Re: Joint ownership of our house?

[AnonAdviceNeeded]

I'm prepared to be told I'm being unreasonable here.

Basically DP and I moved into our house together almost three years ago.

He brought a much larger deposit (just over £20k) and I brought in just under £5k. Although I was never named on the mortgage or deeds - I continued to pay towards the mortgage for 3 years as if I was. Basically I trusted him to do the right thing.

Now - we're applying for the house in both names - mortgage and deeds.

Now all of a sudden, legalities are important to DP (funny how it was never deemed important to sign for legal protection when the shoe was on the other foot eh) and he wants to make sure his larger share in the house is protected. Fair enough I suppose ...

However we're getting married in 6 months. AIBU to think that the house should just be in joint tenancy since we will be married?? His worry is we split and I do away with half of his money but since when did marriage mean signing rights to certain assets like this? And considering I trusted him thoughout the past three years not to do me over whilst I was paying towards HIS mortgage, I'm now a bit disgruntled that all of a sudden he see's legal protection as being important. It never mattered to him when I was the one in the vulnerable position.

So basically he wants to do tenancy in unequal shares meaning he would own around 55% of the house and I would own 45%. In the even of his death however, his share of the house would go to his kids, not me meaning I will never truely own this house. Wise versa but interestingly when I pointed out this vice versa his response was "well no your kids wouldn't get your share as we'll be married and I'd be your next of kin." So he assumes that in the event of MY death he would get my share but in the event of HIS death, his kids would get his share?? IMO this shows the way his mind is working here.

With joint tenancy we would BOTH own all of the house and in the event of a death, the survivor would automatically own the rest of the house. Surely this is the fairest way for a married couple of to organise their home? Yes I know he brought more into it than me, I appreciate that but know if it was the other way around, I'd do it in joint tenancy as IMO that is what marriage is about!

I told him to sign his pension over to his kids as beneficiaries. On top of this we could do a joint will etc to see the kids alright.

Basically AIBU to think that the house should be owned by BOTH of us as we are due to be married and in the event of a death, it's not unreasonable to expect the survivor (who has worked to pay for the mortgage and upgrade the house etc) to inherit the rest of it? whether that survivor be me or him?

No, not unreasonable for you to get the house if he dies and vice versa - that's fairly standard. It's not normal for him to be trying to leave you homeless in the event of his death. In our case, the house goes to the survivor, then passes to the children once the survivor dies. We've got the exact same agreement, so all the children are provided for, regardless of whose they are.

Also not unreasonable of him to want to protect his larger share in the event of you splitting up (given that not all marriages last).

It is more complicated if he has children from a previous marriage. DH and I were doing our wills recently and this was something that was raised even though we only have children together. What if one of us dies first and the other one remarries, do you want to take steps to ensure the deceased spouse's legacy passes to the children.

Currently our family home is in my name only and I am the only person named on the mortgage (this is because DH is a property developer and so raises mortgages on properties he is doing up). Once the mortgage is paid off we will put it in joint names and we have to decide whether or not to be joint tenants or tenants in common.

Your DH is thinking about his children's security and you are thinking about your security. Neither of you are wrong but you are coming from it from different perspectives. You do need to have a proper talk about what you are both trying to acheive.

Do you really want to marry this man?

Red flags waving all over the place.

Do you have DC from a previous relationship too? If so, then the arrangement should be identical i.e. you should be able to leave your share to your DC too.

Thing is I do want to protect the kids but I still don't feel it fair that say in 20 years god forbid one of us dies - the other "owner" is stuck never being able to own this home. Plus it was pretty telling the way he assumed my share wouldn't pass to my kids as he would be my next of kin but his would.

Also - in the past when I've expressed my concerns at having no security within the house he has said he would sign his pension over to me so in the event of his death, I would receive his pension. THat was meant to be my security for the past three years. However, last night when I told him to sign it over to his kids he said "but it might not be worth anything in the event of my death". - He told me it was worth around £20k. Now that I'm suggesting he sign it over to his kids to protect THEM he tells me it might only be worth a couple of grand!! so in all honesty, I feel like I've been lied to.

And it's not about the money. I never wanted his pension, nor do I want the money he put into this house. I just want equal rights to my own home.

