Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be on the deeds of the house

340 replies

Unicornetto · 20/09/2022 19:04

We aren't married but should I have my name on the deeds of the house?

Me and my partner have been together for 15 years and bought our first house 5 years ago. The house is in my partners name as I had no income at the time as we had just had a baby. I have had various part time jobs to fit in around the children over the last few years and haven't contributed to the mortgage just the food shopping and clothes etc for kids.

He has just remortgaged and I've been asked to sign the 'declaration of no interest' (I did this before) but I'm wondering if I should be on the deeds as we're not married? Is this possible if I don't pay the mortgage and I'm not on the mortgage? He said he doesn't believe in marriage, even though I do and says he's happy as we are. I'm just worried that I have no financial stability, which is due to giving up my full time job to raise our family. I asked him if its possible for me to go on the deeds and he said no as I'm not on the mortgage and gets really annoyed with me for asking. Just wondering what other unmarried couples have done in this situation?

OP posts:
BadLad · 22/09/2022 01:16

Milkand2sugarsplease · 21/09/2022 23:17

So we should all just stick out children in full time childcare in order to work full time to "protect" our rights to our home.... ok then....

I'll stick with DH who is happy for me to work part time, happy for one of us to be home with the children more yet happy for me to still have a home and a right to that home.

The H in your post is the essential difference between you and the OP.

Daringdarling · 22/09/2022 01:28

Marriage does legally protect women but what if the husband loses his job and can’t find work, or doesn’t feel like working for a few years resenting how long he has already done this for. It can cause devastation.

There will be defaults on the mortgage, eviction notices, bills and tax demands.

Husband might then become depressed and despondent.

The wife can rapidly find herself in a compromised situation if there are insufficient savings, property equity or insurance and she is not earning enough to cover outgoings.

Some husbands also have legal entities created by their solicitors to protect “their money” from wives claiming in the case of divorce.

Marriage helps hugely to protect wives but it’s not necessarily all a done deal.

Boreded · 22/09/2022 01:51

Unless you’ve got screwed up credit you will be fine to be added to the mortgage and the deeds

HotDogKetchup · 22/09/2022 06:36

MrsPerfect12 · 21/09/2022 21:58

When a mortgage is involved you can't be on the deeds of the house without being on the mortgage.

This is the standard yes - only HSBC allow it and only then when there’s high equity to loan. In my experience of hundreds, if not thousands of transactions as a property solicitor.

HotDogKetchup · 22/09/2022 06:39

Chuckiegg · 21/09/2022 21:00

My banking/legal knowledge is very dated but I would be surprised if a lender could enforce a declaration of no financial interest without insisting you received independent legal advice before doing so... any solicitor at that point would presumably point out how vulnerable your financial situation is.

They urge the occupier to get legal advice.

HotDogKetchup · 22/09/2022 06:40

Shitfather · 21/09/2022 23:21

Interesting. I’m in a situation very similar to OP. There have been 3 different mortgages on the family home. Not once was I asked to sign a declaration (we have a DC). How would this be possible unless he lied?

Unless he didn’t declare you? It happens.

HotDogKetchup · 22/09/2022 06:56

The crux of this post is not what lenders will allow, but what OP’s OH wants if he wants to add OP to the title and mortgage it’s totally possible and relatively easy. It’s an admin task. If he doesn’t OP can’t force him and has some decisions to make.

Laurama91 · 22/09/2022 07:17

Im a woman. My partner is a man. My house is in my name, mortgage in my name. Deposit was all mine. So you're all saying I should add him to my house deeds when he contributed nothing?

Hoppinggreen · 22/09/2022 07:36

Laurama91 · 22/09/2022 07:17

Im a woman. My partner is a man. My house is in my name, mortgage in my name. Deposit was all mine. So you're all saying I should add him to my house deeds when he contributed nothing?

If he is going to limit or damage his future earnings potential by staying at home to raise your children then yes you should

KermitlovesKeyLimePie · 22/09/2022 07:42

How did it go OP?

Shade17 · 22/09/2022 07:58

If the roles were reversed and the OP was the earner with the mortgage and her DP was a SAHD then she’d be told absolutely not to marry him!

GabriellaMontez · 22/09/2022 09:52

Shade17 · 22/09/2022 07:58

If the roles were reversed and the OP was the earner with the mortgage and her DP was a SAHD then she’d be told absolutely not to marry him!

If the Sahd had been responsible for 3 children, whilst working and providing food and clothes for the family and supporting his wife to progress her career but didn't have his name on the deeds he'd also be advised to marry or see a solicitor.

If you think a genuine reverse of the OPs situation has happened on this site I'd love to see it.

GabriellaMontez · 22/09/2022 09:54

Laurama91 · 22/09/2022 07:17

Im a woman. My partner is a man. My house is in my name, mortgage in my name. Deposit was all mine. So you're all saying I should add him to my house deeds when he contributed nothing?

Do you have children together? Did he reduce work to look after them so you could progress your career? Did you buy the house while your partner was off working looking after a young baby?

