To not want to give away half my money?

[givemeareason]

Me and my DP are about to buy a house together, the first time for both of us.

We are getting a mortgage, but I also have a hefty deposit to put down of 200k. This was not an inheritance, but money I earned and saved over the years - I'm mid thirties so have had a long time to save.

We have a DD together, and we are both committed to our relationship and family.

I am just not so keen to put the deposit down and then effectively have given away half of it if the worst happens and we do split.

DP thinks if I keep the deposit as 'mine' then we would be unequal partners in the relationship and he would be disadvantaged due to owning less of the house, if the house prices rose he would have less equity overall.

AIBU to want to keep my deposit as my own? I probably am.

Some typical MN hypocrisy in evidence today. Another poster's husband was recently accused of being 'financially abusive', partly because he'd insisted on some sort of deed of trust to protect his share in the family home, contents etc that he'd bought with an earlier inheritance.

While it makes sense for us all to protect ourselves (while still behaving 'fairly' and retaining some semblance of romance), the myopia of posters on this board is stunning.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

The OP herself has thought through splitting though, otherwise the title wouldn't say 'give away half of my money'. If you are together for life, it wouldn't be given away, it would have been placed in a joint pot for the benefit of the family (which is normally what is advocated on MN, very surprised at this thread).

Blinkandmiss you are married, prenups aren't usually valid in the UK, I think whatever you have drawn up would be superceded by the length of marriage, so what you agreed is noble, but not what you would get.

I think you are a little foolish not to be on the mortgage- the house is an appreciating asset and you are putting all your money into non appreciating ones (household bills) that would be exceptionally disadvantageous if you were not married, but as you are married, you will be entitled to the same as every other married person, so if you were the main childcarer, you would likely get the main residence until children 18.

I would not be buying a house with a person I thought I might live separately from and protect my assets separately, I just wouldn't.

Babysham I agree, seems if you are the poorer one, the MN advice is marry, or get yourself financially protected by getting yourself on the deeds (even if you don't have the money/own the house)- any sign your partner wont' do this and it is a form of financial abuse and not about 'sharing' everything which is the foundation of a relatioship. If you are the richer one, don't marry and ring-fence your assets, don't put your partner on the deeds, in other words do what protects you the most and don't worry if this signals to your partner you have one foot out the door. Totally contradictory.

Most relationships include some financial inequity!

I had 'made' 30,000 on my house I owned before I met DH. When we bought our new house we did a deed of trust so if we split I would get the 30,000 back and then we would share the rest. He didn't see any problem in this, I would have done it the other way round too.

When he "says how unfair it all is that if we did split he would walk away with a lot less than me"

You could ask him exactly how fair it would be if you split a year after buying the house, and he walked away with half of your savings.

The accusations of hypocrisy are nonsense - you have worked overtiime and lived frugally so that you can have some financial security, for you and for your child. Your partner has not contributed anything like the same to that, either in workload, in money, or in childcare. Therefore, it would be frankly stupid to give him the right to half of that money simply because you want to buy a house together.

Of course everyone hopes that their relationship will be forever. But a big proportion of people find themselves in the situations where that just turns out not to be the case.

If you were a man, and the situation was the same, my advice would be the same. In general though, male and female situations are not the same, because it is still nearly always the woman who sacrfices her earnings when children come into the equation. That makes it different - where one partner is contributing time and effort rather than income, they should not be penalised for that. But your partner isn't, and hasn't, and I suspect won't be contributing that way.

Napoleon and babycham - would you honestly advise the OP to make her partner an equal half-owner of a house that she has put 200K deposit into and him zero?

And do you honestly think it is wrong that a woman who has given up her job to raise children should not be considered to have earned a right to financial security?

I'm sure anyone who was putting in such a huge stake would want to be careful no matter how happy your relationship - it's good for both of you to know your rights so I would definitely seek legal advice.
Legally, if you are married and the worst comes to the worst, irrespective of financial contributions, either spouse may have a claim to stay in the property under the Family Law Act - this options is not open to co-habiting partners. Without going into too much detail, property is held legally and equitably - you may both share legal title to the house but that doesn't necessarily mean you both hold equal stakes in the value of the house. In your situation, there will probably be an implied trust - if you share legal title there is a presumption that the equity is held on trust in proportion to your contribution unless there is evidence that that was not your intention. If your partner then makes financial contributions (and sometimes non-financial), then that would probably be taken into account.
Basically, the law should be on your side if it ever comes to it. But I would definitely consult a solicitor. Hope that helps

Prenups aren't binding but they do give an indication as to what the parties intended when they made the purchase, which is the question for a court to answer.

I don't understand what your DP's problem is. He's asking for a windfall he hasn't earned. My partner earns less than me but has more saved than I do and whilst I would want him to put it in a property to reduce our mortgage, I would never expect him to sign over half of it to me if we split. The reduced mortgage would be benefit enough for me.

