AIBU to advise my daughter that she'd be daft to not put her name on house deeds?

[User197634]

My DD (20) is planning on buying a house with her bf of 2 years. He has been given a lump sum buy his parents to put down on a house, and my DD mentioned that it would only be his name on the deeds, even though she'll be sharing the bills.

I've advised her that, yes by all means her bf should have a contract drawn up to protect the money he's putting in should they split, but I still believe she should insist that her name goes on the deeds too.

I think she thinks that I'm over thinking things, but I want her protected too. Any advice appreciated

If this was guaranteed not to last, then they’re doing the sensible thing.

He’s buying a house and letting her live in it. She’s paying half of the costs, like she would if they were renting or living alone (she’d be paying twice the amount too).

Theres no way she’d be able to afford a mortgage without him and so it’s ok that she’s not on the deeds if it’s not her house.

But the complications come if they continue to stay together and end up having kids etc.
She absolutely needs to be on the deeds then and it’s much easier to do it now than in 5/10years time.

At his age he would be a bit silly to put a young girl on the deeds.
But she’d also be silly to have kids and live years in a house she has no entitlement too.

If they’re looking for homes together and basing it on her salary too, then they absolutely need to both go on the deeds (with a contract to protect his money).

But if he’s buying it and letting her stay there, then it is his house.

Have you spoken to her about kids etc or her getting her own mortgage?
Ask her what’s going to happen in 10 years time if they have kids or split up?

I guess if she doesn’t want to go on the mortgage then you could discuss about them getting married if she fell pregnant.

You are absolutely right in your concerns and giving her good advice. I try and tell my DD to be as independent as possible and always think of the worse case scenario but I don’t know if she’ll listen to you.

Right on.

If she wasn’t contributing/ it wasn’t a joint mortgage, then I’d say she has no right to be on the deeds- but I wouldn’t move into somewhere that I have no legal right to stay.

But it sounds like she is going to be on the mortgage and pay bills so of course she has her name on it.

I havent argued it the other way round so your post is somewhat superfluous.

An adult can be on the mortgage but not on the deeds, if that is their choice. Its unusual, out of the norm but a bank wouldnt have an issue with it, its their business if someone wants to pay for something they dont own

On the other hand it very much is their business if someone is down as an owner, or something they have first charge on. Although technically they can get an agreement that all on the deeds agree the house becomes the banks property if the loan is not repayed, but of course if they are not part of the loan that becomes tricky. Therefore, I can only repeat what I said before, I have never known of a mortgage company agreeing for someone to be on the deeds as owner, but not part of the loan.

Ive read other people say they have known of this, but its extremely rare and an extreme example. Its not the norm and most mortgage companies or mortage agreements wont allow it.

I'm pretty sure that if she's on the mortgage then she'll have to be included on the deeds as that is usually a condition of the mortgage. Sounds like they need to get legal and mortgage advice and think things through.

Are they engaged to be married ? Do they have a child ? If no to both of those your advice is unwise.

Is she going to be on the mortgage? If so, then yes she absolutely should be on the deeds.
if not, then they need to work out an arrangement where she essentially pays rent but certainly not half of the mortgage. You’re right to be concerned, OP

I’ve not read all the thread but I’ve read all your posts OP.

As a family lawyer (and assuming you’re in England and Wales otherwise what I say doesn’t apply) - if it’s a joint mortgage application and they’re going to be sharing the repayments, they will be joint legal owners of the property. He will need a deed of trust to protect his £60k deposit, and then they will each have an interest in the property after that. I would also suggest entering into a cohabitation agreement to make the arrangement clear as to what would happen if they separate.

If she’s not on the mortgage and not a joint legal owner (so he will own the property in his own name) - they should share the bills but that’s it, she shouldn’t be paying towards the mortgage. If she does pay towards it but isn’t a legal owner of the property, it’s really bloody messy and expensive to try to bring a claim if they later separate.

It’s so much better to deal with who owns what percentage now so that it’s clear. More people should be doing this.

The bank can lend her money because they have
• the house and
• his future earnings and
• her future earnings

As collateral which is much better than
have
• the house and
• his future earnings

And she is taking on 100% of the loan

BF can potter off to party and not pay a penny of the money back.
If she is not meeting the full repayment the bank can sell the house and chase her for the rest of all money owed.

If he didn’t have her he could not afford it and could not benefit from the appreciation of the house / equity. If she did not have him, she would be saving for / investing in her own property. I’d advise in order of preference 1. Do that - get her own place 2. If not possible / preferred, then go in with someone else on a business footing (so what op is suggesting). Do not consider: paying for his house with the rights of a lodger

My partner and I bought a house a couple of years ago. He paid nearly half with savings, and the remainder - the mortgage - is split between us. As a result, I agreed we'd split the house ownership 75%/25%. We've since got married so we're 'protected' if either of us die, but if we split, I'd follow through on the fair split and not try to claim half of everything.

