To worry we gave away 100k of my inheritance!

[howdidIgetthere]

My DH thinks I am, but if I'm right then it's in his interest to say that!

Basically, we were in a pickle buying a house last year. We were consolidating houses with my DF to purchase a big house, and hoped that myself of my DF could be on the mortgage or deeds as a safety due to my DF helping with the deposit.

To cut a long story and identifying details this wasn't possible. Neither of us could be on a plausible mortgage, and the lenders wouldn't like us on the deeds either. But we needed a house. So as I was already engaged, we agreed between us that my DF would 'gift' 100k of inheritance to my DH so that he could solely purchase the house, but we would get married beforehand to safeguard my stake.

So we eloped without telling anyone else, my DF gifted the money and the house was purchased in my DH's name only. We had a proper wedding a few weeks after and all is well. As far as I know, because the house was purchased after marriage, I have a stake in the house should we divorce, and can get some of that value back in lieu of my inheritance/not be left with no money and nowhere to live.

However, since the purchase the house has had extensive renovations and its value is increasing significantly. I have noticed that my DH keeps referring to people that the purchase date was back in the summer, months before our marriage. I know for a fact from the deeds etc that the closing date was not until a month after we were married, when the funds were transferred. Before the marriage, the mortgage may just have been accepted, but zero money had been exchanged.

When I ask him about this he says iabu for questioning him, that yes he bought it before we got married ie he's taking the acceptance of an offer on the house as when he bought it. This is obviously very worrying for me, as if he bought it before we were married or some other loophole then in the case of divorce I have lost most of my inheritance and have no stake on the house!!!

I don't know why he is saying this as at the time he agreed it was the best option so that all parties were happy and protected. I have resisted a marital rights notice on the deeds, but otherwise I am still not on the deeds or the mortgage (I don't have a high enough income). So who is BU? Have we been misled and given away my inheritance, or is my DH wrong and for some reason trying to say something that's incorrect?

Not up to her husband?

He is the sole owner of the property by all accounts,, she cant get on those deeds unless he agrees.

Try not to worry OP, I know you’re getting a lot of conflicting information here. I used to be a conveyancer and basically most people are correct in saying that SAHM’s can be added to mortgages and the title deeds but a lot of lenders prefer you not to be added as they worry how it would affect their security. It sounds as though you were pushed into taking out a particular mortgage by the mortgage broker who may not have been that experienced/couldn’t be bothered to try for a bespoke mortgage or that was genuinely the only mortgage available - who knows.

I think it will give you major peace of mind to be on both the mortgage and title deeds so I would just talk to your husband and explain how important it is to you and then contact an independent mortgage broker and see what they can come up with. Get the confidence to speak to them yourself so that (if there are genuinely no mortgages available) you can ask them what steps you’d need to take to get on a mortgage within a certain timeline and you can then take it from there.

Good luck, I’m sure your husband will understand your concerns and hopefully will take practical steps to reassure you.

Just to clarify - when you talk about this pressure - who was putting on the pressure and how do you know they were outing on the pressure. Did your father tell you that. Was it coming from your DH.
who was pushing for the elopement. Why.
do you have your own children or are you looking after his?

Can people stop telling the OP to ‘get herself’ on the deeds. The lender owns the house as it is mortgaged. If they said she can’t be on the mortgage, it was for a reason, presumably loans. Or they didn’t declare they have dependents so the DH applied in his sole name.

Whatever happens with the title deeds can only happen if the lender authorises it. The OP can’t decide to do this herself.

OP what did your solicitor advise?

Please focus on what Pinot pony, a solicitor has said, rather than grasping at the one or two posts that reassure you .

You aren’t using any critical thinking here . Your father and husband aren’t legal experts and you are being told things by your husband second hand re brokers etc.

Many here, including a solicitor, have told you there was no reason that. Only couldn’t have been in your name as a deposit. The mortgage only covers what is needed to be borrowed.

Please get legal advice . Focus on that before sorting wills etc .

And don’t just believe what you are told by your husband and father as much is blatantly untrue .

That's £600K of debt. Minus the £100K that your father intended to give you but actually gave your husband, supposedly towards the deposit. So £500K of debt. How much did DH contribute to the deposit?

So he had his own home and has now sold it and given the money to your husband !

look you must have doubts else wouldn’t have asked the question here.

listen to the advice , get legal advice and stop being so trusting .

if you really trusted your husband you wouldn’t have asked. It’s tough, but you have been lied to and you need to sort as best you can , damage limitation .

Check the Land Registry (about a fiver). It will give the definitive (and legal) date of purchase.

