help! tenants in common or joint tenants?

[nicknamegame]

Myself and my DP are about to buy our first home together. He has provided the deposit. We will both be paying towards the mortgage although he will pay a lot more than me. Both our names will be on it. I have a child (not his) and we are stuck on the above question. When completing forms for conveyancing they have asked us whether we want to be joint tenants or tenants in common. Neither of us really know what it means and to be honest, from my own perspective, I want to know if I will there's anything I might end up doing which could risk mine and my DD's security. DP is lovely and I trust him- but I would just like to know which method is best in these circumstances. I would imagine he will want to protect his deposit which he has been kind enough to put down without question, but that aside, I don't want me and dd to end up with nothing should we split.

Thoughts?

TIA!

In terms of who puts what in - chdilcare for your child who is not his is not relevant and its father should be paying half that anyway; so it was said - "We will both be paying towards the mortgage although he will pay a lot more than me". Why not make it that you both pay half the mortgage each then and then a 50/50 split might be justified?

60/40 sounds find but reach agreement that if you have children together who will give up work if anyone and will you each pay half the cost of full time childcare etc etc so if circumstances change your agreement covers those kinds of issues rather than the 60/40 be set in stone even if you end up paying 100% of the mortgage because he's chosen to stay at home and mind the babies.

I can see what white is saying. In some ways, it's a contradictory thing. On the one hand you are planning to set up home together. If you live happily together in the house for many years, the issue of its tenure is irrelevant. On the other hand, when you talk about 50-50 or 60-40 or whatever, you are planning for what to do when you split up or one of you dies.

When my dp and I first bought a house together, it didn't even occur to me to have unequal shares, even though the deposit came from my savings. There have been times, over the years, when I have been the higher earner and other times when dp earned more, but I always thought of us as an equal partnership - financially and in other ways.

I find that men often have a thing about wills; at least 95% of the time, I'm approached by the woman to write a couple's wills, and the men are, if not grudging, certainly not as engaged in the procedure.

I think a lot of men think that writing a will is the same as signing their own death warrant.

fub, might be the difference between marriage and trying to see if you can live together for some people. Most living togethers break up. Most marrieds stay together. Interesting question would be why neither of them are committing to marriage and yet will buy together.

Yes it is an interesting question. I think that in some ways, buying a property together is a bigger commitment than marriage. But I know others have different views.

Is buying a house and getting married synonymous? And ppphhtt at 'most marrieds stay together'!!!

And mumble...that's really interesting! Might explain his weirdness about the matter!

People are more likely to stay together if they are married rather than just co-habitating. How does your DP feel about your DD? Does he consider he has any responsibility towards her or is she just part of the package that you bring to the relationship?

No they are obviously not the same, but they are both big and significant commitments for a couple. That's what I meant.

Fubbs- it was Xenia who said that about married/staying together I think

DP loves my dd but I'm not going to say he loves her like I do or that he feels the same kind of responsibility that I do. He doesn't say that of course, it's just something I know deep down. DD has a very involved father so I guess this is why this is.

I dont know- we ended up having words about all this tonight and its because I was unhappy with the language he used when he presented his idea of it being 60-40 yesterday. I of course totally understood that he would want to protect his deposit but I had no idea that he was going around seeking formal advice on the matter or that he would see it as something that he needed to 'protect from me'. Rationally of course I know that I would do the same and that he isn't doing anything wrong, I guess it just stings a bit that we are sort of having to take these steps. We have been together 6 years, I kind of 'forgot' we were separate people (if that makes sense!)

Can I ask one more question?

My DP wants to go 60-40% on the ownership of the house, given that be is paying the deposit. Is it not fairer though to simply do the deed of trust so that it returns his deposit to him and then we go down the middle on the rest? I would have thought that if its 60 40, then he would benefit from a lot of the equity (if any!) that builds up in the house?

But so will you, without having put any deposit down. There has to be some extra benefit to the person who is 'foregoing' that money in terms of being able to invest it elsewhere. If you were to return his deposit and then split the equity 50:50, then you would both be benefitting equally from having paid towards the mortgage and bills and he would be receiving no extra benefit for the fact that it was his capital which allowed you to buy the house (and have any equity from it to share in the first place).

To put it another way, imagine that you sold the house just one month after buying it and did your 60:40 split then. You would receive an approximation of 40% of his deposit, whilst having contributed almost nothing. Over time, that benefit will (hopefully, with property price increases) slowly shift over from you to him. But then, he will have foregone the opportunity to have invested that money elsewhere over that time too.

