Who should really own our house?

[Littlething]

I will appreciate some advice and fresh perspective on my situation please. Sorry if it is a bit long.
Me and my partner of 15 years (two dc, 11 and 8) are about to exchange on a house that we are buying with the money I inherited from my late parents. There will be a small mortgage, paid out of rental income on my flat in London. We moved to where we are now 2 years ago from London for his job. We were renting here while we were looking for a house to buy paying rent out of the income on my London flat. I have stopped working after my youngest was born, my dp has a good job (architect), that covers our bills. My parents gifted me the flat in London, so we lived rent/mortgage free and they gave us cash for holidays, new car etc, we would not be able to afford it otherwise. We spend rather carefully, shopping in H&M and Lidl but we like to entertain, go to the theatre and children have lots of hobbies. My partner has a flat in London that he bought before we met, he pays mortgage on it and rents it out, so mortgage is covered.
The house we are buying here is small and will need extension and loft conversion, it will be paid for with what’s left out of the money my parents left me. For context, we decided to buy a small house (in a not very ideal location) because it is all we can afford without selling mine or his flats and he is strongly against selling since “it is our pension”.
I agreed to put both our names on the title. I want to make it clear that he is a kind and loving person, he is my best friend and the children adore him. I do not want to upset him by spelling out that it is my money that we are spending on the purchase and renovation. However when I said the other day that I expect to have an upper hand when it comes to decisions to do with renovating (and maybe selling when the children are off to Uni) he got very upset. He feels that he will “pour all his energy, time and skills into the house and will be left with nothing”. He also said he feels his contribution to our finances is major because all his salary is spent every months, he provides for us and this needs to be recognised. AIBU to expect him to see it from my perspective?
Many thanks for reading and sharing what you think.

But every penny of her inheritance ISN’T sunk into it. She also owns the London flat. Honestly , she is in a very good position. If she resumes work at some point, she will be in an even better one.

The London flat has nothing to do with her inheritance, she had that before. If her parents had wanted her bloke to have the money they’d have left it to him.

So, not a big thing in the OP’s case then, as she inherited and solely owns a London property already. She is both inheritance rich and income rich, but wants the “upper hand” in all decisions relating to the family home. Not much of a family, imvho, if you’re going to take that attitude to the most important symbol of your unity as a family. By all means protect yourselves from possible future misfortunes and betrayals by seeking proper advice, but not by using weird powerplay games over who gets to have the “upper hand” that don’t even reflect legal reality - that’s just causing tension without providing protection, so the worst of all worlds for everyone concerned.

My parents gifted me the flat in London, so we lived rent/mortgage free and they gave us cash for holidays, new car etc, we would not be able to afford it otherwise.

She has enough in the way of unencumbered, gifted/inherited assets to be quite secure, even if her DP owns a small portion of their family home.

Thats a very fine distinction, anyway. Stuff given to you by your parents (in life or after death) are gifts.

The money side has been addressed...go get legal advice

OP can you explain why you don't want your DP to have any say in the decoration/development of the family home?

So, if I've got this right:
He has 1 available income (employment) which goes to cover family bills
A second income (rent) with a matching expense (mortgage)

You have 1 available income, which also goes to covet family bills (your current rent)

You also have an inheritance which is sufficient to cover your house purchase and the renovations. You're using a mortgage in both names instead for the renovations, but you have the cash not to.

I think i would not use the mortgage. Buy the house and renovate it with your inheritance then both of your incomes go towards the family bills. You keep your assets, he keeps his, you both pay for the bills proportionately to your incomes. His income is employment, yours is rent.

And the house, in that situation, is in your name

I think i would not use the mortgage. Buy the house and renovate it with your inheritance then both of your incomes go towards the family bills. You keep your assets, he keeps his, you both pay for the bills proportionately to your incomes. His income is employment, yours is rent
So who would own the house ?

Cross post

1. You buy the house together, both putting in a similar deposit and then having a joint mortgage for the rest.including the extension etc

2 with the money you are not using to buy your joint house, you buy a buy to let.. with the money from your buy to let and flat, you pay your half of the mortgage and contribute to half the household bills.

Win win. You get to keep your money in your name to pass directly to your children and he has the opportunity to be a stakeholder in the property you both live in.

I am not understanding the hate for OP. Unless it is jealousy because she has received a lot of financial help from her family, and she does not express an urgent need to work for money in order to survive?

The reality is that her DP has less wealth, but he probably has greater financial security: he has nearly all of the earnings power, and he has been able to retain and build that thanks to the OP staying home and taking care of the children. He probably also has some sort of pension thanks to his work. Meanwhile, he also enjoys a standard of living that is probably well above what his own income could provide, because he lives rent-free in a flat owned by the OP, and he has benefitted from money gifted by OPs parents (new car, holidays, etc.). DP does not sound like a "serf" to me !!!

If they were to split up at any future date, DP would keep all or most of his earnings power (minus possible child support for a few years), and 100% of his pension, and of course his flat. Meanwhile while we do not know anything about OPs earnings power, but it sounds like probably much less than DPs, especially if she continues to be the available parent for the children not only outside of school hours but also during school holidays and whenever either of them is ill.

OP is wealthier but is the more financially vulnerable party, and needs to preserve her economic interest in the house if they buy one. If they buy the house 100% with OPs cash, then I do not see why it would be fair to put DP name on the deeds and give him an immediate right to 50% of that.

The question of who gets to use the outbuilding while they live in it, and for what purpose, is a different question from ownership, and that needs to be a balanced negotiation. It is more difficult when one party is the sole owner of the home. But unless DP wants to work fewer hours and mind the children so that OP can develop her own earnings power, OP does need to rely on the wealth for her own financial security, because otherwise she has none.

@YankeeDad - which goes back to my point, that the current arrangement (family home in joint names but the OP claiming she should get the “upper hand” in all decisions relating to it) is the worst of all worlds - providing none of the protection the OP might desire and none of the sense of family unity her dp desires. It’s both legal and emotional idiocy. How many ways does it have to be said that they need proper legal and financial advice as a couple?

One thing that is a good idea is to get married to help with inheritance tax if one of you passes away. Obviously it shouldn't be the only reason to marry but you have been together 15 years, happily I presume. You can pass everything on to each other without inheritance tax to pay if you are married (until the second one dies) But if one of you dies now then things will need selling to pay inheritance tax, even more so if you only put your name on the deeds of the newer house, there will be a much larger tax bill if you died, marrying will preserve it for the children. Then write wills too, you can each leave your flats to your children in a trust if you wish. When my husband and I visited our solicitor several years ago to discuss wills etc. she said first thing you need to do is to get married. We had been together almost 20 years.

My husband has put my name on the deeds for the house we live in now. I didn't put any money into buying it. He is the main wage earner too. I raised our children and stayed at home for 12 years. I now work part time. However I do own a rental property and that income has contributed to our household income for 22 years. It is a difficult one. But advice from a solicitor is a good idea. Your dh is earning well and contributing so I can see his point.

@Walkaround I agree with you 100%.

YABU if you agreed to legal ‘joint ownership’ but want the ‘upper hand’ on all decisions when he will live there as your partner (and you say this includes the decision of when to sell). You say you haven’t worked in paid employment for the last 8 years, did he cover all bills, including renting locally, from his salary? Did you save or contribute from the rental income of your flat? Agree with PP you need legal advice to navigate this.

By saying @Littlething that because you have put in the money you have the say is the issue for him.

Can you imagine if you didnt have the money and his was the only income if he turned around and said I earn all the money I make all the decisions how you would feel?

I think you really arent seeing this from his perspective. The legal and financial stuff is fairly easy to sort and get right. You thinking you have more rights because of it isnt

I don’t think anybody has expressed hate for anyone @YankeeDad - the opinions vary but I think everyone is trying to be helpful.

The reality is, that if OP persists in telling her DP she wants the “upper hand” in personal matters such as decor, she might strain the relationship. There is almost always a way to compromise while protecting your own assets. It’s not all or nothing.

I lived for more than a decade with DH in a house that was solely mine, but it isn’t a family home unless you let the other person feel they have some stake or at least some say, in future plans, improvements and so on. I would t expect a partner to live like a lodger.

OP isn’t saying the relationship is unhappy, dysfunctional or on its way out, so finding a way to make everyone happy is probably worth the time. @Timetogetup123 made a good suggestion.

