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

It would be easier if he paid all the mortgage and bills then separately charged your daughter rent/bills like any other tenant.
Assuming you don’t think she should live rent free or as a freeloader.
If he wanted to put her on the mortgage he would.
They’re young, in love but don’t see why his good fortune should benefit your daughter at this stage.
The risk is on him too as describing it as paying the mortgage could give rise to a beneficial interest. Plus if it was the other way round, you giving your daughter £60k, to secure her housing future, I’m sure you wouldn’t want her BF on the deeds… even ring fencing that contribution costs a fortune to unravel finances.
Leave it be, and just think of it like her paying rent. She has the option to save and buy her own place if she wants to.

Often mortgages are less than rent

I agree if not on the deeds she should pay rent to him but that may actually be more than half the mortgage.

The boyfriend should absolutely get the the solicitor to draft an agreement that all parties sign prior to the house purchase being completed that ring fences the £60k he’s putting in

if I was the boyfriend I would want a percentage of the house ring fenced. So if the house is worth £240k id want 25% of the house ring fenced

A joint mortgage (for borrowing power) and sole proprietor set up is not common and I doubt a mortgage company would go for it in this context. Too high risk. So I think we have got to assume he has the salary to support the borrowing.

If she is named on the mortgage deed she needs to have legal title ownership with a trust deed drawn up to protect his deposit interest.

YANBU, we bought our first place together with a deposit from my side of the family, and split it 70% to me, 30% to DH with a Deed in Trust, it was very little trouble to sort, was just agreed with the solicitor at a meeting. I offered DH more of a share in our current place, but he said to keep it 70/30 as the deposit money was still from me.

Because this is a decision they have made. Im going to assume both will be working and not her staying home being a wife.
My ex contributed nothing to my house. He didn't even pay for furniture. He made the decision to not save anything to help. When he left he took what he owned which was literally just clothes. Why shouldn't he have paid rent?

They should be married or if she pays both rent and bills she should be on the deeds and this called mortgage not rent. Don't let her paying him any money and him having all rights to it. It's bonkers and she's be used

Your dripfeeds updates change things obviously.

If she’s going on the mortgage then of course she needs to go on the deeds with a ring fenced deposit and she’s an idiot if she doesn’t see the need.

Depends, is she involved in the mortgage? Is she paying towards it? Stamp duty, furniture etc Or is she just living with him and chipping in towards bills? If it's the latter and they're not married, then she shouldn't be added to the deeds. If he's asking for her half of the mortgage then she should. It depends really.

This could well be a moot point anyway. Unless you live in a very cheap area, a £60,000 deposit will still require a hefty mortgage. As 20 and 22 year olds, I can’t imagine their pay is much bigger than £25,000 each, so they may not even be approved for a mortgage.

I don't understand how the mortgage will be in joint names without your daughter being on the deed. A joint mortgage means a loan with both on the contract as liable for repayments. It automatically means both names on the deed.

ArkaParka
Karatema
Almostwelsh
BIossomtoes
howshouldibehave
everythingthelighttouches
WaxyMcWaxerson
soupyspoon
Tiredofallthis101

There is no obligation to own the asset when making a promise to repay the loan.

So the BF can own the property and hold it in his sole name

If she is on the deed she the bank said she must be a party to the mortgage as the bank benefit from being able to take and sell the house as a single unit to recover any money owed

ripon432
I doubt they could get a joint mortgage without both being on the deeds

Can happen with this:

or some arrangement in place

LBFseBrom
Being put on the deeds means she is liable :
nothing except state taxes

for any mortgage, :
Nope

repairs
Nope not unless court ordered

and goodness knows what :
Nope not unless court ordered

An owner can choose to let it rot back into the ground

Sorry you're still not being clear at all!

Is she actually named on the mortgage application and has her income and circumstances been assessed by the lender???

Saying that "she will be paying half the mortgage and bills" doesn't make that clear. She could simply be giving him money each month for rent and household costs.

If she was named on the mortgage application then the lender will naturally include her on the deeds!

It sounds more probable that they don't even know of her existence and she's not on their application. Therefore legally she has no liability for the mortgage so WILL NOT be paying half of it.

