own name. However, the picture painted of someone who has no home, assets or cash of their own and no source of income means that she is financially reliant on her boyfriend for her standard of living. If the boyfriend was not there, she would be reliant on the state for financial support.

The marriage (and now civil partnership) contract confers various rights including property rights, inheritance rights & next-of-kin status in one easy move. The same contractual agreement can be written up without the parties getting married.

The only thing that really ought to be done is that wherever we see low or no earning mothers who live with a man who earns more asking on here and elsewhere about their rights or assuming they have the rights of a spouse we make it clear they do not so that they know the position. It could easily be taught to all 15 year olds. It might do some of the girls good - that unless they earn their own living, pass their GCSEs, perhaps even get a degree/good career they may well find they cannot support themselves.

Plenty of higher earners will not marry because they do not want the financial burden on divorce. That does not mean they cannot reach some agreements between them but only if they do or the non owner of the place pays the mortgage etc etc are they protected.

I am very pleased these rights Scotland has given to cohabitees have not been given to those in England.

With regard to the OP about the practicalities of being on the mortgage versus not being on the mortgage. Some of this could depend on your mortgage lender. I worked for about ten years in the mortgage dept of a bank. We refused to lend to couples unless both were named on the mortgage, and the deeds, but it wasn't to protect them (the borrowers) it was to protect us (the lender). The terms of a mortgage contract (or certainly in the bank where I worked) are that both parties are liable for the entire debt, so if high earning husband clears off and leaves SAHM, we could chase either of them to repay the entire debt. That is also why the terms of your mortgage are likely to say that if you are named on the deed, you must also be named on the mortgage, otherwise the bank would not have the power to repossess the property in the case of defaulting on the payments, because if you were named on the deeds but not the mortgage, you would jointly own something but have no liability to pay for it, and the bank isn't likely to agree to that.

I know some on here are saying that they are named on the deeds, but not the mortgage, and I am not doubting them, but I'd guess that they had to go through specific legal hoops to get the lender to agree to that, and have specific reasons for doing so, as most lenders are unlikely to consider it. Especially in the current climate, where people are finding it harder and harder to borrow, the banks definitely want to remain in control.

Sorry, I meant to include in my post that the only circumstances where the bank I worked in would lend to a couple but allow only one to be name on the mortgage and the deeds was where the other half of the couple signed legal documents agreeing that they had no legal right to any ownership of the property, and no legal right to live in it. Offspring over the age of 18, still living with the parents, often had to sign this waiver, but I can't ever remember a spouse or partner agreeing to it, once they saw the implications.