to want a joint account after fronting all 15k deposit for our family home?

[Jemima1988]

I hadn't been with my new partner very long before we fell pregnant. Our son is now 5 weeks old and we are a happy little family. I have been saving alone for a while and due to certain circumstances I have 15k to put down as a deposit for our first family home, my partner has no savings at all.
I mentioned that we should get a joint bank account that both out wages should go into so we can pay for everything out if that. I am a firm believer in what's mine is yours I never ever refer to the 15k as being mine is OUR money for OUR house. due to me being on maternity, our plans for my return to work and my partners up and coming promotion he is on a lot more money than me. I think this is putting him off the joint account?!? also he talks about splitting bills 50/50 this would leave me with less than 1/4 of my wages and leave him over half of his. A IBM to ask for a family account when I am investing so much up front or is his way the only fair way? Xx

Chunderella, that would depend on how much the mortgage payments are and how much each of them are paying towards that.

I don't think it's fair for OP to have it both ways. She should be able to protect her financial interest in the house as well as pay 50% of everything! or treat the deposit as family money (and lose some of it in the event of a split) and expect her DP to pay more than half of the bills.

But it's not fair for her to protect her own money and be able to work part time and be able to pay less of the bills ^and claim half of any equity in the house if they split up in 5 years time. She doesn't deserve more financial security than her DP just because she did the giving birth.

Anyfucker, jst spat out my tea there, needed a giggle, no, definitely not to 'hang on to my husband' lol
I wanted a certain quality of life, wanted a certain house, in a certain area, things I can afford being the main wage earner, I'm happy to pay more, use my savings and so on so that my husband and I can enjoy the standard we want on an equal footing, not that it's amazing but I'm happy. I don't grudge having put the initial 10k in and don't need or want it paid back.
If I was the other way around, with him earning more than me and putting in more money, using his savings and so on I doubt you'd see that as him trying to hang on to me!

If they buy together and pay equal share to the mortgage, the equity will be theirs to share, minus the deposit. The deposit just facilitated the purchase and put them on the housing ladder. It is only fair that she gets this back in case of a split. Why should he get part of it if he did not put any in to it? He gets his share of the equity!

I agree she should get it back in the event of a split. But she shouldn't then also get half of the equity, or the right to remain in the house if she hasn't paid half the mortgage.

I met my dh when I was 21, we married 6 years later, had our first child a few years later, and I am now 43.

I was a student, he worked. I moved into a flats hare with him (and his mates), and I paid what I could. We then moved to a one bed flat just the two of us, and he was on a good salary, and I was still a student. We never even discussed who paid what, and we never discussed having joint accounts. We still managed to pool our resources and make it fair. I never saw it as him supporting me, it was never really an issue. He never made a point about what he earnt and what I put in. A few years later, I had completed my studies and was working, he chucked his job in to start a business, and I was suddenly the main earner. Again, no discussion necessary. He had supported me through my studies, now it was my turn to support him in his business venture. We were renting for a decade before we eventually bought a house.

I may be naive, but I do believe that when people love eachother, they want do do right by eachother, and they dont look at who pays how much, they genuinely want it to be fair and right for the other person.

woo what is your understanding of "working part time"

do you subscribe no value to childcare and the running of the home ?

I work PT and have done so since dc were born. I take the major share of running the home when I am at home, but we share it equally when we are both here

I bring less monetary value to the pot. Am I not entitled to an equal share of it ?

AF I think most people do put a value on childcare and running a home but there seems to be little value put onto someone who goes out to work and the pressure they come under doing so when they go out and earn a decent wage to allow the family to have a lifestyle they have.

outside some very few areas childcare isn't as expensive as its made out to be on here - I know where I live the norm is about £25 a day, that's a 7 hour day as well and someone who is rated Outstanding by the SCSWIS.

There certainly is a value put on going out to work! It's called a salary!

What Chunderella said, plus without that deposit he wouldn't even get a mortgage these days.

The point is woowoo that actually, an entirely equal split of everything would benefit DP more than OP at least initially because even if he pays in twice as much as OP, it is still going to take him some time to do this to the value of 15k.

