To ask if you are married...

[PoisonedApple]

You should both be on the deeds of the marital home or whether it makes no difference in the event of divorce?

If one party already owns the property and there is an existing mortgage on it "adding" anyone else to the title without the lenders'consent is a breach of the loan conditions. Your not just "adding" a name your conveying half the property.

A house not being in joint names does have implications in the case of separation, divorce and death and position will be different in England /Wales and Scotland. In Scotland for example if there is no will, the house exceeds a certain value and the deceased has surviving children, siblings or parents the surviving spouse might be entitled to an amount from the estate not the house outright.

scantilymad Good post. Scotland doesn't have the equivalent of noting the interest of the party living there although the Matrimonial Homes Act has a limited similar application.

I don't follow the Islamic marriage point but generally the rule of thumb in either UK jurisdiction should be if house is only in 1 name then whether married or not the other party should not assume he/she is automatically entitled to half and will inherit it.

I

It doesn't matter about one person having the mortgage or being on the deeds when it comes to divorce. Things are still split because the other person will have made contributions in other ways.

you can't be on the deeds unless the mortgage is in both your names - we found this out the last time we remortgaged as I was only doing little bits if paid work then but I wanted my name to remain on the deeds as in fact I 'own' far more of the house that DH as I put down the bulk (which was around 2/3 of the value of the house) of the deposit. We did get it sorted, can't remember how.

My DH was a first time buyer so he got a great rate and didn't have to pay stamp duty so our house is in his name, the next house that we buy will be in joint names.

We have life assurance to cover mortgage and a will to confirm that he would leave me house, however in the event of his death (which clearly we don't want to happen!) I would need to get a solicitor on the case pronto to stop the mortgage company from selling the house to pay mortgage off. My solicitor doesn't see that it would be a big issue though and hopefully it won't come to that, I want a good 40 years more out of him!

If you are not on the mortgage then you can't just be added to deeds in the UK.

If you are jointly on a mortgage then in your will get an extra schedule put in to leave each other the property so that should one of you need residential type care in the future then the house can't be completely taken into consideration for payments leaving the other homeless.

Sorry missed the divorce bit, if property isn't in joint names it will be taken into consideration but a judge would ask for evidence of financial setup, I.e. what assets were in place before marriage.

Our mortgage was originally just done in my name as dh (dp at the time) was self employed. I added him to the mortgage a few years ago it was very long winded, endless paperwork and trips to the solicitor. We used a fixed price solicitor recommended by the mortgage company but also had to use a local solicitor to get documents copied and signatures witnessed.

We did it when we changed the mortgage deal.

We bought our place before we were married (6months before). Both names on mortgage. Dh name on the deed at the time of purchase as it meant we saved £11k on stamp duty. My name was added after purchase was complete.

I would want to be on the paperwork. I don't know about the legal position of owning property in marriage. But we own our property as tenants in common, 50/50, so we can each pass our half to our children when we die. Both names on mortgage. But it was easy to do as we were both working when we got the mortgage.

Em I am very surprised that you could do this as it's a requirement of all mortgage lenders that all named parties on the mortgage deed are also on the transfer document at the time of completion. Assuming the purchase price was over £40,000 and your lawyer filed your stamp duty tax return in his name only to pay the reduced rate this would also have been a breach of the mortgage lender's requirements. Very very unusual

Scantily - am not mainland uk (Channel Islands) so things work a but differently here. I think the law has changed now though since we bought 4 years ago. Dh was first time buyer. I wasn't. Hence the savings.

scantilymad agreed re your comment on Emems post. In commercial lending the loan can be to a third party who might not be the owner but the persons granting the legal charge must be exactly the same as the owners. Maybe by "both names on the mortgage"it really means the non owner has agreed to be guarantor for the owner's borrowings? But as you say if the lenders' instruction was joint ownership rather than single ownership and a guarantee that's a clear breach. I'd not risk my practising certificate for it.

Not following how this could have resulted in a stamp duty saving either. The house cost whatever it cost regardless of whether 1,2 or 20 people's names are on the title. Again I don't know how any solicitor could have advised differently.

Where I am first time buyers pay a lower rate of stamp duty. We simply took advantage of that. Back in 2010 this was ok. As at 1 jan 2011 the law changed and the rates were the same wether first time buyers or not as in uk.

We wouldn't be able to do it now.

That said, our lawyer has since been the subject of a number of malpractice cases. And is no longer practising. We are looking into this....

You need to define what you mean by deed. If you have a mortgage, the lender might not be happy for you to add another person. However, the easiest way around this to to sign a Deed Of Trust (about £200 from a solicitor), outlining what % of the property is owned by each party. This is then lodged with the land Registry and prevents the house being sold without the permission of both parties listed.

Both our names are on the mortgage and title deeds but the mortgage company only took my salary into account as DH is self-employed. Is that unusual?

Em, ah I see. I am mainland England practising. Do suggest you pursue investigation re your lawyer and take a second opinion from an SDLT specialist as to whether the stamp duty set up was tax avoidance or tax evasion. It is still the duty of the buyer to file a correct SDLT Return and pay any tax due even if they have been professionally advised.

Home, unfortunately this would still require the permission of any existing lender as it is standard that most lenders will make it a term that no subsequent charges or interests on the property are granted. A restriction on the register in favour of another party is granting an interest, even if only an equitable one.

Candy, provided the mortgage offer was to both of you then I would assume this is fine. Each lender has different lending criteria.

There is a lot of advice relating to transferring the property, on a practical level

As to whether you should own a property in joint names, that is a question for you, your circumstances and relationship

As a question of fact and law it is beneficial to own it in joint names (if you wish to be compensated for half the value of the net proceeds on a divorce) as the joint ownership determines ownership. The fact of marriage does not automatically 'entitle' either party to half the assets. This is a myth which I see perpetuated on here quite often.

Ah Emem apologies. I'm in Scotland. We had I think first time buyers ' relief too for a while but the residential market isn't my thing.

There is a presumption that the matrimonial home is a joint asset, so it doesn't make any difference whose name is on the deeds if you're married. How much you get depends on a number of factors.

If you're not married, it's very, very important.

I'm not on the paperwork for the house. We are married so we thought i would be covered. I seem to remember DH asked Halifax and they said we'd have to remortgage or something and it just seemed easier to get married. So we did. I'm concerned now tho - does it mean i'm not covered if we divorce?