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.

You can't put him on the deeds or on the mortgage anyway, so its a pointless question.

NameWithChange: the key difference is that the OP is not married.

It is MARRIAGE which gives a spouse rights over what becomes shared property.

And you don't pay 'trust lawyers'. Our Deed which declared how much we each own as tenants in common was done as part of our conveyancing and was very cheap, really. Worth exploring the cost, though.

MN doesn't seem to 'get' long term committed co habiting couples. Of course if you love and love with someone it is natural to want to own your home together. A woman would want to do that, why not the OP's partner?

Yes, prh47's posts.

Marriage complicates this massively, but OP said not married.

It is all about pros and cons: legal ownership means you give away control if e.g. you split up, then you will still need to get his signature for stuff. Legal ownership is just the person's name who owns the house. Bit like the DVLA registered keeper.

Equitable ownership is how much equity you each have you can be an EO without being a LO. It is like you can use a car even if you are not the RK.

LOs are either tenants in common or joint tenants. TICs can own in unequal shares, but unless you document that somewhere it will be presumed that the shares are equal.

Problem with say 20/80 ownership is that if you split and sell, the mortgage will come out first and then you split the equity. You should get your deposit in full first though plus any grow that attracted, i.e. as the higher of the % of sale price or amount put in.

I would urge spending on a decent trust deed. could save you loads of money and agro in future, specially if he dies intestate or is made bankrupt

Thanks for all your advice. We are currently living together and have been since our baby was born 5 months ago. Prior to this, he stayed with me through his uni breaks...so We know we can live together. Before his uni years, he worked full time and has managed his own finances. Yes, he will be a good position as he won't need to save a deposit and yes, I've helped him out a little through his studies but so what? If it was the other way round, man supporting a woman so that they would in the long term be better off, I think responses would be different. I don't feel like he needs to earn his right to be on the mortgage. I just want to protect what I have put in already and be financially stable if things do go to pot.

Overall it sounds like a declaration of trust is the best idea. Or not put him on at all and him save for other investments but tbh it doesn't feel right to not financially share the family home.

But now I'm thinking, if we split in x years, he's paid x amount if on the mortgage, I probably won't be able to just hand him the equity (not interest) he's paid without remortgaging. I could still be in part time work....affordability checks won't look so good so I'll get a higher interest rate? Hmmm

Why is financially sharing the family home so important? Are you financially linked in other ways? Joint bank accounts or credit cards?

AshleySilver I honestly feel that if he didn't pay half or in proportion once he was earning, resentment would build up on my side. I just want to do what is fair and I don't feel like him contributing towards my mortgage without also having some legal ownership is fair. Neither is it fair for him to live in my house without contribution. We don't have any other shared finances.

If that is your view about fairness, then a deed of trust is probably the way to go. Though as you say, there are some risks involved.

It might also be an option to do nothing for the time being and then re-visit the question next year or some time after he actually starts working.

MN doesn't seem to 'get' long term committed co habiting couples. Of course if you love and love with someone it is natural to want to own your home together. A woman would want to do that, why not the OP's partner?

MN isn't a hive mind. What most people don't get though are women in long term non married couples who have made no effort to protect themselves or their children.

Well yes,if you were to split up at some point, you'd need to give him back the money. Or sell and divide up the money then but that involves losing the house.

You also need to bear in mind that if he has, say, a 40% share, when you've paid off 10k and value remained the same, you'd only owe him 4K. However, if you've paid it down by 100k + the house increased in value by 100k, then his share would be 80k. That might no longer be affordable to you to release the equity and still afford the repayments.

It'd be worth to meet up with a solicitor to discuss the options and their implications. What are you going to do about refurbishment, upgrades and other house related purchases? Would you also contribute more in line with the proportion of the property that's yours?

MN doesn't seem to 'get' long term committed co habiting couples. Of course if you love and love with someone it is natural to want to own your home together. A woman would want to do that, why not the OP's partner?

