Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

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:

GruffalosGirl · 24/02/2015 07:02

Tenants in common means you own half of the house outright and it does not pass automatically to you on the death of the other owner, it passes to whoever you leave it to in a will or your next of kin. Only joint beneficial tenants means that you will automatically get the other half of the house upon death so this is what you need to set up the house as if that is what you want to happen to it

riksti · 24/02/2015 07:08

Queen - do you mean joint tenants? Tenants in common means you can leave your house to whoever you choose and therefore need a will.

Also, neither avoids inheritance tax. The transfer of your share of the house on death (if not married) is taxable whether it goes straight to your partner or has to be mentioned in a will.

wintersdawn · 24/02/2015 07:11

I'm a sahm and I'm not currently on the mortgage as I moved into my husbands house when we first met and since then we haven't moved, however when we looked at moving last year we were going to change the mortgage to have both our names and because I don't earn I was considered a risk and they reduced the amount we could borrow.

sleeponeday · 24/02/2015 07:24

You need to be joint tenants. If you do that and one dies, then the other gets their share without any inheritance tax - basically you both own the whole house, jointly. It also needs to be specified that you have a half share each if that joint tenancy were ever to be broken (can be, if you split up, and converted into a tenancy in common where you each individually own a specified share). You aren't married, and as a result your contributions as a mother and partner have no legal status whatsoever. If you don't contribute much to the mortgage, you won't be assumed to have as much of a claim in any split, and your sole legal claim is a share proportionate to what you put in, plus child support. You would be screwed.

We got married because we were buying a house, wanted kids, and it's the easiest and most comprehensive way to protect the interests of the primary-caring parent. Is there a reason you don't want to, or haven't? If you do, then you have a claim on everything (as does he) in a split, and I would assume he will have an increased pension, as well as share of the house plus reduced negative career hit? Marriage protects parents, these days.

I would never, ever buy a property with someone who didn't think my contribution as the person primarily raising their child(ren), and jeopardising my own career progression to do it, didn't deserve an equal share of the main family asset.

LittleMiss77 · 24/02/2015 07:28

Me and the OH aren't married. He earns more than me and contributed significantly more than I did to the deposit.

Our mortgage is in both our names however we signed a form on completion / exchange that said that if the house was sold we get back our original investment (i.e him more than me) and any additional profit after everything else has been settled is split between us 50/50

sleeponeday · 24/02/2015 07:28

Also, neither avoids inheritance tax. The transfer of your share of the house on death (if not married) is taxable whether it goes straight to your partner or has to be mentioned in a will.

Oops! Then the advice I think we got was wrong. Though marriage is a very good way of avoiding inheritance tax too, OP.

Purplepoodle · 24/02/2015 07:28

I'm the only person on our mortgage as dh was self employed and it tripled the interest rate - his credit wasn't great either. If your not going for a joint mortgage then u need to get some legal advice as your not married.

westcountrywoman · 24/02/2015 07:30

Yes to joint ownership. A friend has recently split with her DH and although they were married when they bought their house, it's in his name only. It's causing her a right hassle. Although she and the DC have the right to keep living there, he has the right to a key and access at any time. Not ideal.

RoseberryTopping · 24/02/2015 07:31

It can't bring your chances of getting a mortgage down that much as I'm going on ours and I'm a SAHM.
You definitely need your name on the mortgage. There's no question about it

sleeponeday · 24/02/2015 07:31

Actually I think a joint tenancy is automatically equal shares? Can't remember, but def. worth checking out as that would make it nice and simple on that front.

GloriousGoosebumps · 24/02/2015 07:33

Putting the house in just your partner's name puts you at such a disadvantage that you need to ask yourself why he would do that to you - he may just be thoughtless but he may be thinking ahead...

HicDraconis · 24/02/2015 07:37

House in both names when we were named on the deeds.

Now it belongs to the family trust of which we are both beneficiaries.

DH full time SAHD, me full time WOHM. Financial contributions to mortgage unimportant.

sandgrown · 24/02/2015 07:39

I owned another mortgaged property so could not be on our mortgage when we bought (not married) and because of this I cannot be on the deeds . Due to previous horrendous divorce do not want to marry but need to sort it out as I am the major earner and actually pay most of household costs.