It wouldn't make any difference if OPs deposit was legally protected so that she knows she will get it back if they split and the house is sold.

OP said earlier in the thread that she wouldn't be able to get a mortgage without her DPs salary, so there is benefit for both of them.

Quint, of course I put value on childcare, but I'm not going to pretend that it's something difficult with only one child. People often want to stay at home or work part time so that they can spend time with their children. What makes the difference is if they both equally agree that they want a parent at home with their child as much as possible, or if that's just something that the OP wants and her DP would be happy to use more childcare.

Why should OP have the right to protect her 15k deposit for herself, but then still have an equal share in the house with the DP paying more than half of the bills, as presumably mortgage payments will be included in that.

Women really do expect to have it all sometimes just because they are the ones that biology has decided are going to grow and delver the babies. It's ridiculous.

I don't think it's ridiculous to put a proportional share of the household income, and, even better, to make sure that both end up with the same personal spending amount.

I don't think it's ridiculous to think as a family and put it all in the same pot, regardless of income.

Take note that I was the higher (quite higher) income partner and I still don't begrudge having done that with exH, who was a twat.
Because that is being a family.

I do agree in protecting assets that were ours before the relationship, though.

The MN rule of thumb re money is that either

everything is pooled. Anything left after expenses is split 50/50. OR

Everything is done by proprtion, so if he earns twice what you do, then he pays 2/3 of the bills OR

you both put x% into a jointbills account.

As others have said, get your deposit ringfenced and legally protected.

It's not ridiculous Lweji, not in a long term committed relationship or a marriage.

But this is a couple that have been expecting a baby or dealing with a newborn for the vast majority of their relationship.

By all means buy a house together but try to keep a sensible hat on.

As an unmarried couple, any more than housemates buying together, you should have a "joint tenants in common" agreement drawn up which outlines what happens if the house is sold through choice or forced sale.
You should protect your 15k so you get that back if necessary. Then any equity [additional value the house has gained] or loss [if the property loses value] should be split between the two of you. Whether that is 50:50 or proportionate to the mortgage repayments shouldered is up for discussion. Beware drafting something based on a short term mat leave which does not reflect reality down the line.

I get the impression he is currently living with you at your Mum's. Before buying/renting a home together you should establish what your income would be as a single parent and whether living together disadvantages you. It would be unfair to be expected to split the bills 50:50 if you would be financially better off without him, assuming you are not on full pay while on mat leave.

There are joint accounts and joint accounts. Some people pool salaries entirely and have a personal allowance; some people agree on a reasonable budgt and put in their share whether it's 50:50, 70:30 or whatever. If you are earning 10k and he is on 60k he's unlikely to want to live in a bedsit. Up to him to fund the improved lifestyle choice in that regard. Ditto - you don't want to get stuck with 50% of the cost of an expensive car loan for a car you don't drive or want. It works both ways and it doesn't have to be a huge battle if it's agreed up front.

The main thing that you do need to ensure that as a SAHM, you are treated fairly and not given a spending "allowance" significantly less than your partners while he has the luxury of a large disposable income.

Draw up a budget - est mortgage plus bills, then add the cost of childcare [that will be incurred when you return to work. Agree a split in principle that will apply while you are on mat leave and when you return to work. Then decide if he's worth it.

Mostly - think about what would happen if he wasn't around/turned into a deadbeat Dad. Would you move out so quickly, plan to return to work faster? Does your mum want you to move out or is she just driving you or your partner nuts. Protect yourself and your child, you haven't been together that long.

Be aware that the first 6 months are the toughest with a new child - if your relationship survives the sleep deprivation etc you'll be on firmer ground then.

What I really disagreed with was this sentence aimed at women.

Women really do expect to have it all sometimes just because they are the ones that biology has decided are going to grow and delver the babies. It's ridiculous.

I did the 50/50 thing with my ex, but as soon as I had our DC that went out of the window.

YANBU. You've had the maternity leave (with the knock-on effect on you own earning power) but both of you have a child. You put up the deposit. he doesn't get to pretend he's single any more with his salary.