Actually most MNers understand perfectly well. Cohabitation is just fine as long as you both have no children and have equal incomes. However it often becomes much more risky for women with children because

1. Women give birth to children
2. Women usually take the maternity leave, so their income, career prospects and pension suffers
3. If anyone in a couple goes part time to care for children, its usually the woman
4. Women earn less than men
5. If anyone takes time off work to be with a sick child, it's usually the woman.
6. If the couple split up, it's nearly always the woman who has the majority care of the children
7. If one parents disappears and has no care for the children, it's nearly always the man
8. It's anyone has the major financial responsibility for raising the children, it's nearly always the woman.

So for all these reasons, it's not reasonable to say " everything should be equal financially " and suggest that people are bigots who hate men or traditionalists who like the " male breadwinner " and dislike cohabitation.

They are none of those things, they are realists who care about the welfare of other women and their children. That's why people have shared their personal stories here and given advice.

Very well said kr1st1na

Maybe the fairest way then op as I think someone may have said upthread, is to work out what the financial contributions have been so far, once his contributions match yours you can both head into things 50/50. I certainly wish I had taken that approach looking back.

I agree, Kr1stina, but THIS OP is not a SAHM, has her own asset, is planning to continbur earning and will probably continue to be the higher earner.

If she takes up SAHM-dom then things may change - but she is clearly aiming to protect her own independent resilience, financially.

So it doesn't seem too oppressive to consider the effect on a relationship if the man is treated lke a lodger paying rent, rather than wishing to have some kind of stake in the shared family home. Men are not always the enemy here, in this kind of relationship!

I am the higher earner in our household, always have been, I had more equity from my property when we got together, and I have never been a SAHM.

I am aghast at women who give up or compromise their own income, pension and promotion opportunities to be SAHMs without making sure that they protect their security - usually by marriage.

But there are many threads by co-habiting women, in the same position as the man is in in this relationship, where posters (quite rightly) urge them to get themselves on the deeds, have their contribution recognised as a mortgage payment rather than just rent, etc. That is what the OP is suggesting for her own DP. They are in a committed relationship and a family, so why would she not?

I have just been doing some remortgage enquiries and had a similar thought to you. My oh is working and on a good wage.

Even then, my mortgage adviser plainly said there was no tangible benefit to me in adding him, and in my shoes, he would not.

If you could afford the mortgage without him before now, you can afford it after now too.

Well why not just get married then?

Can you afford another property? Maybe he could save and buy a flat to rent out - or you can save his proportion in a high interest account

Things change

I was the higher earner until twins came along, you may have a disabled child who needs a parent a home, you may have an illness or accident etc you can't see into the future

If you can lock in the equity you've built up while suppprting him and can afford to sell the property and split the proceeds in the future AND buy another home them go for it.

But take leagal advice first

OP I helped my ex husband in a similar way because it "felt right" amd I felt mean not to. Marriage went spectacularly wrong. Relationships do, yours might or might not, you just don't know.

Having a kid changes it for me as it is not about protecting your assets but protecting your ability to provide for your kid.

So, you need an agreement that if you split up, you will only pay him his share back if you sell the house, and you and your child can stay living there until such time as you sell it.

"Legal ownership" is just having your name on the land registry entry. Nothing more. It gives you control over blocking a sale or blocking a remortagage for example. You can be a LO and have no interest in the equity. I dont think it makes any difference if he is an LO or not, except that you will need his cooperation to sell/remortgage.

"Equitable ownerhsip" is actually having a share in the asset. You can tailor this is reflact his contribution, including to home improvements (e.g. extensions, new heating, new kitchen, that sort of thing).

So: a trust deed could give him:

1. a share which will reflect his input
2. you and any children the right to live there until a sale

Putting him on the mortgage will make him equally responsible for payments, so if you are in arrears they can pursue him or you for the full amount outstanding.

If you ever want him to come back off the mortgage, it is a massive pain, but not impossible.