Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask that the house be in both our names 50/50

88 replies

fibrecruncher · 24/02/2015 00:12

Just want to ask what other people and done.

Partner and I are buying our first house together - a wonderful, exciting, fraught and stressful experience so far!!

DP earns considerably more than me right now, actually probably always will. I work part-time in the evenings and am home with 17 month old pfb during the day.

As I am self-employed - we are considering putting the mortgage in just his name as we might get a better rate (I suppose I am considered a higher risk to banks), but i will contribute to the mortgage. I feel the house should be in both our names 50/50. The mortgage reflects our current situation and when ds goes to nursery & school, I will work more hours and therefore contribute more.

I am just curious to find out what others have done?

Thanks

OP posts:
however · 24/02/2015 00:15

It was always ours, together. Then we married, so moot point.

Seekingtheanswers · 24/02/2015 00:20

Regardless of what's on the mortgage, the house should be 50:50 in my view. Does you DH disagree?

FeckTheMagicDragon · 24/02/2015 00:21

If you are not married, and it is only in your DPs name you would be entitled to nothing in the event of a split. You are already contributing by liking after your and your DPs child, enabling him to earn more, and (currently) reducing your earning power.

Seekingtheanswers · 24/02/2015 00:22

BTW, I say that as the higher earner. DH does not contribute to our mortgage payments (though he did contribute to the deposit). It makes no difference. It is our house and it belongs to both of us.

Seekingtheanswers · 24/02/2015 00:23

If your DH isn't happy to put your name on the deeds, then perhaps buying together isn't such a good idea.

FeckTheMagicDragon · 24/02/2015 00:24

Liking=looking*
And I know that you have no intention of splitting up, but the thought of not having a roof over my child's head would, in the event that it happened, would woory me too much.

MrsTerryPratchett · 24/02/2015 00:26

Housing security is important. Are you planning to marry at some point?

BabyDubsEverywhere · 24/02/2015 01:40

I haven't been on any mortgages I have had with DH, the houses have always been in both names though.
I would be concerned if your DP was resistant to this tbh.

DupontetDupond · 24/02/2015 01:46

Being 50/50 owners won't reduce the amount of mortgage you can get, as it will typically be based on the household income whether it's earned by one or both of you

holidaysarenice · 24/02/2015 01:54

Is your dc your dps?

How long have you been together?

These would be my deciding criteria, and who paid the deposit. Eg did it come from money from before the relationship?

Topseyt · 24/02/2015 02:22

You need to be 50/50 owners of the house, especially if you are not married. Your interest has no protection in law otherwise (given that you aren't married).

We have always had both names on the mortgages too even though for some years my husband was the sole earner as I was caring for the children.

I hope your partner is not resisting having your interest in the proposed house purchase declared and protected. If he is then think very carefully about whether or not to go ahead.

NotGoingOut17 · 24/02/2015 03:25

Yes OP, make sure the house is in both your names - I can't see why putting you on would reduce what you can borrow, if they think you are too risky then they will just take your DP's income into account therefore it won't be any less than he would get on his own. Even if you're income isn't always stable it is still better than no income at all so it doesn't make logical sense that he would be able to get more money on his own.

I have just had a quick look on a mortgage calculator (santander) obviously I don't know the figures but used the same figures for both the sole and the joint mortgages and actually the joint mortgage gave a slightly higher amount to lend. It may be worth looking into this your self a bit more.

But please don't go ahead putting the house in just his name, as others have said you would be royally screwed if you ever split up.

kickassangel · 24/02/2015 03:39

your DP can get a mortgage in just his name, but have the house owned 50/50. The mortgage co. will have to be informed that you have an interest in the property, but you don't have to be on the mortgage to have an interest in the house.

Andrewofgg · 24/02/2015 05:26

If you are on the deeds you will have to be on the mortgage.

