Buying a house together - should both names be equally on the mortgage if married?

[Tulip1011]

My bf and I were talking about the future today and he mentioned that seeing as his deposit for our future home would be significantly (90%) larger than mine, that he would want us to be tenants in common on the mortgage, ie he would own 90% of the house. I don't want us to buy until we are married. We plan to have kids. I see his point he doesn't want to risk losing the money he has made if we divorced early or something, but to me, raising children, I would want the security of knowing he couldn't just leave me one day without financial support. I have told him I wouldn't take his money if we split and didn't have kids. Am I being wrong to think that finances are combined in marriages and the house should be in both our names?

"My bf and I were talking about the future today"

You mean flying cars and all that?

I'm no expert but I'd want the house in both names. If you did split down the line I think a divorce settlement might take into account who paid what for the house. But this would be altered by years of marriage and children.

So split up a year after marriage and no kids and a court may say he has 90% of the house back for example. But divorce in 25 years and have kids I don't think they would.

You probably ought to see a solicitor??

Unless there is a prenup you would be both be entitled to 1/2 each.

I can see his point but I don't think it's the right way to address it.

We were in the same position when we got married. We ended up purchasing a house with a joint tenancy but addressed the inequity in our relative positions via a separate agreement, with termination clause in the event of children (You'd need legal advice as I don't know how enforceable these arrangements are in the UK). We also had a automatic termination clause after 5 years of marriage, as we figured by that time our finances would be so inextricably mingled given our relative contributions of time and money to the relationship/relationship assets that the position set out in the agreement would no longer apply. I was happy with this but we are both lawyers and quite hard-nosed about these things so I didn't take it personally.

Plus I was confident we wouldn't break up - and we haven't - and that the agreement would remian purely hypothetical. Always best to address these things when you're happy than try to fight them out when you're not.

You get married, then what you own he owns and what he owns you own.

yes, of course

unless your fiance is Prince Harry ?

There's also a difference in debt isn't there? One arrangement is liable for the others debts, and the other isn't? Can't remember which.

There's no way I'd be giving up my earning potential and having children without the security of half the house though. And I didn't, in fact.

Him paying 90% of the deposit, doesn't mean he should own 90% of the house! How big is the deposit you would be putting down?

I see his point, if he's talking about before marriage (even if you're not).

I would never want to pay 90% of the deposit on a house with someone who could swan off anytime.

I see your point if you're already married (and agree you should see a solicitor). And I do get that it's sensible to discuss this stuff before marriage, but I wonder if you're both on the same page here? You say 'I don't want us to buy until we are married' - what does he think?

If you have children then divorce, their needs are the court's first priority so it won't matter if the house is 90% or even 100% in his name - if you are their primary carer finances are going to have to be juggled to that you and the children are ok.

But his kind of attitude makes me uneasy. If you are getting married I think that level of commitment should be that you are joint owners of property. If he isn't willing or able to make that kind of commitment about a house, I would wonder what that said about his willingness to commit to a marriage.

BUT it is good that he is talking about it at least. so many couples don't and get very nasty shocks when things go sour with the relationship.

90% of the deposit might be insignificant after years of a shared mortgage. like what viva said.
If he's talking of getting his money back already how committed is he?

I have been both the biggest and smallest deposit in buying a house and have always had agreements in place. Even when married and it only ceased if we had children. Having been married and divorced without having children I am grateful my equity was secured. Now I have children the house is equal to myself and DP.

Thanks - I didn't realise we could get a separate agreement. That might work for us. I have 30k and he has 300k (he owns our current house and I pay him "rent". He has made a lot from the house going up in value.) I haven't lived with him long and he would like us to buy together in a year or 2. My feeling is I don't want to get finances entwined until engaged or married (just seen my sister go through hell selling a house after a split) so have told him that. Also I think he'd be keen to by-pass the wedding thing unless he is given a prod!!

If you buy when you are married or living together the mortgage lenders will insist on both names being on the deeds - whether as joint owners or in common will probably not interest them. Either way you are both liable for the debt to them which is what they are (rightly) concerned about.

And if unfortunately the marriage does not work out the divorce court can override any 90/10 arrangement on the deeds.

