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

Thanks for all the replies, I'm trying to read through whilst I'm out.

very daft, if he goes bankrupt for whatever reason she may lose her home whereas if on deeds protects money and has more options not to lose her home entirely

That’s what marriage or civil partnership is for.

if they are not prepared to commit to each other formally in this way, then there is absolutely no basis for her to expect to be on the deeds, unless she is making a financial contribution towards the house purchase that merits some legal recognition and future entitlement to a share of equity if any as a tenant in common.

Also, if she’s on the deeds, she will (rightly) be expected by the mortgage provider to be jointly responsible for the mortgage payments.

If it's a joint mortgage, there is no way on earth that she should not be on the deeds.

I would push that she pays less than him rather than goes on the deeds. Effectively a rent or lodger amount then she can save her own lump sum and buy her own property or buy in with him at a later date.

Yes going on the deeds can protect you financially, but if they break up she is suck with him for as long as it takes for him to buy her out or the property to be sold- and she will still be responsible for the mortgage in that time.

To be honest if they want the benefit of her salary for borrowing for the mortgage then she will have to be on the deeds. If they aren't borrowing against her salary then it is very much his house and she shouldn't be contributing half.

I think it’s unreasonable to expect her to pay half the mortgage, seems fairer to psy half the interest portion of mortgage plus half of all other bills. Saves the difference with a view to it being her deposit should they buy together in future or a deposit for own place if they split.

Yes if they are getting a joint mortgage and she’s paying half the mortgage of course she goes on the deeds and he protects the deposit. Just financial sense, either that and he does it completely solo and she just pays for bills not including the mortgage so she can save for her own financial stability.
I have a friend who did this around about the same age, paid half the mortgage for a decade and was not on the deeds. Needless to say when they split she lost all the money put into the mortgage and he gained from years of joint payment. I’m not saying this will happen to your DD but it’s incredibly naive to do anything else.

If she's going to be paying half the mortgage then yes, she should be on the deeds.

The fact that they aren't married or in a civil partnership shouldn't be an issue IMO.

I bought a house aged 25 with my then bf. We married 8 years later. I did also bring a smaller lump sum, but DH was still on the deeds of that house.

A friend also bought with her boyfriend aged about 24, they split 2 years later, sold the property and they went their separate ways.

I know its different times now, v few can buy in their 20s, but if ops dd is contributing she should be on the deeds, with his 60k noted as his.

How much of the down payment is your daughter paying?

Are they applying for a joint mortgage? If so, then she has to be on the deeds, and she should pay half, no matter what they each earn.
If the mortgage is in his name only he'd be foolish to add her to the deeds in case they split up one day. In this case she should pay rent, which she would have to do if they lived separately anyway.
Either way he needs to ring fence his deposit.
If she you don't like these options then they should consider getting married, which would legally entitle her to some of the equity in the event of separation. If that's too big a commitment just now then they should rent for a while instead.

Then yes, if she’s paying towards mortgage and upkeep her name is on deeds. He ringmarks his deposit to protect it!
If the deeds aren’t in her name she needs to Be telling him that while she’s happy to pay him an amount equal to rent she will not be paying half or towards any upkeep!
She needs to start saving to buy her own place so that she can get on the property ladder, she can then rent that place out if she wishes, but she needs to think of her future.
I f their relationship isn’t at a point where they’re buying together she needs to consider staying living with you and only staying at his as a guest occasionally while
saving up for her own place.

She’s being very naïve and immature about this. She needs to read some of the old threads on here about men just throwing women out and the woman having no legal rights despite paying into and up keeping the man’s house!

Either she should go on deeds and mortgage with his deposit share protected or she should pay bills only excluding mortgage and upkeep to keep it simple.

It doesn’t protect him if she’s contributing to mortgage it’s just a legal headache if they split where she will claim her share based on what part mortgage she paid. If he wants to own 100% he can’t take rent or a contribution for mortgage or repairs - he has to pay 100% of those (and she can then put what she saves from not paying rent or mortgage towards her own asset).

He can’t have the contribution towards a mortgage and not give up a share. They need a proper legal agreement and advice.

Yanbu. By all means he should protect his interests and ring fence his share, eg if deposit is 10% of house value, then 10% of house value is solely his upon sale before the rest is divided.
If they’re equally contributing towards household, however that may look (eg every month he pays £1k mortgage while she pays all household bills that total £1k) then she’d be really silly to not make sure her contribution is legally recognised. They could split up in 5 years and he walks away with 5 years of asset appreciation having had all his household bills paid for him, while she walks away with nothing.