@HinchcliffeandMurgatroyd

I also agree with you 100%, and that the language about "upper hand" in decoration decisions is clumsy at best. OP probably should have the final say for decisions about spending major amounts of money on the renovation, if it is her money that is being spent, and also on decisions that are likely to meaningfully affect the value of the property. But aesthetic choices need to suit all family members if it is to be the family home even if it is OPs house. And the potential use of the outbuilding for DP hobby rather than storage should definitely be up for discussion, if that would not require damaging the the outbuilding. Most of us have too much clutter anyway!

Some of the PPs did refer to OP as being selfish and spoiled, or as treating her DP like a "serf" while building an empire. One of them said that her treatment of DP was "borderline financial abuse." Those are some of the phrases that I described as "hate for OP."

As suggested, by numerous people @Littlething you need to seek legal advice.

Lots of couples come together and marry/ form partnerships with vastly different amounts of wealth. If assets &/or money need to be ring fenced it 's done by solicitors not by Internet forums.

I am not sure if legal advice would really help until the OP has decided what she wants to do. If she wants to ringfence every penny, a lawyer can help with that but I don't think that is her firm decision.

I believe I am one poster you refer to here @YankeeDad and may I say that you’ve misrepresented what I said, in that I explicitly stated that understand that the relationship would have seemed equal to both parties up to this very recent conversation regarding the income-funnelling and arbitrary decision-making of assigning income of one party into a fixed asset, whereas the income of the mortgage-enabling party would continue to be assigned to running/sunk costs. As I said in my initial post, that everything else aside from this decision is borderline irrelevant, a position and I stand by and whilst I have been drawn, I’m not going to falsely assert credence to this - or by extension - your false point.

What I clearly stated is when this new situation suddenly evolved in a hitherto relatively equal partnership then it gives the impression that they aren’t in fact partners. Again, not controversial.

You patronisingly imply there’s jealousy in play, whereas I can’t see anywhere this would be seen? I’d feel like a serf if I was paying into Baron DH’s asset while I have no groats left and no say on wattle texture. It’s really offensive you’d level this as in fact I personally am materially successful and went to a good school etc so you couldn’t be further from the truth - is it impossible for you to think people merely have different opinions and reach different conclusions and have different standards? You seem very basic.

I apologise for overstepping the mark by speculating as to your and other PPs potential motive in taking the perspective that you and they took. I cannot know your circumstances or motive, and I was just creating a pointless distraction by doing that, so all I can say is sorry, my bad, I should not have done that.

I also agree with the perspective you and others expressed, regarding how the the DP may feel justifiably put down or patronised if the OP insists on "taking the upper hand" in stylistic decisions about the renovation in what is to be their joint home.

However, and this is my main point, I maintain my perspective that if OP were to keep 100% ownership of the new house that they will live in jointly, then that would be actually self preservation rather than selfishness. Whereas, signing over half the equity in the new house to her DP without him contributing half of the purchase cost would be either generous or foolhardy.

And if OP is putting up the cash for the renovation, then I do think she should get a veto on what gets spent for what work on the house. The point on how the space gets used while they are both living there, should, I agree, be more of a joint decision.

That is true, they as a couple need to know what they want as an eventual outcome.

There are two eventual outcomes.
1, They split,
How do they ensure both are treated fairly, what's fair?
Op getting out her inheritance.
DP getting back the money they have both been living on.
Ultimately it will be messy, arguements over his input even if it was her money lawyers will be involved due to the children anyway.

2, One of them dies.
Who do they want to get their property?
Does Op want it to go straight to the kids?
Would it be better for it to go to the other partner?
Going to the partner has the downside of inheritance tax, and then inheritance tax again when they eventually pass and it goes to the kids.

I'm not a lawyer, but I really think a lawyer should be consulted, to ensure the best plan for both of them.

The house they are living in needs to have joint decisions over decor etc.

However, and this is my main point, I maintain my perspective that if OP were to keep 100% ownership of the new house that they will live in jointly, then that would be actually self preservation rather than selfishness. Whereas, signing over half the equity in the new house to her DP without him contributing half of the purchase cost would be either generous or foolhardy.

Haven’t we all missed an important detail here? If, while OP is providing a substantial deposit, the mortgage is based on her DP’s earnings, then surely his name will be on the mortgage - and hence the deeds - anyway? Any mortgage based on his income would have to have his name on it and lenders don’t allow the deed details to differ from the mortgagee names any more. So the percentage split (via deed of trust) is the only issue to be decided, I think.

Don’t put his name on the deeds if you’re not married. Please please protect yourself.