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

Yes, 100% she should have her name on the deeds or a contract which gives her a % of the profits.

She’s only 20. Chances are this won’t be a forever relationship. If I was bf mum I’d be reluctant to give a big sum of money if your dd had her name added to the deeds. Could your dd get a mortgage herself on a little one bed terraced and just rent it out? At least she would then have the security of knowing she has her own place should they split.

Bills are totally different to mortgage
Gas electric are consumables not investments so she should pay her way and pay 1/2 of these

if she’s paying to the mortgage then that’s a different matter he needs to ring fence his deposit

tbh at 20 with a big deposit the guys a complete fool if he just puts her name on it

the thing is you look after your own if it was DD with big deposit you’d hear the screams from space keep it in her name protect herself and he pays her rent or he’s a cock lodger

Legally if she is paying off some of the principal of the mortgage ie not just interest, then she would be entitled to recoup that money and also have a shout at any price gain of the property. However if the house price fell, would she be happy to pony over money to cover the negative equity if they split?

Is the mortgage in both their names and is she contributing? If so, I think she should be in the deeds but he rightly ring fences his deposit.

No way would i pay a mortgage without my name going on the deeds,ring fence his deposit if necessary but not for a pension would I be on a mortgage that didn't have my name on the deeds.

If she’s contributing 50/50 to mortgage and bills then I think she needs some legal rights over the house - otherwise she’s renting her share and he’s her landlord. As others have suggested, enabling him to ring fence his initial payment proportionately seems a fair way to proceed.

If taking out a mortgage and it's only in the boyfriend's name, the title deed can only be in his name, regardkess if the DD pay towards the deposit. This did apply in 1998, as this had happened to me, but I don't know if this still apply nowdays.

Thankfully posters like her (or him) are few and far between

I don't think this is a good idea because she's only twenty and not married. I don't think it would be wise of her to mix up her business with him as if she is an older, married person.

At their ages, it's as likely these two will split up as not, and then she'll be stuck sorting out a complicated, unnecessary mess with him.

And she could as easily lose money as gain money, especially if they aren't together for very long before splitting up. And/or she might have to continue paying her share of the mortgage for a long time while it's for sale or while the un-sorting mess is tied up in court.

Instead, I'd advise that she should only pay what she'd otherwise likely pay in a roommate rental situation, even if that is less than half his mortgage payment, and let it be his house. If they ever get married, which would hopefully be at least a couple of years into the future, then her name could be added.

Thanks all, I've been given some good advice on here, and most people are saying the same thing, which is good.

Yes both taking a loan.

She can take on the loan obligations acting as a guarantor and not be on the deed.

DD is then 100% liable for all the loan (borrowing the full amount ) and gifting cash to BF and buying nothing.

The bank have no duty of care to make sure she is on the deed.

Can you point out what law or regulation obliges DD to get legal advice to take out a loan for cash?

BF is buying land and no matter how it is financed can only carry out that transaction by employing a conveyancer or a solicitor.

The bank want her to get legal advice because the first legal argument she would use in court would be a unilateral mistake of contract. She believed she was also buying the house but the bank and BF knew she was not.

If DD and BF ask for a loan to be set up that way most lender will have that product.

But as you said DD would be very foolish to agree.

If shecus not on the deeds. Then he pays 100% of mortgage. Then she pays 50% of other bills eg electric/gas etc.

Or they buy together and he has a prenup to protect his down payment. These are the sensible choices. He cannot expect her to pay half of everything and receive no revenue.

To be fair, if you've actually read my posts you would know that my DD hasn't applied for a mortgage as yet, so there's nothing she would've signed or proposing to sign at the moment.
So you're not actually needing to wait for me to clarify anything.

I have to say I really don't get all the posts saying that if the girl's name isn't on anything, she should only pay half the bills and get FREE rent. No, she should pay half the bills and a reasonable amount of RENT, the same as she'd pay if she lived anywhere else. Just as she shouldn't take responsibility for upkeep etc. on a house she has no financial stake in, he shouldn't have to give her a largely free ride, either.

To be honest, most 20-year-olds in most places don't even make enough to be allowed on mortgage/deed anyway.

If she is going to be paying half the mortgage she should go on the deeds but with something drawn up to say he paid x amount as deposit.

Not so simple. He could still expect her to pay towards the mortgage. Honestly, I think she should walk away from the whole endeavour as it sounds like she will be spending out and he will be reaping the benefits.

She's sharing the bills not buying the house with him. It's his money buying the house. So her name doesn't need to be on the deeds. Sharing bills is fair as she's running up the water bills, electricity ,gas, phone bills, food shopping. That's all .

Exactly. If it is a joint mortgage it should be a joint purchase with both on the deeds. His deposit ring fenced. But preferably daughter should be kept off the mortgage and pay rent to bf. His parents could be guarantors if he needs more than he can borrow on his own for a mortgage.

There is no way I would be encouraging my daughter to shackle herself to a mortgage at age 20. At that age they need to be free to move relatively easily should a job opportunity or some such (a breakup?) require it.

Its a domestic agreement not a business agreement.

We see that financial abuse is where one person in the relationship gains at the expense of the other.

Rent is normally calculated to cover the loan and upkeep and profit.

He gets sex and companionship and money for house.

So the challange is to work out what is fair to her and is fair to him

If he’s paying the deposit, but they’re both sharing all the other costs including mortgage, the fair thing would be to buy jointly as tenants in common (rather than joint tenants) and draw up a deed of trust which says he gets his deposit back in the event of a sale (say he puts down 20%, you take the sale price, he gets 20% of that, then the remaining mortgage and costs are paid, then they split the remainder equally). That way the extra he’s contributed appreciates in line with the property value but he doesn’t earn off her payments while she doesn’t. If she’s paying half the mortgage and happy to call it “rent”, then ok, but I wouldn’t sign up to that deal. (ex-mortgage broker/financial adviser, lawyer!).

Depends what is meant by the bills- if you mean , power, water council tax and internet it is fair she is not on the deeds- if on the other hand she is paying half of the mortgage that's different, and she needs to be on the deeds- but the BF's parents may not be happy if you have a 50/50 split on the deeds but they paid down a large chunk of the cost.

If she has nothing/significant to put to the deposit I would say he should apply for the mortgage alone and she could live in the house and other than the mortgage (which would be on him because it’s his house) bills are split 50/50 x

Her name needs to be on the deeds, and his deposit needs to be protected. Simple as.

If he doesn't want her name on the deeds, she can live there, and pay half of the bills excluding those tied with house ownership (i.e. mortgage, home insurance, any upkeep on the property).

In the meantime, she can save up and make her own investments.

Tricky , depending on the type of mortgage if they default on it she could possibly get chased for all of it , I know from bitter experience.