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

Thank you,

I imagine her bf will need my DD's income too, but I don't think he is using her at all. I'm just trying to ensure whatever they choose to do they're both understanding of all the potential pitfalls, and have the best advice going forward.

I'll make sure my DD also gets proper legal advice if she stays determined to make this commitment.

Welcome to 2025, my partner and aren't married and have had a mortgage together for about 20 years! Marriage is a religious ritual, it has no bearing on mortgages or property deeds!

With good credit a 60k unsecured loan for a car etc is possible.

100% loan products are available in the UK.

But yep in legal contract terms the lender who made a secured deposit loan would have first dibs on the sales proceeds as that would be the first contract to be signed by the borrower.

Forget marriage, it's a religious ritual and many people don't get married so should none of these people being allowed to buy houses or be ok deeds etc? My partner and I are not married and have had mortgage together for at least 20 years.

Its not just a religious ritual if recognised by the State.

It is a contract agreeing that if the relationship is disolved both will pool their personal assets and allow the Courts to divide them after reviewing any debts owed by each person.

For all those talking about marriage, this is modern day times where less couples are married and it's absolutely no issue for getting a mortgage or on deeds! No such discriminatory law exists!

As for those telling the OP that the DD should by her own place, what are the practicalities of that of they are already living together or wanting to! She's not going to get much of a house at this stage, it's likely to need a bit of modernising to keep it affordable and she may not even spend a night in it? No point buying a house just to have it sat empty, not to mention the nightmare it would be if squatters found it and took root.

You don't have to be married to have a mortgage and be on deeds and nobody should force young couples into marriage just for that purpose.

Of course not, but it is very important that both understand the legal and financial situation.

It's not certain OP- I first started going out with my BF at 17, we moved in together at 20 and we are still together (we are 63).

You are missing the point.

Marraige is also a legal contract which has specific legal rights attached ( eg matrimonial home)

If not married and not on the deed DD has no claim to the property if she is gifting BF money each month in a domestic agreement. If there is not intent to create a legal contract its a gift.

If married his deposit is up for grabs along with 100% ownership of the house home.

If married the bank have a legal obligation to recognise that both parties to the first contract are in reality party to the banks contract too.

So while the couple should not be forced into any contract they should be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of both contract

If she’s paying half of everything, she should absolutely be on the deeds.

They (parents) can ring fence the deposit etc.

When I was very young 18/19, my boyfriend at the time wanted me to pay half the bills on HIS potential new property without being on the deeds.

I knew even at that age not to be so stupid.

"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."

Ermmm... Okay, sure.

I'm not married either after 22 years! But lots of people do. We have a tenancy in common 50/50.

OP you are absolutely right to be suggesting legal advice and that she should be on the deeds from the sound of it. If he buys a house without her help at all (ie he does not need her to get a mortgage or pay the bills) and she is just moving into his fully owned house and paying a contribution then she is effectively a housemate and should have no claim to it. However if she is going to be on the mortgage (ie she is now liable for the debt equally) and he cannot buy the house without her then she should absolutely be on the deeds. The deposit can be ring fenced (with as someone else suggested an agreement that the deposit value increases inline with the increased value of the house) but she would be very foolish to make herself liable for the debt with no claim on the asset. His response to this should give her food for thought on where their relationship is and she can decide from there what that means to her. But simply if she is on the mortgage she needs to be on the deeds. If she’s not then I would say he has the right to say no.

100% this @User197634

Christ! Take your own advice and buggar off. No one is interested in your bickering! Least of all the OP

Yes the ‘love’ was unnecessarily patronising
but there are loads of us that are irritated by such errors.
I blame English teachers who didn’t correct spelling and grammar, so as not to stifle ‘creativity’. That was lazy of them, not providing the proper tools. More of the red pen was needed. They weren’t called grammar schools for nothing.

If she is paying half of the mortgage then yes, half the house is hers and yes her name goes on the deeds!
He should protect his deposit

If her names going on the mortgage her name goes on the deeds simple . He needs to have something written up to protect his lump sum going in . If she’s not going on the mortgage she’s a lodger and won’t go on the deeds

My partner and I bought our house 11 years ago. He put more deposit in than me, so it is written into the contract that the split of the house is 60/40.

he also earns (a lot) more than me, so pays a little more into the joint account every month towards bills.

So if she is going ahead with this, then that’s what they should do.

If she’s paying the mortgage indeed if she is one of the mortgage applicants,
The dates will have to go on both names however should they split out? It would be unfair for the boyfriend who contributing a deposit to lose his right to the deposit. A solicitor will draw this up in a document form to say that he has that interest in the property,
if she’s not going to be one of the mortgage applicants, she shouldn’t be paying half the mortgage or anything towards Repairs et cetera they’ll need another document basically she’s going to be his lodger and she shouldn’t be contributing anything other than a rental amount every month that covers bills council tax water , et cetera
if she contributes her wages to the upkeep in the repair of the house all these things that’s completely different matter if she’s paying half the mortgage payments or towards it that will count as her showing an interest in the property legally they really need to see a solicitor, if she’s not going to be a mortgage applicant I really can’t see why anybody would put her name on the deeds unfair, they need to get legal advice

Wow, rude, much?

Oh I see what you're getting at. You're implying that I'm encouraging my DD to 'fleece' her bf and stitch him up so she's quids in by insisting she goes on the deeds.

How dare you, you're so way off the mark it's unbelievable and spiteful of you.