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

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.

And once they speak to the mortgage advisor, they will get a mortgage offer based on what their current salaries are.

You seem to be under the impression that they will have a joint mortgage but in only his name!? Why do you think this?

With your latest update that they are just looking and they haven’t even taken a mortgage out yet, then this is more theoretical.

If both parties are required to get the mortgage needed for the house, both parties should be on the deeds (in fact I’m not sure it would even be possible for them not to be).

Re-reading your OP, in light of the update, where did your DD get the idea that she wouldn’t be on the deeds?

Is that her own assumption/misunderstanding or has this come from her boyfriend?

All money and contractual issues aside, I still think they are too young to be tying themselves down. I’m only speaking from personal experience.

It would also be useful to know if they have even been living together (presumably renting) and for how long so far?

Yes I'm of course worried about their ages, but despite my advice to wait longer, my DD has decided this is what she wants to do.

Agree. It’s exactly what the advise would be if the daughter was buying the house

Bear in mind that if she’s on the deeds she’s jointly responsible which can sometimes not be a good thing. If house prices drop and they split and want to sell, what happens then? Having bought with an ex and then split up, I know how messy it can get, it’s not fun.

But I appreciate your concern. Hopefully the financial contribution will be less than she’d be paying in rent so could be an opportunity for her to save some money for the future - either to contribute to the deposit with BF for next house together or in case she needs it in the future.

Yes exactly this

OP, who is suggesting to you anything different? Why do you imagine she wouldn't have her name on the deeds, if she's jointly mortgaging with him?

Based on op, I would have said that if he is psyong for everything a landlord would normally pay then her name shouldn't be on it. But if her name withh be on the mortage and she will pay laying half of everything including maintenance and mortage then her name should be on it. I'm not against having a partner pay for some rent. But this set up is only to his advantage and she's being screwed.

He should protect his 60k but either he takes full responsibility of the house (outside some bills and rent contributions with appropriate paperwork) or her names go to the deeds. Or they shouldn't move in together.

Is he a good man as far as you can tell, @User197634? If so I wouldn't necessarily worry. In today's world I think it may be/become a better idea for young women to 'lock in' on a good man early on in life. But that's my personal opinion for many complex reasons and a (very big) discussion for another thread!

**I mean I wouldn't worry that she wants to settle down/get serious so early on. NOT that you shouldn't worry about the financial side of things.

So you're basically saying that my DD should pay for half the mortgage and all the bills, (even though bf's money deposit would be protected), and have no say in anything ? Or be thrown out with nothing if they split?

What happens if the house they decide to buy doubles in value? Should she not be entitled to a fair share of the equity if she's been paying half of everything for a few years?

She needs to get her head around the legalities of home ownership

It goes without saying that if she is on the mortgage and therefore jointly owning the property, she will be on the deeds.

No. It’s not her house.

@Dutchhouse14

@Shallwedance2000
@Shedmistress

Just a fyi

It makes no difference to the bank as to who is on the deed as the people on the deed agree the house becomes the banks property if the loan is not repaid and the people not on the deed agree ( no matter what happens) to pay back all the loaned money.

The bank can give out a loan with a promise to be repaid.

The boyfriend is getting the money plus is making a promise to pay the money back and using the money to buy some thing in his sole name which has a resale value.

DD is not getting the money nor buying anything of value but is making a promise to repay all the money back.

Because its a big amount to buy something with a good resale value the bank have added a term to the contract which allows them if they need it to take the asset and sell it to recover the loan.

The BF owns the asset and can agree to the bank doing that.

DD has no ownership rights and is not married to BF so no claim of ownership either so the bank do not need her permission to take and sell the house.

The bank have the right to sell the house and force DD to repaying any money still due in full because that is what she agreed to in the loan contract.

Should she not be entitled to a fair share of the equity if she's been paying half of everything for a few years?

She wouldn’t be getting a share of the equity if she was renting from a landlord, ie paying their mortgage.

Well OP has provided pertinent information that should have been in the OP that the daughter is jointly buying the house and therefore of course it is her house.

Perhaps the thread would have been shortre and more accurate if she provided that rather vital piece of information at the start

Is it even possible to be on the mortgage but not the deeds? Who is saying she wouldn't be, that makes no sense? As PPs have said, set it up as tenants in common with share split by the amount they are putting in.

They need legal and financial advice and separately!

No she should NOT be on a mortgage and not on the deeds at all

there are a couple of different ways to safeguard his deposit which they should do

Ive never known of a mortgage company agree for another adult in the house to be on the deeds if they are not in fact part of the mortgage. It is up to the bank as they have first charge and dont want any one messing up a potential repossession by stringing it out for months.

This ^^

I’m sure the OP didn’t mean to do this on purpose but the way the OP as written has caused a lot of confusion!

OP, you may want to have this thread deleted and start again, making it clear they are only just looking at houses together and haven’t taken a mortgage out yet.

Your daughter is too young at 20 to be entering into anything official, in my opinion. It's fair enough to share bills if she is going to live with him, that would be the same if they were living together in rented rather than his own house. Being put on the deeds means she is liable for any mortgage, repairs and goodness knows what and they are not married. In her position I'd treat it as a house share and pay something towards the bills, food, etc, That way she is still free, there is time enough for commitment responsibilities. It's good to travel light when you're young, that period doesn't last long so encourage her to make the most of it.

I doubt they could get a joint mortgage without both being on the deeds or some arrangement in place

the important thing is that his deposit is ring fenced and the property is registered as tenants in common so they each have a share

a solicitor should give proper advice given they are both so young

but getting on the housing ladder early is a good idea surely even if they don’t stay together

How old is the BF?

Ah, I'm thinking of it being his mortgage and her sharing the payments. As if they are going in on the mortgage application together, surely her name would be on the deeds and the OP's question would not arise?

My house is in my name, mortgage in my name, deposit was mine. My ex did nothing to help. We split all bills equally, this included the mortgage. The way I looked at it was he was paying me rent, which I then used to pay the mortgage. Which was a whole lot less than he would have paid to rent and why should he live rent free? He left, took what belonged to him and that was it.

If they split and she believes she made a big contribution she can fight for money from the house. I dont believe this includes decorating, something like paying half for a new kitchen, she could try get this money back.

This if she is not contributing to the mortgage, then her outgoings should be less. Encourage her to save the excess. If the relationship continues to marriage, she will have a great financial start. If it fails, she has the where-with-all to leave.

She should not be paying anything towards the mortgage or upkeep of the house. Nor should her name be on the mortgage or house deeds. She can pay her share of gas, electric, council tax etc, but that is it.
If she insists on being in the mortgage then she also goes on the house deeds, but with the boyfriend having ‘ringfenced’ his 60k so in event of a split she would not be entitled to this.
personally due to their young age and the high likelihood of them splitting up I would encourage the first option. Under no circumstances should she be responsible for a mortgage without being on the house deeds. A decent mortgage advisor should be explaining this to them both, but she might do well to seek some individual advice. If they get married, have children etc then things can be reconsidered in the future.