If you have a 90/10 or other arrangement on the deeds are not married then on a break-up you are goth bound by the terms of the arrangement.

There is no way I would agree to a tenant in common set up with someone I am in a relationship with. Certainly not someone I intended to spend the rest of my life with.

I should also add - though our position was fairly similar to yours Tulip, deposit-wise, the agreement certainly didn't state that DH owned 90% of the house. It said that if we split up (within the 5 year period or before we had kids) the capital in the house after mortgage discharged would be divided up pro-rata, according to initial investment, taking into account any capital gain.

So very simply if our deposit was 100K, 10 from me and 90 from him, we bought a house for 400K and when we split it was worth 800K, he would get 180 and I would get 20. (All figures are examples!)

I didn't have an issue with it: it fairly recognised his contribution (and we were able to buy a much nicer house than I could otherwise have afforded), and I was protected in the event of kids, or in the event of circs changing over time. It's all ancient history now as agreement has long expired.

Simple pre nup

When house is sold partner a receives x and partner b receives y. What is remaining is divided 50 50

I think many people on here, and it's a bit of a generalisation to say woman, but the majority of sahpS are the mother, similar ish idea with the smaller deposit, or are eventually the Person to give up their career. My opinion is that a lot say, no I wouldn't settle for that arrangement etc.

However I often wonder if the table was turned and they had the 300k deposit would they then be wanting to protect it?

Personally I feel that of it is that uneven then a fair compromise is too protect your investment for a number of years or until children occur etc, then it's fair to be 50 50.

Again 90% deposit does it equal ownership, who will lay the mortgage is important for you too?

I think of it as, if say 3 years later you wish to sell and split, then take the value of the house increase, say it's gone up (or down) by 20%. So eg

Cost 650,000
Your deposit 30 000
Dp deposit 300000
Mortgage 320 000

Now worth 780 000 with 280 000 mortgage left
Leaves 500,000
Your deposit plus 20% increase now equals 36,000
Dp deposit plus20% value increase = 360,000

This then leaves 104,000 profit. This is split 50:50. So 52000 each.
Thus reflects your dp's bigger share originally but also reflects that without each other neither of you would have had the house to benefit from. So the increase in value reflects you both.

I think it's very fair.

Actually what holiday has said is what we did. Felt fair to me.

Regardless of the deposit situation, if you're both on a mortgage the lender will hold you both jointly and severally liable. Which means if he doesn't pay the lender will look to you for the full amount or vice versa.

It's not a fair way of doing things and only looks after his future and not yours. What happens when you have kids? Will you need to be a stay at home mum to enable him to work (or visa versa).

I go with holidays way too. You get your 30 back, he gets his 300 back. You split the profits 50:50

Alternatively, he keeps his house (or buys a cheaper one) and rents it out. He uses the rent to pay part of the mortgage on a new house you jointly own 50:50. Obviously you will need to buy a cheaper house because you haven't pooled all your money as a deposit.

Yes, if you are considering marriage / children you should both be named on the deeds.

It's not just about the deposit though. Who will pay the mortgage? Will you be expected to give up work to care for children? How will childcare costs be split if you both work? How will holidays / sick days / the unexpected be split between the two of you?

Suggest you have some frank and basic discussions before you decide to marry and TTC! Come up with solutions regarding family finances, housework, childcare, deposit protection etc that you both agree on.

If you split with no children it's fair that original deposits returned and profit split 50:50. After children it's murkier with often the female partner having compromised earning potential for childcare - in that situation I'd expect a complete 50:50 split. Unless your current "D"bf turns into an arse who'd rather see his children suffer to reclaim "his" money.

Yes it should be that he receives his 300k you your 30k, then 50/50 split. Or is he intending to pay 90% of the mortgage payment for the rest of the term? Remember you are joint and severally liable for the mortgage.

My ex dh wanted to be tennants in common. It didn't feel terribly romantic to me but nor did it feel especially sensible, given all the potential things that could happen in our future.
I had also been paying him rent for two years while his house went up in value.
Note that he is my ex dh.

With so many people getting divorced nowadays, I can understand why people feel the need to protect their own money.

When there are no children involved, I don't think it's right that marriage can mean someone losing half of what they own.