MindYourBeeswax · 22/09/2022 10:31

With these types of posts, I can't help having the off the wall thought that bringing in the word 'partner' outside a business environment was a bad thing.

It gives a pseudo status to really what is, in most cases, a relationship that is no more than boyfriend and girlfriend. Before anyone jumps on me, I know there are some relationships where legal documents exist but I'm not talking about those.

I'm talking about cases like the OP, where all she is is a girlfriend.

If we didn't have the word partner but still stuck to the terms 'boyfriend' and 'husband' then it might make it clear to women like the OP that she is having three children with a boyfriend and that might bring home the fragility of their legal and emotional situation.

A partner sounds more official and confers what sounds like a legitimacy to a relationship but it is deceptive. Unless you have legal documents in place, then he is a boyfriend.

A boyfriend is transient and a husband (or wife) has had to step up and make a declaration. Don't have children with a boyfriend...unless you're rich.

Dacadactyl · 22/09/2022 12:22

I totally agree Mindyourbeeswax. Partner means nothing.

MsPincher · 22/09/2022 12:29

GrumpyPanda · 20/09/2022 19:21

Ask him to pay you backdated salary for all the years you spent off work or part-time taking care of HIS children. Including pension payments and compensation for reduced earnings potential. What an arsehole. And urgently get some good financial and legal advise. He's screwing you over.

They’re her children too though. Why should she be paid a salary to look after them?

NoMoreLifts · 22/09/2022 12:39

Children need looking after, whether by one of their parents or (both pay) childcare. She did it, and is financially disadvantaged. She's spent her income on day to day stuff, he's invested in his future. He wouldn't be able to do that if she didn't pick up childcare, food, clothes.
Just as relevant to ask why he should get all that for free as to why she should be paid.
New-fashioned view on marriage, old-fashioned view on parenting. As always, ask who benefits here? It's not OP.

Daringdarling · 22/09/2022 12:40

@MindYourBeeswax In some ways I agree with what you say about the term ‘partner’.

It does, at present, confer the impression of equality and status - invariably it has little of either.

That is only usually the case where each party has their own wealth. Indeed.

Often women are being misled by the title.

Others may realise that it means they could be left, or that they can leave without legalities being required.

Someone might say that being a ‘partner’ declares to the world “I’m not complying with convention, I’m not suburban enough to be tied to that restriction, we have love and trust, and that is enough. We take the risk. We are exhilarated by the risk”

In fact, woefully, the woman is then confined to poorer salary, all the more so if she has children. Matters suddenly become distinctly more responsible in all ways hen children are involved.

Even if children aren’t involved some women are in a Catch-22 situation of not wanting children with an immature partner but not being able to leave for financial reasons or reasons of not wanting to start again and be alone.

When did all the ‘partner’ title begin increasing?

I think that the ‘lad culture’ of the early 1990s was related to it to its prominent use?

If women only had the choice of using the word boyfriend or the more old fashioned ‘friend’ (!) it would sound sillier and the stark realisation would be all the more poignant.

The term ‘boyfriend’ sounds somewhat immature, flippant and transient a title for a loved one with whom a person has shared many years of life, engaging in every action a wife would anyway. But!

Without the documentation and the rights.

MsPincher · 22/09/2022 12:41

GabriellaMontez · 22/09/2022 09:52

If the Sahd had been responsible for 3 children, whilst working and providing food and clothes for the family and supporting his wife to progress her career but didn't have his name on the deeds he'd also be advised to marry or see a solicitor.

If you think a genuine reverse of the OPs situation has happened on this site I'd love to see it.

Op doesn’t say she supported her dp to “progress his career”

I’m a single mum and don’t need someone to “facilitate my career”. I could choose to stay at home and work less to look after dds but I have to support myself and my family.

tbh I think the lesson here is that you need to provide for your own financial security- you can’t rely on someone else to just look after you. That shouldn’t be news to adult women.

MsPincher · 22/09/2022 12:46

NoMoreLifts · 22/09/2022 12:39

Children need looking after, whether by one of their parents or (both pay) childcare. She did it, and is financially disadvantaged. She's spent her income on day to day stuff, he's invested in his future. He wouldn't be able to do that if she didn't pick up childcare, food, clothes.
Just as relevant to ask why he should get all that for free as to why she should be paid.
New-fashioned view on marriage, old-fashioned view on parenting. As always, ask who benefits here? It's not OP.

She’s liable for them at least half of the time though- they’re not “his “ children only. Tbh is she really worse off though considering he has been paying living costs? As a single mum I’m not sure she is. Perhaps she would have a lucrative high flying career if she wasn’t looking after kids but it doesn’t sound like that was a priority for her from her posts.

Dixiechickonhols · 22/09/2022 12:57

www.natcen.ac.uk/news-media/press-releases/2019/january/almost-half-of-us-mistakenly-believe-that-common-law-marriage-exists/

I’ve posted this before on similar threads. It’s not just a few people ending up in this situation it’s a huge issue.