I previously 'bought' a house with my ex-partner. I was a mature student so he said there was no way I'd be able to go on the mortgage. He bought the house solely in his name. We got married, had two children. We separated. I didn't fight for any money - he gave me £10,000 for all the effort I'd put into renovating the house, organising contractors with a newborn in my arms while he worked. I was the one who moved out with the children, living in a foisty two-bed flat and later a terraced council house.

I think I got the crappy end of that deal and would never advise anyone to put themselves in the same situation. I've learned a lot since, but I've also got very lucky - I've worked my way up in my job (ex-partner insisted I couldn't work due to childcare costs) and my partner has a decent career. Our current house is a six-bed - twice the size of my ex's house. He's very bitter about that 😂

Re your daughter's situation: £60,000 is a fairly decent deposit but with house prices as they are, that's likely a lot to pay back on a mortgage. She absolutely should have some sort of stake in the house - I think you're being totally reasonable in what you are saying.

In which case he needs to have the mortgage in his sole name.

So BF wants her income to bump up the mortgage he can get but wants her to pay half of said mortgage but have no investment? It wouldn't surprise me if this is being driven hugely by the BF's parents with conditions being attached to the deposit.

Who's behind this suggestion/directive that she's not to be on the deeds, @User197634 ? I'm guessing his parents?

My son put down over 100k as a deposit
his partner 0
deposit is protected if they split up
on the deeds equally 50 -50 as they both pay the mortgage - bills

he would be stupid to put her on the deeds if she isn’t putting anything in
but if he did he should protect his deposit

You keep implying that the lender wouldnt care if shes named on mortgage but not deeds and you are incorrect

The bank cannot do any of this without instructing her to obtain independent legal advice first. Because it absolutely can come back to bite the bank if they set up an arrangement which is seen to deprive a mortgage payer of their asset.

Hence they cover their arse by having evidenced independent legal advice separate from the boyfriends solicitor. This is a legal practice that all lenders look out for. The conveyancing solicitor has to tell the lender if one party is not going on deeds so that this can happen and be evidenced.

Since OP hasn't said this has happened then we assume she's either on both mortgage and deeds OR not on either

@Nocookiesforme and I are clearly attuned, with our simulposts!

My husband bought our house before we got married (we were together), I didn’t contribute anything to the purchase or mortgage, but we split the bills 50:50, and the house was solely in his name, that way if we separated it was less messy.
your daughters boyfriend would be a fool to put her name on the deeds if she hasn’t contributed financially. If she has and it’s just his deposit then they can get a promise to return his deposit in full written up to cover him and she should be on it

I wonder if this was the other way round would
you have the same opinion. It sounds a bit grabby. Your daughter is paying towards bills. No difference if she rented a property and that wouldn’t mean she was entitled to ownership. I would be chuffed she is in a fortunate position with a loving partner that allows her to live with him paying half the bills. It’s his house. Your daughter should start saving for her own deposit and potentially look at doing a buy to let to generate additional income.

Most lenders will insist that whoever is on the mortgage is on the deed. Absolutely boyfriend's gifted deposit should be ring fenced in the event of a split and future house sale... but your daughter should be able to benefit from any profit from the house in the event that it increases in value

Completely agree with OP. My DD bought a house with her bf after his parents gifted him the deposit. She signed a Deed of Trust proving to return all his deposit if they split but, importantly, her name was on the deeds as she was contributing.

If they are getting a mortgage together won’t the bank want both their names on the house too? They want to protect their own interest.

Its not possible. Your daughter won't get an unsecured mortgage.

My advice, your dd and her bf needs to speak to a financial adviser who will explain the legal requirements of a mortgage which will include her name on the property deeds.

They might not even get a mortgage even with £60k deposit. If her salary is including in the affordability then she should have her name on it and a solicitor can ensure the deposit is protected.
We’ve all read stories on mumsnet where unmarried couples have separated and one partner gets nothing despite contributing for 20 years as the house is in the other partner’s name

you need to phrase it to your daughter that she needs to protect herself and not be pressured into thinking it will be ok.

she obviously knows everything as young people do these days. So tread carefully.

As previous posters have said, OP, the question you’re asking isn’t really about choice. Very simply, if they are applying for a mortgage together then she will be a co-owner. If not then the mortgage company won’t just let someone have an owner interest in a property where the lender also has an interest through the mortgage (unless it is a highly unusual and specialised arrangement). So you can relax on that question- if, as you say they, are both applying for a mortgage then the lender will insist that she is a co-owner.

The bigger issue you have is that this isn’t likely to end well. But you can only offer your advice, which you have done, and be there if it doesn’t work out. Sometimes, and I speak from experience, you have to learn these things for yourself.

Hope it all works out okay.