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

edited - but what a huge drip feed from the original post

Tricky! If she is contributing to the mortgage then yes. If she’s just paying bills etc then no. This is more about him protecting his assets as at this moment she has none.

She needs to be on the deeds if paying half the mortgage. Bf can protect his money still. I’d advise her not to go ahead if she’s not on the deeds.

Tricky one. My son is 21 and has £50K+ saved towards a house deposit (mainly from us), which we are in a position to add to when he is ready to buy. At the moment we all think it is too much of a tie, so he is renting with his girlfriend (he pays a higher % of the rent and bills as he earns more).
She has no money saved.

We are in a position to add a substantial amount to the money he already has (he does not know this). We simply wouldn't do this if he was buying with someone who put down zero deposit or very little, whether the money was ring-fenced or not. Well definitely at such a young age anyway. We both (me and DH) bought with people in our twenties and had 6-8 year relationships that didn't make it to 30...

However, we also would definitely not advise our son to have his girlfriend pay half the mortgage and bills either! Our suggestion would be that he pays all the mortgage (and we help if needed) and all the house maintenance and she pays a higher percentage of the bills but also has the chance to properly start saving her own money as a result.

She’d be paying rent anyway though if she lived in any shared accommodation. I think in this situation it’s best if she contributes but isn’t tied up in it.

Times change.

I was married at 19 (40 years ago) and both of us on the mortgage. We split 7 years later, but the house prices had shot up, so I walked away with far more in my share of the equity than I would have saved in the meantime.

If you daughter wants to buy a property with her boyfriend that's up to her, she is an adult, you can't stop her. And if she is going to be on the mortgage application then she needs to be on the deeds and have a fair share of any equity (after the deposit deduction) should they decide to part in the future.

Absolutely agree with you, she is on the mortgage so should be on the deeds. Through the solicitor his money can be protected as his, but the contribution to the mortgage, upkeep and bills should be recognised. Surely the mortgage company would expect this? It’s quite straightforward to keep his deposit legally safe through legal when purchasing. I’d be doing the same for my daughter.

Your DD's bf should protect his £60,000 deposit but if your daughter has going to pay half the mortgage, she should be on the deeds. Otherwise, she is contributing to an asset that she doesn't and will never own. I would advise her not to move in with him.

The bf can only buy this particular house with his gf’s income as it’s going to be a joint mortgage. Yes he should get to keep his deposit and that can be ring fenced, but why should this young lady have no rights to the home she is paying half of the mortgage for. She is young and naive, i’d be having a very serious chat with her, and him.

When we went to get a mortgage on a new house two years ago the mortgage was solely in my husbands name, as I started freelancing and needed two years worth of accounts. I could not even be add my name as it would jeopardise the mortgage. Both our solicitor and mortgage advise contacted me separately to make sure I was ok about this. You could cause problems for them pushing her to have her name on the deeds.

make sure when she transfers money she titles the payment ‘mortgage and bills’ so then there is proof she has contributed to the house.

a friend moved into a house that her partner owned and previously lived with his ex in. When he sold the house he had to give the ex some money because she had proof of contributing to the house.

hope that all helps

I'd advise them both to get proper legal advice. I'm not an expert, but I'd think his £60k represents the percentage of the house value that would be his outright if they split and he would also get 50% of the remaining equity (presuming they're each paying half the mortgage every month). If this is correct (sounds logical and fair to me), then it would need to be legally agreed in writing. Hope that makes sense, bit woolly this morning.

Deed of trust to safeguard his deposit and then half the equity after deposit if she's paying half the bills and mortgage. They can buy as tennant's in common.
This is really important to protect both of their future interests.
She needs to be on the deeds if she's on the mortgage.

As others have said his deposit should be ringfenced so on sale he gets that back plus some interest first, then remaining equity split 50:50. If not she shouldn't pay anything towards mortgage at all. Instead she ought to save for her own place.

Agreed, this is what DH and I did as, at the time, we were not married and the deposit was all mine.

