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?

@BadNomad I thought being married does though, as other people have said, it's an asset of the marriage so in the event of a divorce they will usually be split down the middle

Well so far it seems she's paid him 50 grand, as well as doing all the housework etc. He's quids in.

This is all just awful.
You need independent legal advice asap. Make sure your contraception is as effective as humanly possible. I am so sorry, but you are in a very vulnerable position, as is your DF.

The bank own it or put a charge on it until you clear the mortgage. It would be madness and no bank I know would allow someone on the deeds who wasn't on the mortgage.

A long marriage yes. Short marriages don't have to be 50:50.

Actually I take that last bit back it is obviously an asset acquired with money acquired during marriage. So perhaps may be looked on as an asset of the marriage and be slit 50:50.

No, that is not true. Not when it is a short marriage and there are no joint children. With a short marriage, you pretty much leave with what you brought to it. For him that is the house.

To prevent anything happening to your money, please file a spousal home rights application on the land registry. This prevents any sale or remortgage without your consent or knowledge. It would be a wise move, and if you wish to do this diplomatically then tell husband that you are worried about fraud as you hear so much about properties being hijacked by scammers these days. You are doing it to prevent anything bad happening to your home.
www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/newsletters/im-on-the-money/im-on-the-money-issue-ten/home-rights-notices-what-is-the-point

Are you all from UK or another country and settled here? The reason I ask is that some of the syntax and composition in your posts does not flow very well, suggesting a non native English speaker which may be an issue in understanding legal and financial jargon. But I could be totally wrong, and if so apologies.

Something to note also, if you do get yourself on the deeds of the house, what would happen to your father if anything happened to you/husband or if you divorced?

Regardless of the title deeds (not suggesting it is not important), you do need to sit down and discuss finances. You mentioned earlier that he has hundreds to throw around every week while you struggle to earn this amount. Yet he isn’t independently wealthy, he doesn’t have savings/investment to independently buy a house. We can assume he isn’t in debt and he has a decent steady income as he got mortgage approval. As a spouse you should have a handle of the financial records though.

How does he react when you ask about your finances?
Why are you questioning the title deeds now and not before the loan was drawn down? Are you uneasy because he is implying he drew down the mortgage before you married? This could be a genuine error on his part and he may not realise that the exchange is different to the application?
Is the 100K the proceeds of your Dad’s house sale as it was intended to have both of you on the mortgage and tithe and your Dad a right of residence ? Was a right of residence put on the deeds to safeguard your father?

I can't help but envisage Deirdre Barlow and her 'Airline Pilot'.

Rich man takes on poor student, her kids and her Dad... But needs Dad to sell his house to fund mortgage. Wife has no idea what is in bank account or what her husband earns.

Do you know what his job is OP?

I really hope for your sake that I'm just a cynical cow.

I’ve just recently given my son 50k as a deposit for a flat
i had to send the following to my sons solicitors and brokers
copy of my passport / driving licence to prove who I am and where I live

copy of my late parents will as that’s where the money came from

copy of the sale of the house

copy of my bank statement showing the money going from the solicitors who dealt with the sale to my account as an executor and beneficiary

and I had to write a letter saying it was gift my son

The only thing I can think is did your DH use all of the deposit
is it possible that he only used say 15 - 20k so that he could easily say where it came from
Did he have enough savings to put down as a regular deposit
and he has kept the 100k for himself .

As there is absolutely no way the solicitors dealing with this would not have wanted to know where the 100k has come from
They have to legally know where the money had come from for anti money laundering
They would lose their job if it came to light that the money was legit

The key to all this is your father's role. Did he get independent legal advice, and is he capable cognitively to make decisions like he has regarding the proceeds of sale of his house?

I know I might be coming across as an arrogant nosey so and so, but I mean well, and just looking at all scenarios here.

Well so far it seems she's paid him 50 grand, as well as doing all the housework etc. He's quids in.
A hundred grand she's paid him, she's not going to get fifty percent of his house when they have been married less than a year.

You can't be named on the deeds if you're not on the mortgage

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but regardless of whether he's telling people he bought the house before you were married or not, legally the purchase was the day of completion and you'd have proof of that via a completion statement received from solicitors. So that would be proof if you ever needed it

You can't be named on the deeds if you're not on the mortgage

You can.

Actually after reading that you said your DH is a high earner I stand by what I wrote above even more

I reckon he got a mortgage with the min amount of deposit - used his savings maybe I mean you admitted you didn’t know what money he has in his accounts so you don’t know what savings he has

Well he’s probably got around 100k floating around somewhere
I would want to see exactly what he put down as a deposit
I bet you your 100k it wasn’t 100k

That’s why he didn’t need to declare the 100k as he never used it

It the sort of thing that I would think hmm if someone’s that stupid to give me 100k and not look into the legality of it then they don’t deserve the money

yeah - you don’t own the property though. You might be noted as the spouse of the owner but that’s not the same as being « on the deeds » as the owner. If he dies he can leave the house in his will to his children. If you die, your children will get nothing as you don’t own it.

I also think he has the hundred thousand somewhere.

Ownership of the house and the mortgage are two separate things. You shouldn't be insisting on seeing the bank and getting your name on the mortgage. You need to see a solicitor about getting your name on the title (ownership of the house). They should advise on the best way of doing this, or whether you are better off relying on the fact you are now married.

a wedding in England even at a registry would have been weeks. you have to have an appointment with the registrar and they were fully booked for ages.

Booking into a registry office does take weeks (I know from experience), but a few weeks is not very long.

You rushed into getting married so fast that you couldn't wait a few weeks! You rushed into giving your DH £100k to buy a house so fast that you couldn't wait a few weeks!

You must see now that it was madness, yes?

What about your DF's protection though? You've left him open to losing money to your husband.

What I'm hearing from the above account is that your DH was the driving force behind the rush, the false urgency. You DH was doing all the suggesting... is that right?

I'll admit to not having read the full thread (all 16 pages!) but I have read all of your posts OP.

What strikes me is that your DH is coming across (via what you say) as being a bit shady / cagey NOW wrt the 100k, do you trust him still (obviously you did at the time) or is that the point of your post?

From what little I know of the law in this area, the house is a marital asset if purchased after the marriage (obviously) the house is not purchased until funds are transferred - in your case this happened after the marriage = the house is a marital asset.

What you need in writing is an agreement that the 100k comes back to you first, before the proceeds of the house are split in the event of a divorce.

I might be wrong (but I think with what he's saying alarm bells are ringing for you, hence your post) but your DH sounds like he's being a bit sly with the wording of how the house purchase went, like he's trying to re-write history.

The sale did not happen when an offer was accepted (pre-marriage), the sale happened when funds were transferred (after marriage)

Your DF knows what he's talking about / knew what he was doing at the time in advising you.

You can in circumstances eg where the LTV is lower but lenders tend not to like it and may make it a condition of the mortgage that the title is in sole name only or if it is joint title that the mortgage is is joint names too, For whatever reason the lenders did not approve a mortgage for the OP so she and her husband were not in a position to insist. Although I am inclined to think the broker may be the one who took the easiest route here. However the OP would have been urged to take independent legal advice and to sign a waiver to that effect.
I think there are pieces of this situation that the OP isn’t sharing for her own reasons. I would suggest she takes independent legal advice now.