I think it's quite a generous deal, really!

There are no rights and wrongs. If he really thought they would both be together forever he would marry and put everything into joint names, for richer for poorer for ever. He clearly does not feel like that. If they were married then it would not matter whose name it was in the lower earner would get the most on divorce.

I don't think people should be entitled to what they haven't earned (unless you think in a sense someone's company and provision of sex are something that should result in a pay off). If you get back what you put in financially that seems fair enough to me and pay all bills 50/50 including mortgage.

Lol @ 'someone's company and provision of sex'. Xenia, where on earth do you get these pearls of wisdom?

Helium I see where you're coming from, I think (although I don't know for sure cos DP is, as I explained being a tad weird about it all) that you and dp share the same viewpoint, thanks for the input.

I think my kind of uncertainty stems from what I explained earlier in the thread: if I had met someone with a more modest salary...we would have saved for a deposit together and bought a modest house that reflected our salaries. There would be no inequality and I feel that we would then be 'joint tenants'.
However...as DP earns bucket loads more than I do and wanted to live in a house that reflects his earnings....I find myself in what feels like a position of inequality. I'm not saying it is an inequality...just that it feels that way.

Well, there is an inequality - it is that he earns a lot more than you do.

I can see where you're coming from too, but I think the inequality of the ratios will probably be compensated by the fact that a more expensive house in a better area will likely appreciate more in value. Your 40% of a nice house will probably be worth more than 50% of a cheaper one. And in the meantime you get to live in Casa del Posho

Xenia - oh how glad I am that you're not my divorce lawyer... Have to say I disagree - if he was REALLY unsure, he'd insist on having the mortgage in his name only. Nobody knows for sure whether they're going to be together forever, and makes sensible decisions on that basis.

Btw OP, we had a similar arrangement in the sense that my H bought our house using his deposit. But he insisted on the mortgage being solely in his name. We weren't married at the time and at one point we split up. I I realised I was hugely vulnerable, particularly because erratic earnings - which like yours were much lower than my partners - meant that I used my money to pay for bills, food and extras like decorating the home; rather than directly into a mortgage. Thankfully for me, not him we later married and the house is now considered a joint asset. I would suggest - if you haven't already - talking whatever is agreed through with a solicitor to put your mind at rest.

Casa del Poshio love it!

I must say, you were brave to move into a house that wasn't in your name and yet you paid all the bills and food. That is exactly what happened with me and my ex....the house was his before we met, and I paid for utilities, furniture, good etc...and when we split I left with the clothes I was standing up in. The fact that we had a child was neither here nor there to him and I never want to be in that position again. It was horrific and I was beyond naive.

Thanks for the input!

I suspect if the women on the thread had had to pay a massive settlement out to their ex husband on a divorce they might be more likely to share my view and if they earn 10x what their other half does rather than the man earning a huge lot more.

I wonder why so many women end up with men who earn a lot more than they do?

Me be if nick targeted men who earned a 10th of what she earned things might feel fairer in terms of balance of power in the relationships. Or do the traditional thing - no sex or no moving in with them until you have that all protective wedding ring on your finger. Mind you even so the best protection is always to outearn the men and much more fun.

I have to say Xenia, not only do I not ( and never have) believe you're female. I also think you talk rot.

Hmm. When my now DH bought our house together we bought it as joint tenants with no side letters, so 50:50. Even though he paid for practically the entire house (minus our joint mortgage). I had two children to house (not his) and I simply would not have agreed to an arrangement that was not equal.

OP - the issue s really one of trust and one of wanting one another to be taken care of in the event of an exit of your life together, whether by death or a wish to live separately.

I don't think your right to a settled home should be usurped by his fat pay cheque. He either wants to share his life with you or he doesn't.

Ah when people cannot imagine women can earn 10x their man and pay out to men on divorce one realises what a sexist world we live in.

Xenia - it sounds as though you should have married someone who earns more since it's clearly very important to you.

'What a sexist world we live in'

I bet you wrote that with a straight look on your face! Given that you've made some outrageous comments about women, ie....how many of us want a free ride/should earn as much as men/think that company and the provision of sex entitles us to something for nothing.

I mean you do know what the word irony means, right Xenia? You can't have written all that and then accused me of sexism?