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?

If he wants to protect himself, then I think he shouldn't get married. For a divorce in England I think who is on the deeds and even what a prenup says won't make much difference to the outcome. (I'm no expert though.)

I would say tenants in common in the percentages he has stated UNTIL such time as there are children in the relationship.

I can actually completely understand his position going into this and I don't think being practical is necessarily a bad thing.

He sounds like he is not too sure your relationship is going to last. I would take a break from the relationship if I were you, you don't want to marry someone who isn't committed to you.

He wouldn't be paying 90% of the total cost of the house, I presume, only 90% of the overall deposit? Surely he is wrong in saying that paying 90% of the deposit should equate to him owning 90% of the house, unless the deposit is on a £333000 house. His maths doesn't add up!

If he wants to protect his investment re the deposit, he can have the amount that he paid written into the contract. If you sell, he can have that money deducted from the proceeds of any sale and given directly to him before the rest is split. That will protect his deposit but mean the rest of the house can be recorded as jointly owned.

I have done this myself and thank God I did as we split up.

I fully understand how he feels. He just isn't sure it's going to last and that's hardly a crime. if you buy a place together, he is obviously uncomfortable with a 50-50 split. That's not bad, just where he's at. Think of it this way. Financially you feel like you are being pushed into a joint investment, which obviously goes beyond what he is comfortable with.

Gennz solution sounds like it's the most reasonable (though as suggested may not work in the UK). some kind of split that recognizes the relationship now (something like 90/10) but phases into a 50/50 thing after kids or 5 years.

Tenants in common is an entirely normal way a hold a property, especially in 2nd marriages or if there are children from previous relationships.

I think people are getting a bit mixed up on here as to what it means. Both names can still appear on the deeds and the mortgage, there is nothing to worry about. Normally it will just be noted on a declaration of trust what the agreed arrangment is.

What it does mean is that when a spouse dies the property doesnt automatically pass to the other, rather it will form part of the deceased's estate to be disposed of as per the will.

It really is a standard way of doing things and nothing to be afraid of. I had a joint tenancy with my husband and we deliberately changed it to tenants in common after advice as it actually offered me greater protection.

We're married and hold our property as tenants in common although it is 50/50 as we put the same amount in to begin with. This enables us to each leave our respective share to our children rather than to each other (with a life interest in the property for the remaining partner). It's how my parents have done it and it just made sense to me.

We did things like holiday I think.
I was working full time, my DP was working part time as a TA to get experience prior to applying for PGCE. I was putting in 80k deposit whilst he was putting in nothing.
I wanted it to be as fair as possible, so we both went on the mortgage as joint owners, but had a deed of trust drawn up by the solicitor that said that if we broke up and came to sell then the first £80k was mine.
Because we were both contributing equally to the mortgage, anything repaid, and any increase in value would have been split equally.
So we bought the house for £130k, I put in £80k and we had a £50k mortgage. The house is still worth £130k, but the mortgage is now only £40k, so there's £10k more capital in the house. If we broke up, I'd get £85k and he'd get £5k.
In practise, we're now married, so I need to find out if it still stands. You can make these things up 'in anticipation of marriage' which means that you intend for it to stand if you do tie the knot, but I can't remember if we did

Presumably if he's going to own 90% of the house he'll be making 90% of the repayments, as well as 90% of the deposit?

No, the two of you are talking about two different life stages. His idea isn't awful for pre-marriage/pre-children, but if you go for it, up you'll need to take legal advice to draw up an agreement that is fair to both considering the share of deposits AND of repayments. But if you get married it should be 50-50, joint ownership.

For example, I owned my own house before my husband and I moved in together, let alone got married. A few months after we got married, we sold it for a sizeable profit, which became the deposit on our next house. In one sense, I put down 100% of the deposit on our house, while he makes a higher proportion of the repayments, and none of that really matters because it's just marital assets: half mine, half his.