I don't think you really have a grasp of what is happening at all OP

Correct, they're getting a joint mortgage, complete waste of time as a thread.

I havent read the whole thread, but me and hubby had this when we bought our first house as bf and gf. When we bought our first house he had about 50k and i had about 30k, the solicitor went through what we were putting in and if we should be "tenants in common" or something or the other else. We could do a 50/50 split, or anything such else. Me and (now hubby) discussed and did 50/50 split and i actually borrowed a teeny bit separately from family and he didnt put all his money in, as I wanted the 50/50 split to feel fair. He didn't mind what we did. Our next house was much easier as everything was joint by then. The solicitor explained that its a really common situation as its unusual 2 people have exactly the same amount of money when buying their first place.

Paying bills does NOT make a house yours unless that bill is the mortgage. Even if you add to the deposit but don't pay mortgage you are more of an investor that a 'owner' as you have a small percentage of money that can be bought out (usually a fairly small chunk).

It doesn't matter where you live you HAVE to pay your own bills regardless and it does not make a property yours. If she lives in his house she will be lucky that hes unlikely to charge her rent so she gets housing to live in for free and half bills.

Even if he did charge her rent though, still not her house. I rented for nearly 15 years, paid all of the bills and paid off the owners full mortgage but it didn't make it my house.

How entitled can you be to think that you should just get the house too though? especially as just a GF at 20 years old, I don't want to be a downer and know it can work as I have been with my DH is 18 but I seem to be the odd one out as honestly 95% of people I knew who where with someone at 20 are not still with that person now at 40.

I would honestly break up if a guy asserted himself on INSISTING on this, I didn't even put my DH on the deeds to MY house.

It also will cost him more as there has to be double checks on everything (which need paying for and take longer) and her credit or money could effect him.

Why would you say that, 3x 50k plus the deposit means a potential purchase price of 210k, quite enough to either buy a house in some places or a nice flat in many others.

You think the house doubles in value in a few years? Have you followed what’s happening with house prices?
you come across entitled and greedy, his inheritance has nothing to do with you and your DD is an adult.

No Not the deed because that gives the person (child or adult) a right to a share in the asset

But the adult can agree to repay the loan

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.

Correct
In such a scenario (2 mortgage applicants and only one owner on deeds) the second applicant MUST receive independent legal advice from a separate solicitor otherwise the arrangement does not stand up in court.
Most lenders would not entertain it in the first place except maybe to add a parent on the mortgage to support income. Almost never would they allow a romantic partner as it could be construed as abuse of power.

My guess is that she's not on the mortgage but the boyfriend had made her think she is.
She's likely just signed an occupier consent form to confirm to the lender that she will move out of bf doesn't pay the mortgage and they need to repossess.

She's not on the mortgage

This.

She should make it clear to him "I'm not paying the mortgage as I want you to feel secure that I'm not after your assets" and state she wants to buy her own property if he's not comfortable sharing yet. They are young after all.

They split the bills 50/50.

Not read the whole thread, but the most sensible course of action is to ring fence the boyfriends percentage in the property - eg if the property is worth £240k (eg £60k is 25%) he would own 25% and split the rest equally. So if it comes to sell for £300k in a few years he’d get his £75k back plus half of the rest. This protects your daughter in case of property value loss as well.

As a side note I had friends who got their house early (19 - good 5 years before their peers) and it was utterly miserable. Tied to bills and responsibility when everyone else could rent anywhere or live subsidised at parents. They ended up going off the rails at 28 because they’d never experienced a fun early 20s and split. One to consider

If he wants a lodger he should get one. The difference is the emotional involvement. A lodger will move on more easily if the arrangement is no longer beneficial to them. A lodger isn't required to pay towards things like a boiler breakdown.

She should pay her share of utilities, food etc, but not mortgage or house renovations.

I think she's too young to be in this situation.
Frankly she'd be better off just living with friends in a flatshare. It's good her BF is getting a house off his parents, and I'm sure she can sleep over.

But moving in, trying to get on the deeds etc. she's barely out of her teens! It's all too much too soon and will entangle her too much into his life.