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

So many people here not understanding that if a property is mortgaged, its up to the mortgage company what other adult householders go on the deeds. You cant just 'put yourself on the deeds'.

Apologies, I hate reading drip feeding threads, and I guess this is what I'm doing.

I'm jumping ahead a little, they've seen one or two houses they like and although they've not applied for a mortgage as yet, they are planning to together.

I do think they're both very young to take this step re buying a house (and I've told my DD this), but this is what they want to do. I totally get that my DD's bf should have his money protected, I'd do the same for my DD if it was her.
But, considering she's planning to get a joint mortgage, I've advised her that if this is the case she should also go on the deeds, obviously protecting her bf's money.

I just don't want her paying towards a mortgage and all the bills when technically she has no say in the house if she isn't on the deeds.

I agree with you Op. He can ring fence his £60k. Then, if the worst happens and they split 10 years from now, your DD will at least benefit from 10 years uplift in value etc.

Oops, missed the update.

She shouldn't be on the mortgage if she's not on the deeds though. Why would you accept a financial liability like a mortgage for a property you don't own? If the purchase is dependent on them getting a joint mortgage then he either needs to buy a cheaper property and finance it all himself or she should be on the deeds and he should ringfence his deposit.

Someone above said she's a lodger. She's not. A lodger would have a tenancy agreement. She's really an "excluded occupier", which is basically a guest. She can be asked to leave without notice. A lodger is supposed to be given notice based on how often the rent is paid - weekly, monthly.

Paying rent is not the same. She’s a lodger! He might spend rent on the mortgage but might not. If she’s definitely on the mortgage loan, that’s different. As a I said earlier, they need a cohabiting agreement. Getting married would confer different rights.

OP this is daft. If she is planning to be on the mortgage application then it will almost certainly be a condition of the mortgage that she is also named as a legal owner of the property. At this point, an hour’s consultation with a solicitor and an hour’s consultation with a mortgage broker will be worth their weight in gold and may well save a huge amount of time and stress in the future. All this needs to be done BEFORE they find a house, not as an afterthought when they are excited and emotionally invested in a property and will just do anything to make it work.

I'm not teaching my DD to be 'codependent' on anyone, but I don't want her to be in a vulnerable position of paying half the mortgage and bills on a house and having nothing to show for it.

If the relationship goes wrong a mortgage is potentially more difficult to extract yourself from than a divorce.

your daughter is still quite young. Maybe she pays some rent to live there and share of the bills and saves her own money. They can always look at changing the ownership at a later date when the relationship is settled.

Ok so it's theoretical at this stage.

In that case they need to both understand that they should go through the proper channels to get everything set up to protect each side's interests.

If they decide to have a baby make sure they get married first!**

**I know you can't actually ensure they do that...but definitely advise your DD.

Will a mortgage company even allow someone on the mortgage if they aren't on the deeds? They are an obvious risk for non payment, as why should they care if the house is repossessed?

The only situation where I have seen this allowed by the mortgage company, it was parents acting as guarantor for their children which is obviously different.

Can you actually be on a mortgage without being on the deeds? I thought the house protected the mortgage company in the event of default. Where’s the protection if she is not on the deeds?
I’m sure someone more knowledgeable will be along.

She’s not buying a house, he is. I would be absolutely furious if my 20 year old son told me he was adding his girlfriend of 2 years to the deeds! There is no way I would advise him to do that. Why don’t you give her some money to put towards the deposit? I get you don’t want her paying towards the mortgage payments but it would be no different if she was renting.

I would feel differently if they were older and planning to spend their lives together, or if they have children, but at 20? No way.

1. he should protect his money in writing - legal contract
2. if her salary is contributing to the ability to get the mortgage she should be on the deeds
3. they need to agree on a split upfront given the 2 factors above and have it contractually agreed
4. is she paying rent or a mortgage eg) if 2 doesn't apply I would argue she is paying him rent.
5. if they both go on deeds they should also have a will so his money is protected in that way too.

The person without the deposit is benefitting massively from the person with, if they share the mortgage. Lower mortgage rate, bigger house than they could afford on their own. I'm not sure this is reflected in just ringfencing the deposit.
obviously if it turns into a long term relationship this won't matter anymore.

She is going to be paying the mortgage, so absolutely, she should be on the deeds.
Tenancy in common is the way, they can specify how much each of them is paying and ringfence his deposit.
Otherwise she should only pay for half the bills, or perhaps they should draw up a lodger agreement.

You’re absolutely right, OP. If she’s paying half the mortgage, she absolutely should be on the deeds. Also as PPs have said, it may be a requirement for the mortgage in any case because the house is the mortgage company’s security.

If she’s not on the deeds, she’s just paying for her boyfriend to have a house. His contribution can be ring-fenced so that he gets his £60k back if they split and have to sell the house.

If she doesn’t understand this, then she is not ready to take on this responsibility. If the boyfriend is resisting having her on the deeds, then it is unsafe for her to take this step with him.

So based on your latest update OP, they haven’t actually applied for a mortgage yet? I think that’s why you’re getting such mixed responses, as this wasn’t clear.

If this is the case, then it’s actually quite a simple thing to do, and it’s what I did with my then partner, now husband. We wanted to purchase a house together, but I had significant savings for a deposit which he didn’t have.

We applied for a joint mortgage, which we were granted. The house was always going to be in both names, with mortgage and bills paid 50/50 between us. I then got a declaration of trust to protect my deposit money. It cost £50 to do, and meant that in the event of a split or a house sale, all my deposit money would come back to me, and then the rest of the house sale would be split 50/50 between us. He was more than happy to agree to this, and it was really straightforward to arrange.

There’s absolutely no need for your DD to be seen as a lodger or a tenant, not if they’re getting a joint mortgage and paying equally into the mortgage and bills. The BF just needs to get a declaration of trust to protect his deposit money.

Sure but that’s just part of being in a relationship, isn’t it? The person with the deposit isn’t giving anything up to have that mutual benefit (lower interest rates etc), it’s just a fortunate by-product of them having come into money. If the deposit is ring fenced properly (I.e by way of % ownership not fixed amount) then the deposit holder also benefits from having two incomes for the mortgage and the possibility of buying a bigger house than they could afford alone.

@User197634 if paying half mortgage then definitely she goes on the deeds. I am not a lawyer, nor advising, but perhaps they can have a trust deed/protect his extra deposit as necessary. Had similar with someone where he had bigger salary but I had bigger deposit, so we wanted to end up at 50:50 but effectively I paid less toward the mortgage and our documents reflected that position.

If BF won’t agree that’s a huge red flag.

But, considering she's planning to get a joint mortgage, I've advised her that if this is the case she should also go on the deeds,

It's you that seems to be confused here.

If they are getting a joint mortgage, she will obviously be on it. If she's on the mortgage, she will be on the deeds.

I don't quite understand

If she’s only going to be paying towards utilities/council tax and not paying anything towards mortgage or rent or upgrades to the house then fair enough. If she’s going to be paying towards the house at all (new boiler, decorating, roof repairs, etc) then yes she should be on the deeds and they should hold the house as tenants in common with the deposit percentage ring fenced for her bf.

If it is a serious relationship, they should get the mortgage together but legally protect his deposit in the event of splitting up. And both pay towards the mortgage and bills.

Yes I know the difference, thank you.

Doesn’t make the tone of the post any less funny.

That’s not quite true, is it? The person with the deposit will be able to get a much bigger mortgage than their salary alone would support.

If it’s a joint mortgage I believe the property is automatically registered in both names.