If you are not on the deeds the mortgagee may decline to lend and will certainly make you sign a document postponing any claim you might assert behind the mortgage - obviously to protect themselves and their depositors. They don't like single owners and multiple occupiers.

Jackw · 24/02/2015 06:07

Yes, it's essential that you own the house jointly.

Lozy79 · 24/02/2015 06:14

I am married and not on the mortgage jointly. This has been a bone of contention for me Hmm A friend of mine has said as I'm married with 2 children, in the event of a breakup, I am entitled to stay there and 50% of property sale. I'm sure fellow Mn's will tell me.

nooka · 24/02/2015 06:17

There are other options as well as 50:50 if one of you is putting much more into the deposit for example, but I certainly think it would be unreasonable for you to have no interest in the house if you are going to be paying any of the mortgage or bills, or if the reason that you cannot do so is because you are looking after your (joint) child and this was decided by both of you (more complicated if not). Something to discuss with your lawyer. Of course the easier option is just to get married!

The mortgage lender is likely to use your dh's income as the main contribution to the mortgage, and may discount yours significantly but I cant see why your income would reduce the amount you can jointly borrow. Easy to find out though, just ask a few when you go and get quotes.

attheendoftheday · 24/02/2015 06:26

There is no way I'd consider anything except 50:50. Anything else leaves you in a very vulnerable position.

ajandjjmum · 24/02/2015 06:31

Has it been suggested that the house is only in your DP's name, or have you only discussed the mortgage?

FishWithABicycle · 24/02/2015 06:34

The names on the house deeds do not have to be identical to what is on the mortgage. I don't think it's likely he'd get a better deal alone but it might not be worth the hassle of proving your income for a relatively modest increase in amount that could be lent. But if he goes on the mortgage alone you should still be on the deeds as equal owner.

Your contribution to the household is a lot more than the modest amount of money you are able to contribute to the mortgage. He has equal responsibility for 17mo pfb and you are sacrificing your personal earning power to take an unequal share of that responsibility. Holding the assets jointly despite unequal financial input is the correct thing to do as your non-financial inputs even it out. You both work hard all day every day equally (I assume) so your shared finances should reflect that by treating you as equal partners.

If your DP remains in favour of keeping the asset in his own name I would be suspicious and think you may need to put all your own earnings aside to start building your own modest assets because he'd be showing significant lack of faith in the longevity of the relationship.

minibmw2010 · 24/02/2015 06:37

We bought our house together 50-50 10 years ago and recently remortgaged with just DH on the mortgage. But I'm on the deeds and rightly so. It was never even a question. It should never be.

QueenofLouisiana · 24/02/2015 06:47

We own our house 50:50 as tenants in common. We weren't married when we bought our first house and this arrangement means that if one of us died the other owned the whole house- no arguments about wills etc. it also helps to avoid inheritance tax if you are not married.

DH paid the mortgage when I was a SAHM, as I gradually went back full time my salary has paid more and more towards it.

ajandjjmum · 24/02/2015 06:49

I think if you're on the mortgage you have to be on the Deeds, but not visa versa.

merlehaggard · 24/02/2015 06:50

Our house was bought together 24/25 years ago when both in full time employment and at the time, my earnings were more than his. Since then, we have had children, I have been employed part time, followed by a period of not working, and then working part time again. This has always been mutual decisions based on what we could afford. The mortgage has never been an issue because all our money has always gone straight into a joint bank account.

evertonmint · 24/02/2015 06:55

I'm on the mortgage but they didn't take my salary into account at the time as DH got what we needed on his earnings and mine were then based on being a) part time and b)newly self-employed. I am on the deeds as tenants in common though, so that his share comes to me and mine to him rather than being part of our estates.

We were tic when we first bought and I earned a lot more than him so was responsible for most of the mortgage.

No way should you accept anything other than your fair share of the house. You are now a family unit and his salary belongs to you all (as does yours even if small) so you are actually both paying the mortgage with your joint income.

Swipe left for the next trending thread