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

I couldn't have said that better myself!

Good job you had the sense to see his true intentions, what a cheeky F he was expecting you to pay half for everything on his house, with you having nothing to show for it.

There's been a few arseholes rude posters on this thread, but as the saying goes, it says more about them.

I feel like MN is just becoming a forum for people with no social skills or manners. It’s starting to really put me off the site, if I’m honest.

Literally all I did was quote you, so the conclusion you've reached based on that speaks more to your thinking than mine.

If you are on the mortgage and on the deeds then you are a co owner and legally recognised, don't forget that friends and business partners etc buy homes together! I legally part own my house regardless of marriage and that's the point I'm making, she can be on the deeds without needing a wedding.

Who suggested she must to get married if she was on the deed?

People rightly pointed out if she was not on the deed but paying for the house she walks away with nothing. So a solution was to marry to protect her investment.

As I pointed out at the beginning if he is saying she should not on the deed but paying into the house it shows he thinking long term with a commitment to a house but he is not seeing her beside him in the house.🚩

Sorry if someone else has said this but it would be highly unusual for a mortgage company to accept only one person on the deeds on a joint mortgage. If it’s a joint mortgage, the usual thing is tenants in common and a deed of trust to protect his deposit.

I honestly think you’re best ignoring them and not giving them the attention they clearly don’t get from anyone/where else

Feel free to look back through the earlier posts on this thread to see comments from other people that suggested she can't be on the deeds unless she's married.

This. And obviously with his 60K deposit ring fenced.

Seems a shame they are doing it so young, yes, but sounds like they’re determined and I hope it works out for them.

Ok sorry missed these type of comments.
It is very foolish to think that as its not just couples who buy property, family and friends buy property together too.

I would leave her name off. There are lots of first time buyer incentives that she wouldn't be eligible for if they split and she wanted to buy a place herself down the line when she had her own equity so it would actually be better for her given it's quite a new relationship. If she is 100% sure about the relationship then they just need to get it written up properly to protect the boyfriend's deposit and agree what happens if things did go bad.

Yes they do

I am on deeds to our house but mortgage in partners name only.

thats not what the post is about though - its about having your name on the mortgage but not on the deeds - why would you continue to pay the mortgage if your name isn't on the deeds and you split up, which would be the concern of the lender

Interesting

What is his ownership %
What it the Mortgage %
Has he provided additional security for the loan with other assets?

If she’s not contributing to the deposit or the mortgage or not putting anything money in if the house is being bought outright then she should not go on the deeds. If she’s living in his house she should be contributing to bills and food in lieu of rent. She’s a lodger not a joint owner.

I think a couple of posts have missed the point I was trying to make. Clearly she’s not on the deed or the mortgage… but… he could expect her to transfer money to him intended for the mortgage which he then pays towards it. Honestly though, just sounds like she’s paying all of the other bills directly freeing him up to concentrate on paying his property. It’s a sorry situation with no benefit for her.

I think if her name is on the mortgage deeds at the bank, her name should be on the title deeds. If she is baring the risk, she should get the reward (of building up equity). If she isn’t on the mortgage, and he bf hasn’t used her income to increase his mortgage size, she should view it as paying rent. This will hopefully be cheaper than market rate and the difference could be used to save for a deposit? Obviously she would then not contribute to any repairs or upgrades!