Tenants in common 0%?

[IveNameChangedAgain2020]

I'm at a real cross roads in my life.

Basically through sheer graft after being a teenage mum I'm now earning a salary I can only dream of. I can finally buy a property of significant value and size by myself, have great credit etc. My husband on the other hand still has bailiffs come to the house - he's awful and reckless with money.

Our current house is held in tenants in common as I put down the deposit. We would never have owned the house if I didn't do this. Often my husband just decides he won't contribute to the bills and I have to cover it all.

I want to release my equity and BTL the current house, my husbands equity would remain. I would buy the new house by myself.

Can I/would it be fair if we have a tenants in common agreement for the current house where husbands equity is protected for him and we split the remainder 50/50? And is it possible to have a tenants in common for the new house where I own 100%. He'd live with me in the new house contribution-free.

Would that protect me? And him?

Anyone?

What is the purpose of this? If you are trying to protect an asset within marriage then I am not sure that is going to work. If you are protecting it from debt and him securing debt on the house then I don't see why it won't work.

Thanks @Whoarethewho isn't it one and the same?

No it’s not the same. If you are concerned about divorce the property would be a shared asset even if it was just in your name.

If you are concerned about debt then just put the house in your name then he can’t use it as security. Also to use property as security for a debt technically all adults living there must sign to agree the loan. It can be a surprise to parents of 18 year olds that they have to sign for a further advance if they live at home.

@Margaritatime thank you. If I put the house in my name then because we're married it automatically gets split 50/50 if we split. That won't be fair given it's my equity and I'll be paying the mortgage payments - hence why I thought a TIC agreement would suffice.

Its unlikely to matter either way. You married him. If you wanted to control the equity stakes, you needed not to have married him.

[quote IveNameChangedAgain2020]@Margaritatime thank you. If I put the house in my name then because we're married it automatically gets split 50/50 if we split. That won't be fair given it's my equity and I'll be paying the mortgage payments - hence why I thought a TIC agreement would suffice.[/quote]
Part of marriage is that you "share" everything. Specifically, in your vows, you said "and all that I have I share with you". This means that however you choose to own property in marriage, the property is an asset of the marriage, and it would be part of the considerations during divorce.

While you are married though, owning the property in just your name (rather than tenants common or joint tenants) would mean your husband couldn't secure debt on the property.

I am not sure that you can own property as tenants in common with one party owning 0%. It would seem very odd to me to set up formal ownership only to define the ownership as null

@IveNameChangedAgain2020 you could see a solicitor. But I expect they'll say the same.

You can't protect your property if it's in your name, whether solely your name or tenants in common. How the law applies to assets in a divorce is not the same as the legal rights you have to access assets during the marriage.

@Margaritatime

No it’s not the same. If you are concerned about divorce the property would be a shared asset even if it was just in your name.

If you are concerned about debt then just put the house in your name then he can’t use it as security. Also to use property as security for a debt technically all adults living there must sign to agree the loan. It can be a surprise to parents of 18 year olds that they have to sign for a further advance if they live at home.

This.

If you divorced he'd get half of any marital assets. Assets from inheritance are discounted.

So by putting the house in your name is a good one and you stop it being at risk from his debt, but you can't stop him claiming half the assets in the event of a divorce whoever's name is on it.

It is possible for the entire beneficial interest to be held for one person, even if legal title is joint, although this wouldn’t be called ‘tenants in common’ as there is only one beneficiary. But as others have said, you are married, and the family court can make orders irrespective of which spouse legally owns the property. So it won’t protect you much in case of divorce. It’s dependent on various factors as to how assets are split on divorce but it’s a bit too simplistic to say it’s always 50/50. You could get more if you contributed more on all fronts (childcare and money) but it’s impossible to say really.

Given his debts, I’d just buy this in your sole name and not faff about with a trust. His creditors can’t come after your assets unless you have guaranteed his debts. Keep all your finances rigidly separate if you can (that would help you if you ever got divorced too). Avoid being tainted by his lack of financial responsibility. If he’s getting bailiffs to the house, he could end up bankrupt at some stage so he sounds like a huge liability.

If you divorced he'd get half of any marital assets. Assets from inheritance are discounted.

He wouldn't necessarily get half. How much he would get depends on a range of factors. Also, assets from inheritance are not always discounted. Even if the inheritance has been kept separate, the courts will dip into it if it is the only way of meeting everyone's reasonable needs.

There is no inheritance in our situation

Op not trying to derail but why are you with him.... Paying living costs inst optional if your an adult and have kids. Is this someone you want or need to remain tied to?
Please think as my friend lost her home in her late 40s due to her knob husband gambling and not paing mortgage and debts. Its made things extremaly hard and it was all her throughout who paid bills etc etc

Do you honestly want the marriage to continue?

My husband on the other hand still has bailiffs come to the house - he's awful and reckless with money.

Often my husband just decides he won't contribute to the bills and I have to cover it all.

These comments jump out of your post. This is not a loving, responsible husband (and father, regardless of whether or not your child is his). He is using you to fund and house him.
This is your life & your decision. You have said you are at a cross roads. Speak to a solicitor. I believe your wisest move would be divorce, sell the house and split the equity. Then buy your own house which only you and your child will benefit from. If you are really doing well, buy a nice but smaller house than you intended, and then after a couple of years also purchase a Buy to Let.

You have worked so hard and done really well. Don't let this selfish, entitled arse benefit more in the future. Good luck @IveNameChangedAgain2020 .

You need to divorce him. You are looking at throwing away all your hard work on someone who is reckless with money. Are you prepared to work your socks off and then end up splitting everything 50/50. It's not fair at all, but it's the way it is

Sound stupid but I do feel bad. We've been together 27 years.