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

Insisting on marriage

122 replies

Marcine · 07/11/2017 13:37

DP and I have been together for many years and have 3 children together, but aren't married.

We are thinking about buying a property in the next couple of years. The deposit is my money, however DP is the main earner (I am at home with the children and earn a small income self employed). I couldn't buy anywhere on my own.

DP doesn't want to get married, but I feel a bit nervous about putting all my savings into a property with him without being married. He reckons it makes absolutely no legal difference but I'm not sure.

AIBU to insist on marriage first?

OP posts:
2014newme · 07/11/2017 13:38

No. I'd have done that before having the 3 kids 😂

blackteasplease · 07/11/2017 13:38

I would think marriage is vital in this case but I'm no financial advisor.

Original poster
Marcine · 07/11/2017 13:40

Yes, I have a vague idea that it would protect me but DP thinks that is old fashioned nonsense. We have wills leaving everything to each other then the kids.

OP posts:
Firesuit · 07/11/2017 13:44

The difference being married will make is that if one of you has contributed vastly more financially by the time you divorce, that person will bitterly regret ever having got married. And the other will be very happy they did.

A SAHP should definitely want to get married. And the person supporting her (/him) should definitely refuse.

jammiecat · 07/11/2017 13:47

I'm pretty certain your DP is wrong it does make a difference. Although you can get your solicitor to draw up a document to protect your deposit. I think it's called tennants in common. But your solicitor can advise. To be honest even if married you may wish to do this if you've put more in than he has. Especially if you don't have a will. But you really need legal advice to make sure you do the right thing.

Allthewaves · 07/11/2017 13:47

You need to get legal advice

Rebeccaslicker · 07/11/2017 13:47

You can protect different contributions by having a deed of trust for the property - but a family court can piss all over that if it wants to, as far as i'm aware. So marriage safer for you if he's the higher earner.

OTOH you could do your relationship a lot of damage if he's adamant. Do you know why he doesn't want to get married? Is it being married or getting married to which he objects?

babybarrister · 07/11/2017 13:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AngelaTwerkel · 07/11/2017 13:55

He's blinkered to stick to the "marriage is old fashioned" line - marriage is there to protect your rights exactly in situations like this. He needs to see it from your point of view.

I am no romantic and I got married (in a registry office) for exactly this reason. A lot of people say "it's just a piece of paper" but for me it was a piece of paper that offered security - a legally binding agreement between me and DH.

AngelaTwerkel · 07/11/2017 13:57

"No. I'd have done that before having the 3 kids"

What a helpful answer. Hmm

Original poster
Marcine · 07/11/2017 14:01

Can anyone explain simply the difference between us splitting/him dying and we just own the house jointly, and if we are married?

OP posts:
babybarrister · 07/11/2017 14:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

londonrach · 07/11/2017 14:07

Huge legal difference op as you wouldnt necessary inherit the house in case of the unthinkable. Yanbu op. If you putting full desposit it ill be tempted to put house in your name to protect you and dc. Talk to dp.

VladmirsPoutine · 07/11/2017 14:08

Get married. This is patently a contract. You don't need to use Kim Kardashian's wedding contractor but it's important that you have some sort of safety net.

Original poster
Marcine · 07/11/2017 14:08

So baby if we separate we'd split the property 50/50 - what would be the difference if married?

OP posts:
PolarBearGoingSomewhere · 07/11/2017 14:09

Death: Rights over an employer pension are often spouses only. Ditto death in service benefits - you would need naming if unmarried. Zero IHT to pay if married. Government benefits for widows (bereavement allowance) are for, well, widows. Automatic NoK for you re turning off life support / organ donor.

Split: spousal maintenence for you as the one who has sacrificed career for childcare. Cash savings and his pension pot split.

Please please please seriously consider marriage for your protection. It is NOT POSSIBLE to replicate all of these rights without it.

maddiemookins16mum · 07/11/2017 14:10

Marriage will give you more protection.

