To put partner on mortgage

[Sunnyx]

I have been with my partner for nearly 8 years and we now have a ( month old together. He is a student and finishes uni next June. I have a house in my name and maybe have 20k equity. I have mainly supported him through his studies but when he starts working next year, expect him to pay for half.

My question is...i would like to put him on the mortgage or legally own the house with me when he pays half but how do I protect myself if anything goes wrong. I would like to make sure any ££ I have put in so far, payments and deposits etc. i will get back as it came out of my pocket.

Try looking at it from a 'business' point of view instead of romantically.

He has mainly been in student accommodation with no financial support from me but during uni breaks, he comes to live with me. He's started paying half the bills

So he's basically been 'staying' with you during the holidays instead of his parents?
Quite right that he should start contributing towards bills if he's staying for extended periods of time.
^There's no refundable costs there*

He's never lived alone in his 'own' place or as yet experienced what it's like to actually live off a 'wage'?
Does he know how to do share the load of household and child related tasks without it having to be pointed out to him?
Has he any suggestions for how you will share/manage finances when he moves in?
Or is that something that -you-- will sort itself out?

Him 'moving in' doesn't give him automatic and immediate entitlement to go onto your mortgage/deeds.
He needs to earn that right which will take time...

Try just living together first (for a year or two) and see how things stand then.
There's no guarantee that you both be compatible on the living together/shared finances/parenting front, so tread a little more cautiously.
As he hasn't actually contributed anything yet to the mortgage/value of the property, there's nothing for him to assert a 'claim/entitlement' to just yet

Even with part time work, I will be on more than him and I don't really think he will catch me up before kids grow up a little and I go back full time

Meanwhile, in the real world there's no guarantee that you won't lose your job or income.
Whether that's due to the economy or falling ill.
Or an accident/injury that prevents you returning to work
Or because your child has medical/learning issues that require one sahp etc

Marriage gives you better legal protection regards shared assets and finances should your relationship fail and/or any of the above happen.

If you are the main carer, keep the house in your name. Worse case situation could be that things go tits up in 10 years and you have one or two young children while still acting as main carer but suddenly pressurised to sell house. Being a main carer really impacts income, promotions, work flexibility and so on.

If you’re all happily living on your wage, get him to save a deposit for a buy to let in his name

Don't be an idiot. That's how I lost half my house twice.
I've learnt my lesson now but it's a bit late at 55 and I have to live in a tiny house instead of the enormous house I once had.
When he has put in £20,000 equal to your contribution and has been actually paying the mortgage for a couple of years then maybe consider it.
Don't let "love" cloud your judgement, your house is all you and your child have, if he did the dirty you would have nothing.
us women are too generous, my male friends in the same situation never put their partners on the mortgage. It will all end in tears and regret.
He hasn't put in £20,000 why does he deserve to have his name on the deeds? he doesn't.

Sorry Ploppie4 but that’s not a good idea - a buy to let, if they decide to go down that route, should be in BOTH names as otherwise, should things go pear shaped, he will be able to take it and run. If both are contributing, then both should be on deeds of the new property.

However, regarding the current home, as OP paid for it AND supported her partner, she should protect her interests and leave it in her sole name. If at a later stage, she wants to share assets and/or marry, then it can go into the pot with any other joint assets. Until then, she retains control. IMHO that’s a wiser choice for a woman with a child in a cohabitation relationship.

For a SAHP marriage is the best protection of their contributions to family. A fact that a LOT of women seem to miss. Marriage is not just a piece of paper, it is an important legal recognition of rights and responsibilities.

"Marriage gives you better legal protection regards shared assets and finances should your relationship fail and/or any of the above happen."

No, it doesn't, not in all circumstances.

Pengy I thought he could buy a buy to let in his name and she could keep her house in her name only.

prh47bridge gave you the correct advice in the very first reply.

Much of the later advice is misleading.

Op I am the sad side of the story.

I bought my house. Paid all deposit and renovation costs etc after years of working in in a well paid job. Met DH, he under duress contributed towards bills etc while living in my house full time. I remortgaged and paid for our wedding and put him on the mortgage/deeds.

He told me from the start it was my house. If we ever split up he would take nothing from the home and me and my DS (from a previous relationship) as it was our future and I had given up a very good job by then to raise his child too etc etc. I just wanted to be fair to him as he did contribute towards costs.

Fast forward to now. He hasn't been living here for 3 years, Relationship turned very nasty with emotional & financial abuse and much deceit - on his part. He has dragged his heels in divorce and made it look as if we have been married for longer.

He has dragged me and the DCs through hell for years, has a new girlfriend, life paid for and provided by Mummy and has received a large inheritance (over £30k and he is spending it FAST so it will have no relevance by the time of the final Court date). We are going through the Court system where he is trying to force the sale of our home and claim 50% of the equity (this is substantial since the purchase because of improvements and property market.

I don't know where we will end up but I can tell you I will never regret more (for me and my DCs) marrying this man, putting him on the mortgage and losing my financial independence.

The law may give me a little more in the deal because I have children but it won't give me what I have put in over many years. And it will give the lying scumbag that I married a lottery win.