If you are actually serious about building a career/independence then get on with it, don't have more children just yet and tell your DH he has to sort out childcare for his kids.

You're sleep walking into a very dependent situation

Hmm. Not a legal expert. But I imagine the date of sale is when the deeds went into his name, not when his offer was accepted.

But I'd be concerned at his reluctance (?) To have both names on deeds.

Can your father not put pressure on your DH to put you on the deeds asap?

OP I've only read your posts rather than everyone else's so this may have been said before, but something else to consider is that if you both had children previous to getting married you need to consider what will happen to your father's £100k if you die!

Let's say you get hit by a bus tomorrow, your husband owns the house, he can chuck your Dad put, he can chuck your kids out and will the house to his kids, thus meaning your father's £100k becomes his kids £100k!!

I appreciate I'm catastrophising but you do need to speak to a solicitor....better late then never!

My DH was on the deeds of our first house despite not being on the mortgage due to his credit rating so i can’t see why you aren’t able to. Think it’s a bit of semantics on when you bought the property. You’ve been in the process of buying it since before you were married but the house officially became DHs the day funds were transferred and you completed

Putting your name on the deeds is nothing to do with the mortgage. Who told you this?

Get in touch with a solicitor to put your name on the deeds, ASAP. There is absolutely no reason why your name can't be added.

"Let's say you get hit by a bus tomorrow, your husband owns the house, he can chuck your Dad put, he can chuck your kids out and will the house to his kids, thus meaning your father's £100k becomes his kids £100k!!"

Yep.

Glad you’re going to call a solicitor. You should be able to draw up a legal document that protects your £100k in the event of a split. Your husband should be willing to sign that document.

If he won’t sign it, you have problems. And I would not start TTC with a man who is in the process of stealing £100k from your family

Your husband should be willing to sign that document.

This is where it's going to get very very hairy, I suspect.

Posted too soon. Speak to a solicitor and I hope you can make some sense of it. It does all sound rushed and that you weren't informed in the decisions you made at the time. I hope you find a resolution.

I know this won't change the OPs situation, which I hope turns out to be absolutely fine... But I hope this is a bit of a warning to others. OP sounds very naïve, unable to to confidently manage her own best interests and unable to communicate openly with her DH.... Even if it does turn out ok it shows that getting married and making big life decisions was done in haste. Why are people in their twenties so quick to throw themselves into control of a man?

The most obvious question (to me anyway), is the capacity of your father at the time he gave your husband the 100k. Is your father fully compos mentis? I do not mean to offend but it is a reasonable question, in that he could very easily have been fooled/coerced by your husband into doing things this way, man to man so to speak.

You have not answered the question posed already as to whether you are constrained by a patriarchal culture/religion, that does not deem women capable of dealing with financial affairs like this. Is this the case? Also why did you elope to Gibraltar to get married, and not go to the local registry office for a quick ten minute ceremony to make it legal? Why did you feel the need to go abroad?

What are you studying? You don't have to say what course, just the field of study. I have wondered from your posts how you can study at University level (?) given that (to me), you give the impression that you are not worldly wise at all. Most women whether educated to your standard or not would have eyes wide open to a financial transaction like this one. The naivety is hopping off your posts, and you sound terribly confused both in terminology, the impact of the situation, and future effects of it.

I am sure all will be well if you can get yourself protected legally. Do not get pregnant until this is sorted though. Please.

Yes it has when there is a mortgage being drawn down. If the mortgage holder defaults, and the lenders repossesses the loan, having joint title makes it more complicated to repossess. That is the reason lenders prefer joint mortgage/joint title or sole mortgage/sole title or joint mortgage/sole title. The one they don’t want is sole title/joint mortgage.

^ the last line above. should read lenders don’t want joint title/sole mortgage.

Why do you think your husband is saying the house was purchased before you were married? What is his purpose?

How old are you? How old is your husband?

You should’ve waited to buy a house once you had a steady income. You and your DF were very silly to hand over £100k to a man you wasn’t married to without any legal contract.

I wouldn’t pursue post grad studies just yet. Find yourself a stable job once you graduate with your bachelors degree. I wouldn’t ttc yet either. If your DH divorces you then you lose your inheritance. You will also not have an income.

Nobody here can give you proper advice. Please please please get legal advice. My XH also told me the lie about not putting me on the deeds because I was a SAHM, I didn't know at the time that I didn't have to be on the mortgage but could be on the deeds. Didn't matter, it was a long marriage and I got a big chunk of the equity.

Just being married isn't enough on its own to safeguard your stake I think. For example if you divorce in a few months I don't think a judge is going to hand over 50% of the assets earned by your husband to you