HeebieJeebies456 · 07/11/2017 14:11

He reckons it makes absolutely no legal difference
What he means is that it won't make much difference to him.

Go speak to a solicitor and you will see for yourself just how much of a difference it makes to you and your dc to buy a house under these circumstances.

He's got it made - he'd be paying the reduced 'rent' (which would be the mortgage).
He would be accruing an interest in the property and it's equity - which he no doubt would claim on if things ended between you.
If you split up he can take himself off the mortgage, thereby forcing you to sell the house cos you can't afford it on your own.
You wouldn't necessarily get your deposit back either unless you legally got it ringfenced and signed off right at the start.
Basically he would be profiting without actually risking anything -the risk is all on you.

If you were married he couldn't force a sale until the dc were 18 and he would have to pay you enough maintenance to cover the mortgage

You would be back to renting - only this time you might not be able to find a decent place/secure tenancy/within reach of dc schools/activities/family etc.

Whereas if you were married he couldn't force you to sell the house if you break up.
He would also have to either pay towards the mortgage or give you enough maintenance/other marital assets to factor that in.

Frankly, marriage would give you and the dc MORE security if the relationship failed than if you're not.

Get legal advice - he's only looking out for himself.

Osirus · 07/11/2017 14:11

If you own jointly, and one of you dies, the property transfers to the other. If held as tenants in common (equal or unequal shares) and one of you dies, the share of the deceased passes under their will or under the rules of intestacy.

1Mother20152015 · 07/11/2017 14:14

I assume you have to take out a mortgage and you are putting up the deposit and he will be paying that mortgage and the house will be put into joint names even though you don't work? If any of that is not so then it will affect things.

If your contribution were big enough to buy the house for cash then you are better off unmarried with the house only in your own name although then if you split up you would not have a spousal maintenance claim against him.

In answer to the last question if you are unmarried and own the house jointly as to 50/% each say as tenants in common with a 50% share each then that is what you get - 50%. If you are married and own it jointly you might get more - my husband got 60% as he earned less than I did - in other words on a divorce the division can be different from what the legal title says and if you are married it doesn't matter whose name things are in they are all up for grabs - not so if unmarried.

If he doesn't want to marry and you do then perhaps suggest the house either just be in your name - if no mortgage or else if ther eis in joint names but with say a 70% share to you to reflect the fact that unmarried you would have no spousal maintenance claims but would if married were you to part.

ferrier · 07/11/2017 14:14

OP - He can change his will at any time ans there's nothing you can do about it.

A SAHP should definitely want to get married. And the person supporting her (/him) should definitely refuse.
Why??!! Shocking attitude.

babybarrister · 07/11/2017 14:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

carefreeeee · 07/11/2017 14:15

If you are not married (with the wills you mentioned) and he dies, you might have to pay inheritance tax on his half, but it won't make any difference to who owns the house as he has left his half to you anyway.

If you split up and are married, you are entitled to half and he is entitles to half. So that is half the deposit, and half the value of his pension, and of any other savings. So depending on who has most money it could go either way. But the fact that you have taken time off to look after the family would be taken into account. He would still have to pay maintenance for the children either way. If you split up and aren't married, you won't be entitled to anything from him, and the way the house is split would depend on what agreement was drawn up at the time (could go either way depending on who puts in most deposit/payments by the time of divorce). If you aren't planning on splitting up you may as well get married really. Can't see any downside. Just go registry office if you don't want all the faff

BarbarianMum · 07/11/2017 14:16

One difference is that he can change his will to disinherit you any time. You can't do this to your spouse.

Then there is spousal maintenance. Share of pension.

If you own the house together and you split, he gets half (unless you protect your deposit).

If you own half the house each and he dies, you will be liable for inheritence tax.

LittleOwl153 · 07/11/2017 14:16

Yes I would suggest to him that if its just old fashioned nonsense that the purchased house is in your name only - with him as guarantor (and appropriate life insurance). If it all means nothing to him then this won't bother him and you have security if something happens! I'm guessing he won't want that and it might show up the real reasons why he wants things this way!