Please just think through your options carefully, we never know what will happen in this life and a kind heart does not provide for your children. Speak to a good solicitor and don't be swayed by emotions.

Marriage favours the lower earning spouse in divorce, which the OP is not in this case. Cynically, to protect her assets, she should not marry.

It also favours the party who has put f*ck all in but is then entitled to a share !!

Name - exactly the same happened to someone I know. Her first husband left her when she was pg and she brought up thwir son alone with no support from the father. Put herself through uni as a single
Mum, got a good job, bought a house. Took in a lodger to pay the bills.

When she was 35 she met someone else, married him and they had a baby.

She then discovered he was cheating on her ( with many women ) so she she kicked him out. He then got half the house ( after a short marriage ) while she was left, yet again, to bring up her teenager and their baby. This time with a huge mortgage.

I can't imagine what the judge was thinking.

I'd leave him off the mortgage and get him to contribute 50% of the mortgage interest. That is the fair way of doing it.

Charging him 50% of the total repayment is not fair because part of that is the capital being repaid, or put differently, equity being increased.

On the other hand, charging him nothing is not fair either because their is a cost to living in the house.

Therefore giving a larger proportion to me?

You currently have 100%

If you split you can think about 'fair' when/if that happens

Just because he's not on the mortgage doesn't mean you can't be fair later - depends on reasons etc

BUT how you feel now may well change if he turns out to be cheating or gambling or anything in between

Kr1st1na it breaks my heart to hear that story.

Women like me are left with the majority of the childcare and having to find work around it (I have 3 jobs) and they are not protected in any way by the legal system.

For me (heartbroken and disillusioned with the world) I have reached the point where I couldn't care less about the money anymore My beautiful children - let down repeatedly by men - and my elderly decent, kind and generous parents (they have had to help me with legal costs while they stand back in disbelieve at our legal system - who have seen this happen to their hard working and honest daughter are all that matters to me now.

And I have enormous sympathy for the next woman who is completely taken in my this lying charmers behaviour - while he wines and dines her on money that should be for my children's future.

There are some serious failings in our current legal system.

On the marriage point, it is a good idea to not expose yourself financially, for example by changing the ownership on the house, without any commitment to the relationship.

Of course, the best way to protect your assets is to not move in with him at all but who wants to live like that? You would hope that by demanding marriage you would filter out a lot of people who aren't serious and will leave a couple of months after getting their name on the deeds. There are no guarantees but it does provide a bit of protection by making it difficult to up and go.

I wouldn't be worrying about it to much if you have £20,000 in equity. Worse case is you lose £10,000. Is it worth paying trust lawyers to protect that much, it is not as if you have inherited a vast estate.

It's shocking isn't it

This woman busted her gut to get an education and a good job, to bring up her oldest son on her own. She had a full time job and a child and was washing and cleaning after lodgers.

Then bastard number two took her house from her and her two children ( one his ).

I'm so sorry you have been through the same thing.

... and with regards to what the Judge was thinking.. my solicitor (at £250 per hour plus VAT) told me to hope that the Judge hadn't had a row with his wife on the morning of our Court date, as it could colour his treatment of me. That is how absolutely shite our legal system is and how they treat hard working and decent mothers who once achieved owning their own homes and have children to care for and raise.

Thanks kr1st1na. It is unbelievably and unlawfully shit. And a worry that any DS's watch their mother be treated like this by men who get away with it. My parents still absolutely cannot believe he can get away with treating the mother of his child like this.

Sorry op, obviously I am the worst case scenario and I pray you don't fall foul of anything like the abuse.

It might just be my life's work though from now on to tell women in a similar position that I was in just how spectacularly the shit can hit the fan at yours and your children's expense.

You'll get very mixed views on MN as a lot see the woman paying in more as not fitting with 'equality' in new terms, whereas a male breadwinner is fine.

As for the house you can change it, you'll need to get a solicitor. We changed ours to tenants in common and he is now on the deeds, and will get 50/50 split should anything happen. This was done prior to us being married and when we had one child.

I have the view that I've chosen to share my life with him and everything I/he owns or owned is now both of ours. We have joint accounts and savings. Over the years things even out although I probably 'owe' him more than he would me if you calculated it.
I have paid off thousands in his debt from prior, he has paid for me to further my career, all holidays/savings have come from me, I am now a SAHP. All of which we wouldn't have been able to do without supporting each other at the time.

For the record gaggle I don't see the male role of the breadwinner as fine. I believe people should leave a marriage with an accurate reflection of what they have contributed.

There would not be a house for my ExH to claim half of without my years of hard work previously and large deposit.

We have swung from people leaving a marriage with what they have financially put in which was clearly unfair on SAH mums who had 'paid' nothing' then penalised for that to this 50/50 starting point scenario which is equally wrong.

The biggest wrong of all is that the 'judge' can make a ruling at his or her discretion on the day. It is a complete gamble and there is no doubt that the children suffer throughout this farce.

... if you had an 80/20 split via tenants in common, then got married... and divorced, you would feel it personally.