Insisting on marriage

[Marcine]

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?

We need a sticky on this, women just keep making the same mistakes.

I’m in a similar position to you and sought legal advice to make sure I was as protected as I can be. Here’s what she told me.

Owning a property as joint tenants
This is where you each own half, regardless of who pays what towards it. If you split, 50:50 would be the starting point for any negotiation. The age of the kids at time of split might be a factor in deciding who gets what, but generally you each would have half the house in a split.

If one of you died, you would not automatically inherit the other’s half like you would do if you were married. One way around this is to write wills specifying that you want to leave your half to your partner. However, if your share of the property is over the inheritance tax threshold, the surviving partner would have to pay inheritance tax, which they wouldn’t have to do if you were married.

Owning a property as tenants in common
This is where you each protect only what you put in. So if you pay 20% towards the house and your partner pays 80%, if you split you walk away with 20% of whatever the property is sold for.

Again, the same principle applies for inheritance. The partner does not automatically inherit the dead partner’s share. And if it is willed to them, they are liable for any inheritance tax.

Also, (and I’m not sure if this applies to 50:50 ownership too), if you own as tenants in common, technically you can each sell your share in the property to someone else. So, however unlikely it might seem, you or your partner could sell your/their share to a completely random stranger and the other partner wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. (I’m sure you could do something about it but it would be very drawn out and expensive.)

Pensions
If you’re not married you have no automatic right to each other’s pensions in the case of a split or one of you dies. If you’re married you have an automatic claim.

Some pensions you can name your partner as a beneficiary. Some you can’t.

Last thing to remember is that even if you have wills sorted, wills can be changed in secret. If your partner dies you could potentially find that after that huge row you had about him not putting the top back on the milk, he went and changed his will to leave everything to the Cats Protection League.

In summary
It’s possible to replicate most of the protections of marriage through joint/common tenancies, writing wills and naming beneficiaries on pensions. But these remedies are never watertight and basically it’s easier and cheaper (in terms of the actual marriage certificate vs solicitor fees) to just get married.

It makes a HUGE difference! Tbh, I wouldn't have had children without being married first. Marriage gives you and your children considerable protection under the law. Without being married, you have no more protection than a room-mate. You can draw up agreements etc, but if you're married the law is already well defined.

It doesn't have to be expensive. As someone has already suggested, a short visit to the registry office is enough.

You can get a legal agreement drawn up as to what is whose in the proeprty should you seperate down the line HOWEVER bear in mind that if you are a SAHP you need to factor that into how much of the property is yours if and when you sep. e,g, you deposit, his deposit and any residual value how will that be divided - personally I would ask for anything he pays on mortgage whilsst you all live in it is ignored and any residual should be 50 50 - why well there is value in you being the sahp - it allows him to work for the cash to pay mortgage and effectively saves money in terms of cost of childcare etc even if kids in school - there is before and after school plus holidays to consider as well as your contribution re household if you end up doing mroe of that and sorting for e.g. DIY issues

"Would it be possible to have the house in just my name if the mortgage will be based largely on his income?"

So the house is being bought by a mortgage and your deposit so cannot just be in your name as his income is needed for the loan. The lenders will require you are both on the deeds in most cases - even where parents guarantee the mortgage these days they like the parent as owner even if just for a 1% share.

So it is very very likely you will need a standard purchase of the home in joint names with a joint mortgage. The mortgage lender will require it.

So in that case as you are not married you could have your solicitor draw up a deed of trust which says your share is eg 80% (if you think that is fair) as you put up the deposit but then he is paying all the mortgage but he can only do that as you provide child care for 3 children. So 80% might be fair for now but may be 10 years down the line with him paying 100% of the mortgage all that period 50% might be fairer? You also might want to own it as tenants in common, not joint tenants - discuss with your solicitor the pros and cons. You may even want to leave your half to your children (my father despite being married did that as he wanted to be sure we children would get his half and not his wife with whom he lived although in the end our mother died first anyway - they were married).

Either he genuinely doesn't realise how vulnerable you are legally and financially, or he does realise but understands that it would be in his favour if he kicked you to the kerb.

So, tell him what you now know and take it from there. I really hope it's the former OP. I'm suspicious of men who refuse to marry their low earning or SAH wives, but I accept that some truly don't know the implications.

Do NOT accept "but I've no intention of leaving you" - that's worth zilch. You need to protect your interests.

Please seek legal advice. Posters are advising you without knowing which country you are in so their advice may or may not be correct. Getting married will give you more protection but the division of assets in the event of a divorce differs in different countries (even across the UK eg Scottish and English differs on the split of assets in the event of a divorce).

By "wives" I obv meant "girlfriends"

You need to get advice from a solicitor

There's a worry the other way I think, that if you get married and break up soon after, would he be entitled to half the house without having paid any deposit?

Your DP is protecting his interests.

And shafting your's.

You should definitely get an independent advice with regard to protecting your deposit. Yes, I would definitely agree to insist on marriage in order to protect your share and at least update your wills.

What are your other finances like? Is he stingy, controlling and pro-rata according to your incomes?

If you have been together for a number of years (i think its 10+ but don't quote me on that) then whether married or not you would still be entitled to half of everything if you ever split up. A friends parents were like this - together for around 15 years, never married but when they split she (friends mum) went through solicitor or whatever and got to keep the house they had bought together. Because in the eyes of the government if you've lived together for how ever many years it is, then its classed as 'common law married' or something like that.

givemestrength do you have a reference for that? I thought that was a myth in the UK.

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

So, let me guess, firesuit (what an appropriate name), are you a man??