I believe now we are married this can supersede the declaration of trust, but in the event of a split I am confident he would return my original deposit anyway so it’s a non-issue

But definitely agree if the above is not agreed to, no joint mortgage. It wouldn’t be fair to be financially linked to this person and responsible for the house with zero ownership at all

If she is going to be “on” the mortgage, then she should be on the deeds of the house. It’s quite an expensive and complicated process to change that assumption, anyway. In the event that he defaults on the mortgage, or they split up, she would be equally liable for the payments, but with none of the security of the house behind her.

Can you afford to give your dd a deposit ? When a friend was in this situation in her early twenties the parents agreed between them to each give the same amount to split the deposit between them both.
As she will be paying half the mortgage and half the upkeep costs, then they need to get legal advice as to how to protect the financial investment of both parties, and to get that drawn up, or he could just turf her out in the future.

Is she on the mortgage? Is she contributing a deposit? If yes and yes, she must go on the deeds.

If not, she would absolutely be better off staying well out of this and preserving her situation as being a lodger of sorts. It would be like a girlfriend moving in with a boyfriend who already has a tenancy.

She would be wise to preserve her status as a first time buyer for when she actually properly buys a property of her own. The boyfriend needs to make sure he can afford the mortgage independently or that he can take in a lodger (and is willing to) if/when the relationship goes south.

Having seen relationships break down when a house was jointly purchased prematurely, I would absolutely not want this for my dd. BIL and his ex-partner bought a house and then split 2 years later. They couldn’t afford to sell or they would lose money. They were literally stuck living together or alternately, sofa surfing while the other lived in the house with a lodger for 4 years! It was stressful as hell and BIL just about had a breakdown. It became really painful because the financial entanglement meant they couldn’t make a clean break.

No way would I have wanted to be stuck with my idiot boyfriend from when I was 20 because of a house purchase. Let him buy his house. They can share bills with a small amount contributed to housing costs by dd, and they will still both be better off financially than if they were private renting individually.

if they get a joint mortgage, she’ll have to go on the deeds or, I’m not sure this is even possible with a joint mortgage, waive her rights to a stake in the house.

I’m not on our deeds or mortgage (long story) and had to complete a form waiving my rights to a stake in our house or the bank wouldn’t release the mortgage. People contributing without being on the deeds can impact on them being able to repossess so they won’t take the risk.

Is your daughter bringing any savings to this?

Otherwise she’s getting a pretty good deal out of this. When they split she will make him sell or buy her out and she’ll walk away with possibly tens of thousands of pounded from bringing nothing to the deposit of the purchase.

I think her boyfriend should be buying the house solo, your daughter not going on the mortgage and only contributing to the bills and food instead and in a few years if they’re still together they can look into her going on the deeds. (With his deposit ring fenced)

HE is in the position to purchase a house your daughter is not.

I think it would be fair to go halves on bills, but not the mortgage (boyfriend pays the full mortgage plus half the bills). If she ends up pregnant then she’s very vulnerable as she has no claim on the house but has paid towards the mortgage.

Op my dd is also moving in with her boyfriend and he’s being given money for a deposit. A trust fund is taking out a mortgage for the rest obviously to protect his interests. I completely agree with this but the problem starts when dd takes time out to raise BOTH of their children. If they divorce she will be on the streets so it’s a conversation I will have to have with her.

If she's on the mortgage as joint tenant, the bank loan is in both their names which means, her daughter gets also a loan debt for the property she's responsible for. It's not a complicated process.

The real issue is that this thread doesn't make any sense if the OP's DD and her B/F are looking for a joint tenancy loan.

If she is paying half the mortgage then yes, she absolutely needs to be on the deeds, with his deposit ring fenced with a deed of trust. If she’s not on the deeds, she just pays half the bills.

If the mortgage is in both names then yes she needs to go and the deeds - the mortgage offer should reflect the legally registered ownership. If he’s trying to get a joint mortgage with sole registered ownership I doubt they’ll find a solicitor to act for them.

You are absolutely right that she should be a joint owner, tenants in common, with a declaration of trust protecting his contribution, and then they each own the rest 50-50.

They should talk to mortgage brokers now to find out what he could borrow by himself and what they could borrow jointly.

It might be that even with £60k deposit he couldn't afford it without her going on the mortgage, anyway.