A compromise: all incomes go into one joint account, with all bills coming out of that account. Also coming out of that account: two standing orders (the same amount) for a personal account for each of you, for non-bill spending money.

Marriage is the key difference. You are not married. If you were it would not matter whose names things are in they are still split. You aren't married.
So then it makes it much much easier to protect you £15k if you split. Put the house just into your name and you pay the mortgage and have him just contribute to other bills such as the child minder or nursery. I went back to work full time o by the time I had a 5 week old I was back earning which has really paid off. That will really protect your interests. It worked well for us - both working full time. I ended up earning10x my ex and because we were married he got a fortune on divorce which had been earned by me because of English divorce law which unfairly favours low earners even if they work full time.

I do believe that when people love eachother, they want do do right by eachother, and they dont look at who pays how much, they genuinely want it to be fair and right for the other person.

I think I said exactly the same thing to my mum as I blithely discussed the fact my my larger deposit would not be ring fenced on marriage (it had been secured legally prior to marriage)

One really shit marriage even worse divorce and special needs child later I am dependent on benefits and that money is the difference between trying to work out how to raise a mortgage and living in the house I'm in mortgage free.

All because I wanted to invest in my marriage.

How you will look on that decision will entirely depend on how it turns out. And I hadn't spotted exh was a shit in the eight years we had known each other prior to marriage.

Op you sound hopelessly nieve over a guy you really barely know at all. By all means invest in yours and your child's future. But get your investment properly secured first abd get a proper agreement as to money for the long term

Women really do expect to have it all sometimes just because they are the ones that biology has decided are going to grow and delver the babies. It's ridiculous.

And what about men who want it all? Someone else to pay the deposit on a house that he will demand half of if they split, someone else to pay half the bills despite earning less or being on v low paid maternity pay, someone else to do the cooking, cleaning, shopping, washing and child care......

I am not saying that this man will be like that but plenty are. If you are going to level ridiculous accusations like the one above then at least have the decency to level an equal accusation at men!

OP

Think of it this way. The women on here are not being mean or unromantic or untrusting of men. They are simply women who have made the mistake of assuming that, in the event of a split, their partners would behave as honourably as they would.

Imagine in 5 years that you have split up. You didnt ringfence your deposit and he is demanding half of the equity in the house which he can do legally because he is on the mortgage. The equity is £15k, and you have to hand over £7.5 of that to him, so losing you half of your deposit and it may take you having to sell your home to pay it to him. At some point you will come onto MN and say "I really wish I had listened to you guys back then..."

I am giving you the gift of time travel! Protect your money and if you do split up then you can think "Thank goodness I did that!". If you dont split, and I am not assuming you will, then alls good there too.

By the way not just half. My ex got 60% of our joint assets as I earned more and he otherwise wanted maintenance for life (I wanted a clean break) and that deal is on the basis I work full time and support all 5 children. We both worked full time always. I earned more.

Although if she is going to give up work for the next 20 years or not earn very much and he will go on to earn a lot as he will be the provider she may well longer term do better with a marriage and house in joint names actually as £15k is nothing compared with what you get as a non earner stay at home mother after a long marriage from many men. If she is going to be giving up most work or the chance to earn a lot to stay at home with the baby then marriage is going to protect her. If she is going to go back to work full time and perhaps earn more than the live in boyfriend she would instead be better not marrying and keeping the property in her name. So in other words the decision will be based on how you see the next 5 - 10 years panning out - you on no or pin money and him earning more and more big bucks in which case you'd be much better off married or you back at full time work probably earning a lot more than him (my situation) in which case marriage and things in joint names is a big mistake.

They are unmarried, Green. One of the worst financial decisions a person can make is to jack in full-time work and become financially dependent on an unmarried partner with no legal protection in place.

Yes, I know they are unmarried. All the more reason for her to get back to full time work soon and not put the £15k into a house in his name. However if you are in full time work and will earn more than your partner then the worst thing you can do financially is marry. I would have been perhaps £1m better off had I not married my chidlren's father and just lived with him with assets in my name.

Well I did it Carlson and it seems to have worked out well.