Did you point out the hypocrisy in his plan? And what was his explanation? If you marry him or not I would seek legal advice by yourself as the best way to protect your own interests- he is out for himself /his kids so you need to put yourself and your kids first too. Maybe if he sees you mirroring his behaviour it will be a wake up call. But otherwise I'd be giving the whole thing a lot of thought. Not exactly positive for your relationship that he'd happily see you forced to sell your home to give his kids their inheritance on his death

I suspect you know this but what someone has written above about you being left homeless is wrong, you wouldn't be. His will could (I think) be structured in such a way that his share of the property is held in trust by his children in the event of his death with you receiving the benefit of it for the remainder of your life (basically precluding them from doing anything with the property until after you die).

I explained that to him. Legal advice taught me that with the tenants in common agreement (either in equal or unequal shares) he could leave his share to his kids in the event of his death. HOWEVER - as I would be the surviving owner, his kids would not be able to get anything from the house unless I die or remarry meaning theortically - I could continue to live here until I was in my 80s whilst his kids would be sat around in their 60s thinking "when is that old bat going to pop her cloggs?!"

I mean, yeah - I could quite happily go for that but it just doesn't seem right. If we were joint owners we could have a sensible will drawn up that protects the kids properly.

See another thing driving me nuts is that we went to see a solicitor together who explained all this to us. IMO it is not rocket science. DP however (an otherwise intelligent man!) is constantly saying he "doesn't get it" and needs to continuously "look it up" on the internet. Last night he told me he didn't agree with what the solicitor told us as he'd just read up on some random couple on the internet which had different outcomes!!! So he's taking the word of some randomer on the internet over his own solicitor now. Today he wants to spend the afternoon "reading up on it". It's so frustrating. It's almost like stalling. What's not to get!? you either go for tenants in common (equal or unequal) or join tenants. All three are pretty straight forward and he is not stupid.

Did you post a few weeks ago OP? This is all very familiar.

Yanbu! I am a sahm and contributed about 10% of the cost of our house... I make no financial contributions to the mortgage but the house is in joint ownership and will go to the living spouse if something happened to either of us. It is a home for both of you... if my husband had children from another marriage I would still not expect to be in a position to lose my home. It sounds like you need to have another conversation before you tie the knot.

Yes but he knows that username as it stuck in the history!

Well that sounds like DOES get it he just doesn't like it! I must say I would think very carefully about going forward with this man. Of course his children must be a consideration but so must you and yours. This doesn't sound like you are high up his list of priorities, I'm afraid I just wouldnt be happy with that.

we have a tenants in common agreement with each of us leaving their half to our (joint) children. We agreed this in case one of us died and the other remarried and subsequently died before their new spouse, to ensure at least half the house would be protected for the DC.

He already knows what he wants, to have it in his favour and to the benefit of his kids above you. The solicitor didnt give him the answer he wants, but he knows that if he'd said that in the meeting, the solicitor would have backed you up. So he nodded along in the meeting, and is now searching for some "other" source saying that the unfair share that he wants is how it "should" be.

I would expect that it would be set up so that if you split and sell the house, he gets his 15k back, and then you share whats left 50/50.

That's the thing. The solicitor at the time suggested a split of 45/55 in his favour. I was happy to go along with that (and so was he in the meeting) but once we left the building he all of a sudden "didn't get it" and needed to "read up further" on it. This was two weeks ago. I don't care what anyone says it is NOT rocket science. He knows exactly what each of the three options mean.

So originally I was happy to go along with the 45/55 split. He said no.
Then he said he wanted his deposit protected but the rest 50/50. I agreed to that but now he's saying no. Last night HE suggested just going for the joint tenancy and trusting each other to do the right thing in the event of a split/death. Obviously I was more than happy to go along with this option - now he's saying he again "doesn't get it" and needs to read up more about it.

I think what he's realised is - in each of the three scenarios his kids do not get the house in the event of his death and best case scenario would be then waiting for me to die/remarry in order to get their hands on it. I'm starting to wonder if he believed his "bigger share" would give his kids more entitlement.

If you agree to be tenants in common (with whatever split) you can leave it to whoever you want in your will - he doesn't need to know what you've put in it.

If he was going to leave his share to his kids I'd leave my share to my kids and I'd make sure he knew it too.

O wouldn't be so concerned about the house right now. The real question is whether you want to marry this man at all. He sounds like a dick, in fairness.

My dad and stepmum are in a similar situation with her being the one with the big deposit. If my dad dies first it goes to her. If she dies first it goes to her kids but in trust so my dad can still live there. His kids will inherit nothing.

Do you really want to marry someone who behaves like this over £15,000, I would think long and hard about that one.

This man does not have your current or future best interests at heart. He is more interested in protecting his money for his kids, not you.
Don't marry this man whilst he is putting protecting your future such a long way down his list of priorities.