New house in DH name only?

[Housemove2]

NC as potentially outing. DH & I have been together 20yrs, married 10, and yes, we are in a very fortunate position. He owned 2 small properties when we met & we have lived in 1 since meeting. They've remained in his name only. We have no DC and have never had a shared bank account. He has always paid the mortgage, some food & house bills. I pay majority of food bills, water, electric and council tax of where we live.

We'd planned on buying a larger home, and as I'm a 1st time buyer, it was going to be in my name. Last year I was made redundant, had a complicated MC then developed a mild illness, and during that time, was unable to work & used a lot of the savings I'd planned for the deposit. Based on my current wage, I wouldn't qualify for the mortgage amount we'd planned, even with DH's deposit added in.

DH, however, has the collateral from his properties and on his wage, would qualify for a mortgage. Having the new house in both names means IF I could ever afford another house, I'd lose the 1st home buyer grant. BUT, I just feel that this would also be HIS home- despite me contributing in many other ways to it. We have no martial issues at all, but I really don't know where I'd stand IF things ever soured in the future and all the property is solely in his name?

Get it in both your names if possible. It isn't worth it to be a first time buyer at some point in the future. What would you be buying another house for that you would need the status of FTB? Do you mean if you split up?

I think unless you have a pre nup that all homes would be split 50/50 between you both if a divorce was ever on the cards anyway? They would all be considered as marital assetts?

I believe that if you are married to someone, who owns property, you cannot claim stamp duty relief as a first time buyer. Get the property and put it in both your names as this is the best way to protect your assets, even if you are married.

If not, get some proper legal advice.

You can register your marital rights to the home with the land registry. That means that your husband can't sell the property or remortgage without you knowing about it. It's an HR1 form.

Even without this, the home is a marital asset and you will be entitled to 50%, at least on divorce. Might be more if there were children involved.

Sounds like a bit of an odd set up to me. What's the point of being married and then keeping everything separate? I think it's a bit moot whose name any of the properties are in given that you are married and both contributing financially to the running of the household. For the sake of clarity though you should definitely have your name on the new house with or without him.

Have you actually sat down with your husband and talked about your finances. After being together 20 years it seems strange you've only just decided this is a problem to you.

If married to a non first time buyer then you aren't eligible for the first time buyer stamp duty relief anyway, only for the Help To Buy / Lifetime ISA government bonus. So I would use your Lifetime ISA on this purchase (if you have one) and ensure your name is on the property!

But people saying you would be entitled to 50/50 on divorce are incorrect. That’s the starting point to any separation of marital assets. Either party could say they have made a bigger contribution and for whatever reason should get a bigger share. It would then be up to the Judge to decide proportions. If you are on the title 50/50, this is clear evidence to the judge that you are equally entitled. It could be argued, if you allow your husband to be sole owner, you recognise his contribution is bigger than yours. It can get very messy and don’t do it, to protect a non-existent right (e.g at some stage in the future get stamp duty relief as a first time buyer). To absolutely protect yourself, you should be on the title.

But the best thing to do is get legal advice.

I agree with Crazycatlady83. Also, if he is the only one paying the mortgage he could potentially argue that this is because he is the only one with an interest in the property. He may not succeed but you are certainly giving him ammunition.

Better to get your name on the title (and pay all bills for all the properties from a joint account).

@knittingaddict- that is good to know, thanks

@daisychain01- I only feel its a problem now, because the previous properties were DH's before we married, whereas this one, I assumed would be 'ours', rather than still feeling like its only 'his'. He keeps referring to it as 'our home'.

We too assumed I wouldn't qualify for 1st home buyer, but we were advised by the solicitor and lender I would- despite being married. Among other links:
www.theguardian.com/money/2019/sep/23/first-time-buyer-home-help-to-buy-isa-stamp-duty-relief

As said, it would have been solely in my name if my current wage was what is used to be before the redundancy.

Just get it jointly. It's best all round not just from the perspective of protecting yourself but also emotionally you are sharing the burden and stress of it. Why should he have two mortgages and you none?

OP do you both have roughly the same income or does he earn a fair bit more?

If you earn roughly the same and he pays the mortgage and some bills and food he probably pays 2/3rds.....do you save a lot more than him?

I understand people saying it should be in joint names but my point is if he pays the mortgage and you have a lot of spare money left over and you save then it wouldn't be fair to get put on the mortgage unless you contributed towards it.

None of us know your fiancial situation in detail but speaking personally its odd to have everything so separate from your spouse.

You were sick and your husband let you spend your savings on living costs?

Holy shit.

@Crazycatlady83

I believe that if you are married to someone, who owns property, you cannot claim stamp duty relief as a first time buyer. Get the property and put it in both your names as this is the best way to protect your assets, even if you are married.

If not, get some proper legal advice.

You can.

Yeah, you shouldn't have been living on your savings whilst sick. Does he not want you to have financial security? Very strange.

If your a first time buyer you can still get a first time buyer house to my knowledge. We did but my dp owned a previous property mind you he had sold that before we bought the house. I strongly suggest being on the mortgage as if anything happened to him you have no legal rights if he was to leave the house to someone else in his will without your knowledge you could end up homeless and unable to fight it without funds. Tell him it's the first place your buying together and it should be joint ownership to protect you both.

Why did you have to burn through your savings while ill? That makes me feel uneasy on your behalf. I'd get some advice but definitely get your name on this property.

1. Legal advice
2. Joint names. 50/50, do not buy a property in only his name... even if he's saying "our house" to you, words mean nothing. Everything in black and white does. Protect yourself.

Ive learned these lesson the very hard way.

..i was also with a man who let me spend all my savings on living. Be careful.

@Sameold2020
If you have been made redundant and also sick surely that's what savings are for.....for a rainy day so to speak. We don't know her DH salary or savings situation but ultimately savings are there to support you when you need them.

If you are not put on this house, then he is never going to buy jointly. He has made that perfectly clear as well as standing by as you worked your way through your savings. Is sounds like he was more interested in the first time buyers than buying with you.

I guess you're right, but we would live off dh's salary, and he would not want me to feel vulnerable.

@sameold2020.
I agree....we would do too but my wife and i are only able to cover the bills and monthly expenses with both our salaries combined. If one of us was made redundant we would have to dip into savings to pay for month to month spending like food etc.

We really need to know if OPs DH is a mich bigger earner. If he is then there is an element of financial control going on. If they are more equal (or were prior to OPs redundancy) then it does put a different spin on things to me.

Yes I agree. It just doesn't look good with the home ownership issue too.

We also see lots of women on here who go on maternity leave and live off their own savings and the dh continues with his wage.

I think that the properties purchased prior to the marriage might be seen as his premarital assets so unless you can prove contributions to the mortgage/ upkeep I believe they remain his. The new house purchase would be split jointly. It is good however to have in joint names.