Whether one parent chooses to stay at home while ther dc are young has no bearing on whether or not they want to get married. And 'the person supporting her' - you mean, the person who is supporting their partner by staying at home to look after their dc and the home?? Often, the SAHP works a lot bloody harder than the one who works out of the home.

Givemestrength - you're wrong

Although the terms common-law wife or husband are frequently used to describe a couple who live together, these relationships do not have legal recognition.

(CAB website - www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/)

Give me strength indeed... It's utter rubbish, though a lot of people believe it and no one seems to know why.

As experienced lawyer babybarrister already said, common law doesn't exist in the UK.

Giveme strength
There is no such thing as common law wife or husband in England and I'm fairly sure Scotland is the same
and it's crap like this that keep woman making the same mistake over and over again because they believe in this common law spouse shit

It's an absolute myth along with unicorns and trump being a nice person and brexit

Your friends mum more than likely owned the house to start with and never put her partner on the deeds which is why she kept the house

It is actually frightening how many people believe that there is such a thing as common law marriage and act in the erroneous belief that it will protect them.

How about you take your deposit and buy a rental flat? Rent it to a tenant. You then have an asset and you and your DP can either buy or rent based on your incomes. You then have an asset in your name, a nest egg in the event it goes wrong... and a level playing field.

If he doesn’t like you behaving as if you’re single and need to protect your assets, that’s what he’s doing.

YANBU, you have every right to insist upon marriage.

I ended up splitting with my exDP because he changed his mind on marriage. I was paying 50% of rent and bills and he wanted me to quit my job and have children with him. He said that he wanted to marry me and would before children and decided to consistently take me ring shopping. It got to a point where I demanded to know what his intentions were and he said quote "I do not believe in marriage". We ended up splitting and he has since done a U turn and now "believes in marriage" again. I have not looked back since and even got a promotion at work. If I were you, I would get married before buying a house with him so that you and your children have the legal protection that you all deserve.

Even if one thinks of marriage in the starkly selfish terms firesuit puts it, think of it in terms of what's happening to the two partners.

The SAH partner - loses earnings, career progression, in some cases (where for example professional registration lapses after a few years out of the job, as is the case for nursing) the career itself.

The WOH partner - gains free cook/housekeeper/household manager/24-7 nanny - all of which he (and 9 times out of ten it is "he") would have to pay for were the SAH partner to step under a bus tomorrow. At least, he'd have to pay for them if he wanted to continue to maintain his high-earning career.

The risks of an unmarried partnership fall entirely on the SAH partner, the financial benefits accrue entirely to the WOH partner.

You could jump through a whole load of legal hoops to ensure the assets were split fairly in the event of separation - but it is very, very hard to do this in a way which is watertight. And there is nothing, other than marriage, which will get you out of paying inheritance tax in the event of your partner's death(an important consideration if you own a house in the SE where the value of the house will almost certainly come over the inheritance threshold, even for a very modest sized house).

Personally, there's no way in hell in your position I'd have put my savings into a house deposit without the legal protection of marriage.

(Conversely, were I, aged 50-something, single mother with a dependent child, house that's well on the way to being paid off, and bloody good pension scheme, to meet the man of my dreams tomorrow, there's no way in hell I would marry him).

You both need legal advice. Possibly separately.

Marriage is greater protection for the partner with more money, but in this case it's a bit complex as he earns more but you're the one with the savings. The facts you've given are quite broad. Having a deposit but not being able to afford to buy alone could mean anything from a few grand for a 5% deposit in a really cheap area to six figures that you've just inherited but not enough to buy outright in the south east. You will obviously want to find out what impact marriage will have in your specific circumstances.

However what's definite is that stopping/massively cutting down on working is stupid if you're doing it for the financial benefit of a partner who wouldn't have to compensate you for it if you separated. There's no guarantee of that happening even if you're married, tbh, but there is at least the possibility of your loss of income being reflected in any divorce settlement. So regardless of whether you marry or not, don't be the only one to sacrifice earning potential.

What I would do is go to a solicitor, so he will then be appraised of the legal position. He won't then be able to say it makes no legal difference, when actually it makes shitloads. So then you'll know what you're dealing with. However more than one unmarried partner who didn't need marriage because it made no difference changed their mind immediately once they were aware of the facts. That might be what happens here.

I would insist on marriage. Just make an appointment and do it quietly at the registry office - no need for fuss and money being spent if that is an issue. It is just so much easier than all the other stuff you need to do to protect yourself if living together and you become a SAHM.

I have been with my partner for 30 years but in retrospect would insist on marriage. Initially, I was the main breadwinner but our second child had special needs and I ended up as a SAHM and it took me a while back in the 90's to realise how vunerable this left me. My partner was still anti marriage (I had been too up to this point) so we became joint tenants in the house, we set up life insurance policies to cover the mortgage in event of death, wills etc but at one point our house would have required a big IHT outlay if one of us died and the survivor would have lost the family home (downsized now and financially a lot worse off given life events so not such an issue).

We would also lose lost out on Widow/ers allowance benefit if one of us died. We loose out on the tax advantage of me being able to transfer part of my tax allowance to partner - which we could do if married.

Don't let him buy the house in his name only (even if he says you do not meet the mortgage requirements) you will have no claim on that house if anything happens. The first house we had was in partners name as he had bought it before we met. I basically paid the mortgage on it (transferred money to DP and then he paid mortgage company) and all the household costs whilst DP studied for a long time before a friend pointed out that DP could just chuck me out with no recourse and that if DP died his mother and brother might have inheritance rights.(before we had the DC)

Depends how big your deposit is, how long you're in the house for, how much he pays to the mortgage, and who has a better solicitor if you divorce/separate.

If he dies then you're in a much better situation being married.

See a solicitor about this. It's way too complex to answer without knowing actual figures.