Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

Home ownership & marriage

35 replies

FirstTimePetitioner · 26/07/2018 11:50

DP and I own a house together as tenants in common (I think that's what it's called), with him owning a higher percentage as he contributed more to the deposit from equity on the sale of a previous property.

We're getting married next year, have a DS together and are planning another DC shortly, and have other joint financial commitments. We don't have any wills.

I'm wondering if I should speak to him about changing the ownership to joint tenancy? What are the pros/cons of this?

I'm just thinking about my and our DCs security if something were to happen. I don't think the difference in the amount of money used in the deposit is that significant any more. Also, for a bit of extra context, I inherited a similar amount a few years ago and spent it on a holiday of a lifetime with DP (pre DS).

OP posts:
Original poster
FirstTimePetitioner · 26/07/2018 12:51

Any advice?

OP posts:
OneEpisode · 26/07/2018 13:05

You could do wills to deal with the marriage ending with a death. Because of the way you own the house now, if one of you were to die your share of the house, savings, life insurance, death in service from work etc falls into the estate.
If either of you die without a will the first part of your estate passes to the surviving spouse. Then the amount above is shared between the heirs.
A will done after marriage or in contemplation of marriage could make a different choice.
On divorce the assets of the marriage would be considered.

OneEpisode · 26/07/2018 13:10

If either of you die after marriage the rules of intestate apply and the surviving spouse gets the first £250,000 and then the share of anything more.
If one of you dies before marriage a surviving “partner” might receive nothing. Your little dcs might inherit. I’m not sure what the situation is if one dc is born and another on the way,.

prh47bridge · 26/07/2018 13:15

If you subsequently divorce the house will be an asset of the marriage and will go into the pot to be split between you regardless of how it is owned.

However, it will make a difference if you die. If you become joint tenants the house would automatically become your partner's if you die. He would then be able to dispose of it however he wants when he dies. If you remain as tenants in common your half of the house would form part of your estate. You could give him a life interest which would allow him to continue living in the house. Importantly, when he dies your share of the house would then be distributed in accordance with your will. He would not have any say over that.

NorthernSpirit · 26/07/2018 13:18

When you marry all finances become equal / 50:50 so even if he contributed more to the property initially when you marry it becomes equal. This is unless you sign a pre-nup to protect assets brought into the marriage.

Original poster
FirstTimePetitioner · 26/07/2018 13:18

Thank you. It's interesting to know that if we chose to divorce (which I don't think will ever happen) that the ownership of the property would be irrelevant.

I think we'll just write a will and that should solve any issues!

OP posts:
MissedTheBoatAgain · 27/07/2018 03:51

Thank you. It's interesting to know that if we chose to divorce (which I don't think will ever happen) that the ownership of the property would be irrelevant

Hope OP marriage works out, but surprising in the year 2018 some enter into marriage without realizing that once married all assets are considered joint regardless of who paid for the assets

Collaborate · 27/07/2018 07:27

Hope OP marriage works out, but surprising in the year 2018 some enter into marriage without realizing that once married all assets are considered joint regardless of who paid for the assets

Only on Mumsnet. Not in law. Not even on divorce. The origin of the property is often very relevant. On divorce there's a big difference, say, between an inherited property still in the name of one spouse, and the same property that has been transferred in to joint names.

MrsBertBibby · 27/07/2018 07:55

It is extraordinary how strong the delusion is here though.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 27/07/2018 08:01

Only on Mumsnet. Not in law. Not even on divorce. The origin of the property is often very relevant. On divorce there's a big difference, say, between an inherited property still in the name of one spouse, and the same property that has been transferred in to joint names

Interesting. My divorce over now, but at time ex's solicitors argued that as I was only child and only grandchild on mothers side of family it was likely that I would inherit substantial assets in the future. Therefore ex was entitled to a larger share of marital assets at time of divorce to compensate.

Judge did not buy it and stated that only joint assets of the two parties could be considered. Consent Order also made it clear that neither party had any claim against the other in future.