The language definitely blurs things. Partner, family home when it’s nothing of sort. I‘ve seen arguments on here when someone has used ‘lodger’ but that’s effectively what they were.

There has been some extension of rights to cohabitees eg Fatal Accidents Act and Supreme Court case over bereavement support payments (widows allowance) was well publicised (although law hasn’t changed) so I can see that some people see snippets and think cohabitation = marriage.

My teen had half a phse lesson that briefly touched on it.

Personally I think it should be taught at school as part of phse/citizenship from legal point of view. So wills/intestacy, CAB guide marriage v cohabitation, ways to own property. With case studies to get kids thinking about issues. Maybe if more from a law angle not part of relationships topic it would be less of a hot potato otherwise it risks complaints that you are criticising cohabitation.

The daily mail story I linked the lady thought she should have been given info at registration of baby by an unmarried couple or by her midwife. Even if factual leaflet I can only see people taking it as rude registrar told us to marry how dare they judge us etc.

Daringdarling · 22/09/2022 13:13

Agree @GrumpyPanda sitting with a financial advisor or a solicitor would clarify her situation.

I wonder if OP’s partner heard what they had to say, if he would dig his heels in further or feel embarrassment to realise he has fobbed her off with the short straw.

@MsPincher Because if her partner had chosen to have a child on his own, his life would have likely have been far more hectic and time consuming.

He would have little free time. He would likely be sleep deprived.

He would have had to pay for the convenience, luxury and, you could say, the respect, granted to him in society by virtue of OP performing a conventional, wifely role.

It has frequently been confirmed by research stats, that men who are deemed to have ‘desirable’ long term partners/wives, enjoy faster promotions in the workplace.

A good woman is a fantastic ‘asset’ to a man’s advancement.

It’s no coincidence that this is downplayed because if women knew their value they would advance more readily.

OP’s partner will engender respect by being seen with her. She will have sacrificed thousands of pounds worth of income, pension and time by enabling his smooth progression in life.

OP has literally facilitated his status at her expense of hers!

Not to mention she has awarded him with the precious timeframe of her expiring fertile eggs.

He can waltz away and begin another family.

Her time may have expired for that and should she choose to have a second family, any childcare responsibilities would probably be doubled. Another setback.

Her body would also have been aged by pregnancies, perhaps breastfeeding.

Ongoing health issues can result from pregnancies in later life.

A woman’s body won’t be the young, fertile body that had the power to attract so potentially the second time around.

His body by contrast will not have experienced such gruelling transitions, pain, and wear and tear related to child bearing and care.

Dixiechickonhols · 22/09/2022 13:16

MsPincher · 22/09/2022 12:46

She’s liable for them at least half of the time though- they’re not “his “ children only. Tbh is she really worse off though considering he has been paying living costs? As a single mum I’m not sure she is. Perhaps she would have a lucrative high flying career if she wasn’t looking after kids but it doesn’t sound like that was a priority for her from her posts.

She’s undoubtedly worse off.

Married not on deeds she can register Matrimonial Home rights so she can’t be immediately thrown out or house sold without her knowing. Unmarried he can throw her out tonight.

They split now. Married there would be a financial settlement with the divorce. Her contribution to family life can be taken into account - she will be awarded share of the house, part of his pension etc. Unmarried he has no financial obligations to his ex gf. Can just claim cm for kids.

They split age 60. Unmarried he’s got a house worth £300,000 mortgage all paid off and a nice pension. He was even able to put extra in pension as he never paid childcare as she minded the kids. She’s homeless and crappy pension as she was sahm/Pt. Divorced after long marriage she’s getting decent share of house and his pension. Better off to tune of £100,000s.

He dies tonight. Married no will she inherits. She gets a government lump sum and monthly ‘widows allowance’. His pension and death in service comes to her. Unmarried no will she doesn’t inherit a thing. Has he nominated her for pension/death in service? If not probably gets nothing. No widows allowance.

Hymnulop · 22/09/2022 13:25

bellac11 · 20/09/2022 19:11

Most posters on this site will say you can or should 'add yourself' to the deeds, or insist on it and just do it

Its not that simple if you have a mortgage. Lenders generally dont like other adults being on the deeds if they are not also on the mortgage

There is no reason why you shouldnt be part of the mortgage, it makes no odds if you dont have your own income but bear in mind of course that you become liable for the debt too

But if the lender wont allow you on the deeds without being on the mortgage then you'll need to remortgage. Some lenders might be ok but you'll need to check this, I would seek legal advice on your own first.

His actions dont really make sense...

All of this. Be on the mortgage (you do not need any income to be on a mortgage ) then you're automatically on the deeds. Refuse to sign the form and insist on being added onto the mortgage this time.

Daringdarling · 22/09/2022 13:26

@Dixiechickonhols Spot on.

Just to add however that spouses can sometimes create legal entities to protect wealth, making claims in divorce more complex.

This is why women should pay for their own solicitor to check this throughout married life.

The solicitor is there to help the person who is paying them, not the non paying spouse/partner/dependent.