Whenever you read posts on here where a woman is in a relationship, often with kids, and she says she's not on the deeds to the house or hasn't secured her financial prospects but contributes to all bills fairly or even the higher percentage, all the replies are saying how she should of protected her financial prospect.

If she is on the mortgage she is taking the same financial responsibility (with the deposit deducted), the same level of 'loan' out and having her name put against a huge financial commitment. Should he bail or have no income suddenly she would be responsible for paying the mortgage alone, can she do this?

She either stays off the mortgage and effectively pays rent or she goes all in and owes a percentage of the house, with her BF deposit ring fenced.

Advise her to stay off the mortgage, she can do everything the same with him by moving in etc. but she doesn't find herself in an unfair situation.

Get a Deed of Trust ffs . . .

It’s either a joint mortgage or it’s not.
A mortgage company will assess the affordability of the bf being able to cover the payments.
X times your income gets you a mortgage, so if X times his income means he can afford a mortgage, then she will be a tenant.
if however, the mortgage company are also taking X times her income, into consideration then it’s a joint mortgage anyway and she will be on the paperwork.
His parents may have enabled him to buy with a deposit, but can he afford to buy without her financial help?.
I am thinking No!.

“although they've not applied for a mortgage as yet, they are planning to together.”

surely if they’re applying for the mortgage together, based on joint incomes, it has to be a joint purchase?!

Everyone saying about her age and saying she’s too young etc!…..

I was 21 when I bought my first house with exP… we lasted 5 years, in that time the house doubled in value and I walked away with £45k, put down deposit on the house I’ve now been in for 20 years….. had I not been on the mortgage and the deeds I’d have been thrown out and would’ve had to move back in with my parents,

I have no regrets as buying with exP got me on the property ladder if nothing else!

If she’s not on the mortgage / deeds she does NOT ay towards the mortgage. And certainly not towards anything like decorating costs, maintenance, new kitchens etc!….. like I said uptheead she needs to come up with a rent agreement and a reasonable amount and she needs to start saving to either buy herself a little
buy to let to get her own feet into property OR an amount that she can later buy herself into this current house!

Yes, a million pages in, OP decides to clarify the situation and thats the end of the thread really.

My sister did this in her early 20s. Guy she had been with since 18. He had a lot of family money behind him and she didnt understand what she was and wasn't signing.
He cheated . Kicked her out. She got her personal items/clothing. But all the furniture and such that she had brought he wouldn't let her back in to take.
And she had paid most of the monthly bills.
She had to move in with me for a year till she started to get back on her feet .

I think this.

it’s one or the other- she’s on the mortgage and the deeds or she’s not on either and pays less than him to allow her to save some separate money each month to negate the fact any equity built up would be his.
bear in mind it will likely take several years to build up substantial amounts of equity. If they’re serious and last more than 5 yrs the situation can be revised.

Being tied into a mortgage at such a young age is huge and having a side savings pot so she has options in the future to walk away could be the best way to do it.

Presumably your daughter's salary will be used in calculating the size of mortgage? If so, I can't see how the house could just be in his name. If he's just using his own salary for this, then it's different.

Yes if she is on the mortgage and paying half of it , course she should be on the deeds

is the bf saying no to this

Statistically speaking, most of these young relationships end. Let’s say she’s 25 and they break up. He doesn’t have the money to pay her out. What are you going to do? (Clearly she’s not very smart if she’s thinking of doing something like this so she will come to you). Send him the lawyers? This is such a bad idea and however much I want my children to make their own decisions, I’d be making very clear that they can’t come back to me to fix their problems once they arise, if they consider themselves adult enough to burn money.

When people ask how others manage to buy stuff and they can’t, I bet they’ve been this stupid along the line.

the deeds just need to be completed as tenants in common where by her partner owns the first £60k which is his deposit and then the rest is shared equally. Or it could be done as a percentage for example of the house they are buying is £600k he owns 60% she owns 40%. The first option works better for your daughters money the second works better for his money. Google tenants in common v joint tenants.

additionally I don’t think they would get a mortgage for both of them with only one on the deeds. I tried to do this the other way round, my dad be on the deeds but not on the
mortgage but that was a big no no.

they will need a lawyer for the purchase your daughter should speak with them or her own lawyer.

ultimately though if she’s not on the deeds she should be responsible for nor paying the mortgage or repairs, decorating, furniture etc it’s either hers or it’s not!