CalamitouslyWrong · 24/02/2015 07:43

We're tenants in common rather than joint tenants because we're a blended family and it protects my DS1's inheritance no matter what happens. It'd be paltry if I were to die now, but I wouldn't want a situation where he ended up with nothing but dS2 got something. It also protects DS2's interests in the case that I die, DH remarries and then does before a new wife who inherits everything and may leave to whomever she pleases. You never know what'll happen in the future.

In other situations being joint tenants works better. I'd get some proper legal advice.

evertonmint · 24/02/2015 07:51

I should clarify - I meant joint tenants but wrote tenants in common.

Absolutely agree that the family home of a nuclear family (appreciate there are different concerns in a blended family) should nearly always be owned by both as joint tenants. Anything else is pretty much always grossly unfair to one party.

50shadesofmeh · 24/02/2015 07:53

We did this but got married so I'm on deeds.

kittensinmydinner · 24/02/2015 07:57

It's not rocket science and doesn't need massively complicated legal agreements. Your DP and you are committed enough to make a child, surely it's a 'lesser' commitment to get yourself down to the registry office, where for £150 and two witnesses off the street, you can have all the legal protection that can be offered. There is no 'agreement' that can be made through a lawyer that affords you greater protection (especially as a Sahm and a lower earner) than marriage. To have Dcs with a man you aren't married to is just playing with your and dc's future security.

munchkin2902 · 24/02/2015 07:58

Surely the mortgage company wouldn't let you be on the deeds and not the mortgage? What would happen if they needed to repossess? I used to work in mortgages but it was a while ago so not sure if things have changed there. I definitely think you should be on the mortgage and the title deeds though.

teddybears · 24/02/2015 08:02

Most mortgage companies will not let you be named as an owner on the deeds if you are not on the mortgage. It is only HSBC who will allow it by way of an indirect mortgage although I'm not sure if they still do them, haven't seen one in ages - I work in the industry.

Shonajay · 24/02/2015 08:06

My friend had this dilemma and was left with two kids and nothing. She hadn't wanted to get married, and had been to see a so.icitor to see if she could get some sort of contract similar to and giving her the same rights as she didn't believe in marriage. But where kids are involved, it's the safest contract there is.

For the first five years of marriage, out house was 75/25 in my favour due to an inheritance and the fact I was a SAHP, my husband accepted that. But when we moved it changed to equal, and he earns far more than me. It's security.

50shadesofmeh · 24/02/2015 08:28

i had to sign document saying i would get out if we were repossessed and wouldn't cause a problem there.

Love51 · 24/02/2015 09:04

You need to chat to a professional! I wasnt earning when we bought our house (although i was a few weeks later) - the mortgage calculations were based on OHs wage but with my name tacked on - so it wasnt a case of them loaning us a multiplier of 2 wages when one wage was 0. We married soon after. No way would i now want to live in my DHs home, I need it to be our home - at the time I wasnt bothered, we were in love! I now realised how the hurt of a relationship breakdown can make nice people mean,
If you have decided to be a family, I can't understand the mentality that only one of you gets to be the grown up who owns property and makes decisions, and what status that gives the other. Especially if you dont both regard your relationship as serious enough to put the legal weight of marriage behind it, protect yourself.

Love51 · 24/02/2015 09:06

PS you are contributing by being a sahm. Please dont feel you are spending 'his' money.

NimpyWWindowmash · 24/02/2015 09:11

Good advice on here.

Why should it always be the woman in a vulnerable position (caring for the kids, low income, no house in her name) to "trust" the partner (man), who holds all the cards (house, employment, no childcare).

Either get married, or make damned sure your name is on the deeds.

There is no such thing as a "common law wife", it's a myth.

SquinkiesRule · 24/02/2015 09:20

I was on both houses we bought and it was all based on Dh's income alone I was caring for children or pregnant when we bought both.
Now we are still both on the deeds and I'm the one doing the earning. So it swings both ways.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Swipe left for the next trending thread