I can see it might be fair for you to ringfence a percentage of the equity rather than the sum of £200k as if you insist on ringfencing £200k and house prices fall then you're asking him to take a bigger hit than you on a gamble you took together.

Surely if they split up the OP should look to get back not the 200k but the proportion of the value of the property that it represents.

Whatever the case I'd be wondering if this man would be just as keen to get together with me had I not 200k in the bank.
Money talks.

Definitely go for tenants in common NOT joint tenents. Quite a few people I know have done this. No hard feelings on either side. Why is it that he has no deposit to contribute? I would look more favourably on him if it was due to study or working in low paid job with good future prospects rather than him spending all his earnings enjoying himself while you saved.

If you live & have a child together then, well, you have to think about what the status of your relationship is.

There are other details to consider such as who earns more now [& hence would be making a bigger contribution to mortgage payments], who was putting food on the table when [presumably] you were rearing DD, and so on.

Post 187 [Overthehillmum]'s suggestion sounds sensibke?

200k is a massive amount to have saved at your age, OP!
It suggests that you are very industrious and very conscientious, what a fabulous catch, I'm sure any man would consider you a great asset.
But what is he bringing to the table?
I'm wondering if he sees you as his golden goose?

I'm with Suzanne. This is one reason why I would never consider getting married again or setting up home with someone, there's no way I'd risk my assets, let alone for someone I'd only known 3 years.

It would be interesting to know more about the relationship history of the OP and her partner.

It may sound unromantic but if you are forming a partnership with someone it's very helpful if the contributions made by each party are roughly equal.
Otherwise it can soon feel like an exploitative situation, a parasitic rather than symbiotic set up.

I inherited a large sum of money and put £220,000 towards our deposit on a £385,000 house and I "own" 57% of said house outright. Whatever else is paid off on the mortgage if OH and I split up will be divided in half and whatever profit also divided in half.

We both know where we stand.

DH and I bought a house - the deposit of 250k on a 400k house was funded entirely by me (savings and luck in the property market).

In hindsight I was very naive by insisting that it was in joint names, but the key here was that I insisted that he took an equal share. DH didn't feel it was fair on me and I know he found it v hard generally to 'live off' me.

As it happens, we split up and he refused to take a penny of the proceeds (although we sold at a loss so no question of any capital appreciation). Although I was wrong about our relationship lasting forever, my assessment of his character as trustworthy and non-entitled was right at least. If he'd been the one pushing for half, I might have felt differently.

I wouldn't risk it again though...

Nice to see the MN double standards hard at work yet again

I absolutely think the OP should do everything she can to protect her money, but I think a man should be able to do the same without being called financially abusive and it being assumed that he's a selfish twat.

DP and I bought moved into our first house together a few years ago. Deposit was mine (equity from previous property) and mortgage is in my name. DP is gradually equalling my deposit by paying for things we need and that need doing to the house as he didn't have any spare money to put down when we bought, although he did pay half the costs of moving, etc.

Its the comment that he made to you about being "disadvantaged" by an unequal split that would disturb me. He would only be disadvantaged if you split up, and he wouldn't really be disadvantaged because he would have saved money in rent/mortgage of his own.

You, on the other hand, could equally argue you are being disadvantaged by his failure to bring as much financially to the house purchase as you.

Buy a house outright with your cash and let it out. Use the rental income to pay for a shared house with him.

I would really advise that you get your deposit secured. The best way might be a document to specify that the 200k is yours and the rest of the house is split 50:50. If you split, you take the 200k & then you can equally divide any of the increased equity (or indeed loss).

My sister did it the other way - she put in more deposit and the deeds specify that she owns 70% of the house, he owns 30%. The problem is that the house is now in negative equity so she has lost more money than he has.

She didn't expect he would leave her for someone else.

When dh (then dp) and I bought our first flat, he had a deposit to put down thanks to an inheritance, I did not. So our solicitor drew up some arrangement (can't remember what it was now) that the money still belonged to dh - if we had split up, the £12k would have been deducted from the value of the flat before we divided the proceeds. Seemed entirely fair and reasonable to me. It was dh's Dad who insisted, because the inheritance was from his Dad, dh's Granddad.

Now we've been married 17 years and moved a few times I don't think that still holds good (but can't remember - last time we moved was 10 years ago).

But anyway, don't do it. Don't give him £200k if he runs off and has an affair!

I agree that he will only be "disadvantaged" if you split up, and if you split up he should be at a disadvantage compared to you because you entered the deal with 200k more than him. Claiming half your 200k as his own is fair to no-one and definitely disadvantages you.
I put more money into our house than my husband and didn't ring fence it. It was alot less than 200k though, we could have bought our house and had money to spare for that.