MrsBertBibby · 27/07/2018 08:16

Property you might inherit from someone who isn't yet dead is a completely different kettle of fish to property you have inherited and kept separate. Different again to mingled inheritance, pre-acquired assets, and so on.

Every case turns on its own facts and needs proper advice. Not snippets of law half-remembered from a posters case 5 years ago and misapplied to something completely different.

The law is complex, and it changes. The appellate courts give decisions every month that subtly adjust decision making.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 27/07/2018 08:24

The law is complex, and it changes

The recent case of a woman's divorce application being refused seems a good example.

prh47bridge · 27/07/2018 08:28

The origin of the property is often very relevant

Indeed. It all goes into the pot regardless of who owns it. But the oft-repeated statement on here that it gets split 50/50 (which has again appeared on this thread) is simply not true. It gets split fairly, which is not the same thing at all. Where the property came from is one of the considerations in determining what a fair split looks like.

MrsBertBibby · 27/07/2018 08:40

The recent case of a woman's divorce application being refused seems a good example.

Not sure that did anything but restate the law, tbh, although I've only skimmed summaries so far.

FinallyHere · 27/07/2018 08:50

write a will

Whatever else you do, do this. When someone dies, there is so much to do, the last thing you want is anything to be more difficult than it needs to be. If there is a will, lots of things become so much simpler than without a will.

We had great service from mumblechum from here on MN, phone conversation, all sorted, brilliant.

ShotsFired · 27/07/2018 09:00

if we chose to divorce ( which I don't think will ever happen )

Does anybody go into marriage thinking it will? Confused

Xenia · 27/07/2018 11:47

Also it will depend on the value of the property. If it is over inheritance tax limits (bigger if you are married) you probably want it as joint tenants, not tenants in common as I think it then automatically goes to the survivor and ditto joint bank accounts. However I knew someone whose wife was dying and she did not trust her husband to use her half of their money for school fees (as he was not very pro private schools) so she went for tenants in common with her parent and sibling as trustee of her life savings to be used only for school fees (not so her husband could spend £100k on a new woman or waste it on foreign holidays or whatever - he was not left with nothing of course and they were not estranged and he could understand her position and respected it)

prh47bridge · 27/07/2018 12:24

Not sure that did anything but restate the law

Having read the judgement, I agree that it simply restated the current law. The wife's lawyers argued for a change in the way the law is interpreted. The Supreme Court declined to change the interpretation, although they clearly want parliament to change the law.

FinallyHere · 27/07/2018 12:31

If it is over inheritance tax limits (bigger if you are married) you probably want it as joint tenants, not tenants in common

This was not my experience. Lots of inheritance tax planning starts by making you tenants in common, so that their part can be put into trust, on tbe death of the first partner.

Original poster
FirstTimePetitioner · 27/07/2018 22:59

It all seems very complicated Confused thank you for all your input.

OP posts:
Racecardriver · 27/07/2018 23:04

Do you have any debts? If you are Tic then his debts could be paid out of his share of the house as it is a part of his estate. If your are JT then the house will be protected from his debts.

Collaborate · 28/07/2018 08:36

Do you have any debts? If you are Tic then his debts could be paid out of his share of the house as it is a part of his estate. If your are JT then the house will be protected from his debts.

If you intend to mean what I think you intend to mean, that is wrong. If a deceased only has a property held under a joint tenancy it doesn't insulate that property from debt payable, or from Inheritance Act claims.

Original poster
FirstTimePetitioner · 28/07/2018 20:59

I thought unsecured debt was written off when you die? We have a joint loan but all other debt is in my name.

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 28/07/2018 23:50

I thought unsecured debt was written off when you die

No. They have to be paid from the estate. The unsecured debts will only be written off if there isn't enough money in the estate to pay them.

Original poster
FirstTimePetitioner · 29/07/2018 09:19

That makes sense, thank you! Is it the same for student loans?

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread