Name not on the mortgage

[barkinginessex]

DP and I seperated last year for 3 months, I stayed in the house and he moved in with a friend. I went to see a solicitor during the seperation to find out if I had any rights to the house as I pay half of the mortgage and bills. She told me I had no claim on the house as all the bills are in his name and the mortgage and deeds are in his name only and unless the money I pay into his account specifially state what the money is for then I would lose in court if I tried to claim anything.
I have been wanting to talk to DP since we got back together about having my name added to the mortgage or deeds but I didn't know how to start the conversation.
Last night I spoke to him about it and told him that I felt that our relationship wasn't equal etc and that I wanted my name on the deeds or on the mortgage to protect myself financially and to feel like I'm getting somewhere in life e.g. paying towards a mortgage. I also suggested a joint bank account and joint names on the bills.
DP was stunned by this and said he didnt understand why I felt this way and said I'm luckier than most women as he deals with all the bills and the mortgage and I don't have to because he looks after me. To be honest this made me feel like a 1950's housewife! I work full time in the city and I feel like its time for me to be financially independent, at the momemt I may as well be a lodger paying towards room and board as I give him a set amount each month, I'm not paying off our mortgage its HIS mortgage and the situation just doesn't feel right.
My friends think that if he won't commit to having a mortgage with me then I should leave, are they right?

Am in similar situation - I paid 1/4 of the deposit and stamp duty and OH (not husband) paid 3/4, we split the cost of renovating 50/50 (my grandad died and I spent the money he left me on things like insulation and central heating) and we split the monthly costs 50/50 but the mortgage is only in his name and comes out of his account. I'm not sure what I can do really, we're both self-employed and the mortgage broker said that it was better for him to borrow alone - more due to the fact that i had negative equity in a flat with the same lender.

Please, how do i protect myself?

I don't think that living together = expectation of lifetime commitment.

When I was 25, I moved in with my boyfriend - his house. I loved him, he loved me. It was the best any relationship has ever been for me. Then we grew apart and parted amicably. I am still incredibly find of him. We both went into it hoping to be together-forever, but knowing that that didn't always happen.

For 2 years, I paid half his mortgage amount. It was less than I was paying for my previous room in a shared house.
I absolutely had no expectations of a claim on HIS house.

Why should I?
Why should he give up his house, why should I live there for free?

It's different is you have children. But you're just a girlfriend living with her boyfriend. You want to get on the property ladder, why not do a buy to let?

You enter into a deed of trust where you set out how you own the equitable interest. then if you split you will have clear evidence. But if you paid 1/4 of the deposit, you should be on firm ground with that at least, so long as you can clearly show that it was your money.

I am assuming this would be fairly cheap and easy to do at a solicitors, but I am not a solicitor so I don't know. But even writing it down somewhere and you both signing it is better than nothing.

To argue for an interest in property once you have split up can get very messy if the other person then flat out denies you are entitled to anything. You need to show the court that you both intended both of you to have an interest.

SimLondon, I think you can be on the deeds without being on the mortgage. But I think an agreement as mentioned upthread is needed. Go and see a solicitor.

But Cabrinha - this is precisely the problem, the different expectations each person in the relationship might have and the fact that they don't talk about them, just make assumptions. Then they split, one person feels they have contributed quite a lot of money towards a property in which they have no declared legal or beneficial interest and things get nasty.

If you are grown up enough to live together, you are grown up enough to talk about finances and what will happen if one of you contributes towards a property they don't own.

Just a note to SimLondon and the OP from a former lawyer. If you are not married you have no right to his house if you split up even if you have been paying the mortgage and contributing to household expenses.

That does not change even if you have been together for twenty years. Nor will you have any rights to maintenance from him if you split, however long you have been together. Unfair and in my view wrong, but that is the law as it currently stands. If you aren't married, you don't have any rights if the two of you split.

What you want is a formal document which acknowledges you own a real interest in the house (what you refer to as "going on the deeds"). That will either be a legal transfer by him of part of the property to you or, as other posters have said, a declaration of trust by him in your favour i.e. a legal document where he says "It may only be me whose name appears on the title of this property, but actually it is really owned in x proportions by me and OP and I hold it on behalf of both of us".

These are both legal documents which need to be done correctly so see a solicitor or licensed conveyancer. Depending on the value of the house there may be stamp duty payable.

The mortgage, as another poster said, is a liability - a debt owed to the bank. The bank will be very happy if you agree to be jointly liable on the mortgage with him. Effectively you'll be his guarantor. Don't do it.

The only circumstance in which you should even consider becoming liable on the mortgage is if he transfers a decent chunk, ideally 50%, of the property to you (because you become liable to repay ALL the mortgage if he defaults and the property can't be sold for enough to repay the mortgage). I bet he won't do that.

If he transfers any part of the property to you the bank will probably insist that you do become liable under the mortgage so make sure that the value of what you get is worth the liability you assume. Take advice from a solicitor before you do it. The bank should insist on this anyway.

It sounds to me as if he is well aware of the position and likes keeping everything for himself, thank you.

If he won't transfer the property to you and you want to stay with him then I guess the way to look at it is that you would have to pay rent to live somewhere. Work out what the going rate locally would be to rent somewhere for yourself and any DC and don't contribute more than that plus a reasonable share of food and bills. That way you are not losing out financially.

Sorry, I meant that to be a short post!

I would put it a different way - you have no existing right, but you do have a right to apply to the court to find a trust in your favour on the basis that there is a common intention between you AND you have acted to your detriment relying on that intention and/or have made direct financial contributions to the mortgage.

It is a complicated and murky area of law so obviously best to avoid going down that route if at all possible and get something in writing at the outset.

I lived with several boyfriends through my 20's and 30's. It was a fairly chaotic time featuring very little hard thinking about the future or plans for financial security but I did manage to get together a deposit and buy a flat in London. I expect there are lot of women like me who wouldn't have protected themselves against a man making a claim on their property just because they moved in, as of course you would, if your partner owned a house. The commitment has to start somewhere - women should be taught this in school. If you're contributing financially to a house, you need to discuss whether you are helping out because that's only fair, or whether you are both investing jointly in a future together.

It's just another example of how bad we are generally as a society in dealing with relationship issues - 'love ' is supposed to fix everything without the need for discussion or understanding where the other one is coming from. So people enter into relationships with a whole set of dangerous and untested assumptions - this is a long term relationship! Of course he wants kids! Of course I don't mind paying towards the mortgage!

So I totally agree we need to educate our children a lot better to be able to talk about these things. It is much better to agree the boundaries as early as you can, rather than try to deal with them when you are also trying to cope with the breakdown of the relationship.

OP fo you see yourself as 'paying half the mortgage' or are you in fact just paying to live there (i.e. rent)? How does your DP view the arrangement?

Further to my earlier post, i think that actually, if he already owned the house when you moved in, then you cannot just assume that just because you are paying towards the costs that you should own a share of the house UNLESS that was the arrangement that you agreed on. In the same way that you do not become entitled to a share in a house that you are renting based on what you pay in rent.

If you want a stake in the property then you are entitled to ask him if he is agreeable to this. If he isn't, then its probably a conversation that you should have had BEFORE you moved in or shortly after. But actually, while he would be being a bit of an arse from a relationship POV, i don't think he would be being totally unreasonable yo not want to give up a share of his property.

I wanted my name on the deeds or on the mortgage to protect myself financially

What do you mean by this exactly? That you would then have a stake in the equity? That if you split up and the property is sold you are entitled to half (or an appropriate share depending on what you have put in)?

I agree with Jrmumma and see it from your boyfriend's point of view. This is one reason why I can't imagine ever living with anyone again because I'm not prepared to give up equity in my property just because someone else has paid a few months' rent to me.

I recommend you buy your own property and rent it out.

I think the issue here is that the op sees herself in a long term committed relationship. But she is paying towards a property she doesn't own and her partner expressed surprise she isn't happy with this.

It's not about 'giving up' you equity to anyone you shag for a few months. It's about being grown ups who talk to one another.

I think they are clearly on different pages about where this relationship is and where it's going. So she either stops contributing to his property, or she accepts it's rent only, or he agrees she is entitled to recognition of her contributions, or they split up.

But it is absurd and dangerous to be paying someone else's mortgage unless you are very sure and clear about where you stand and are happy with all the consequences of that.

Agreed. There's always two sides to marriage/long-term partnerships. The legal and financial side and the hearts and flowers part.

Not enough people pay attention to the former IMO. You wouldn't go into any other form of partnership without legal advice and contracts so why do so many people overlook this when it comes to love?

they've split up once, he's an ar*se to her family, to be honest I doubt either of them really see this as a "forever" relationship - so he doesn't want to give up part of his equity or a share of the future profit on further equity. Imagine in London his house could go up 100k in a year, if she gets whatever paperwork is required to ensure a percentage of his future equity, then he could have to pay her 50k to walk away. That 50k may be beyond his reach and he'd have to sell his house. I can totally see why he wouldn't want her connected to his mortgage.

and I can also otally see why Op would want to be connected to his mortgage. I expect she knows this relationship isn't forever and wants to ensure she walks away with part of the house.

I can't blame either of them to be honest, but I think Op should just cut her losses and walk away now, she's never going to get what she wants from this relationship.

And technically, she's not been paying for nothing, she's been paying for a roof over her head.

Ah well, there's none so blind as those that will not see.

Stop paying half the bills and put the money away to save for a deposit! If that's the way he feels the he can manage on his own.
You need to protect yourself here. Obviously you don't want to leave him but if he should fuck up you need something to fall back on.

Why not suggest that, as you are merely renting and he is building his capital, that you both your living arrangements on an equal footing and rent out his place and rent a new together?

I would refuse to pay half the mortgage if I had no legal rights, I would put that money aside to save for an deposit.

Protect yourself, either he puts your name on the deed or walk.

So you'd expect to live there for free Rebecca?

No, she could still be contributing to food and utility bills, which is a benefit.

I wouldn't want to pay for someone else's mortgage. If that was the set up, I wouldn't move in.

But the problem is not what you are prepared to pay, it's if you fail to be clear at the outset what you are doing and why. And once children enter the mix and you have buggered up your earning capacity, then you really are very vulnerable if you are not married and have no interest in any property.

when XH moved in with me initially, he paid for half of all utilities and food bills, and he paid for Sky TV because he wanted it installed.

He didn't pay anything towards the mortgage because it was my house and I didn't want him to have any claim on it. We were only together 5 months before he moved in. That was 2002. When we bought a different place in 2006, we were married and bought together, but I paid for all the deposit, stamp duty, redecorating, legal bills, everything, all from the sale of my old house.

I deeply regretted putting it in 50/50 when he could have walked away with my money, from the sale of my house. Morally he did the right thing and walked away with nothing, against legal advice. He had paid the mortgage for less than 4 years, 2 of which I was working full time anyway. I had also paid off at least £15K of his debts, so whatever he paid on the mortgage, he more than had back. My mortgage was bigger than it should be, because I had paid off his debts.

It is a shame to be so cynical/mercenary, but I would never ever hand anybody half of my house ever again. I would also never pay anybody else's mortgage if I did not own part of the house.

Spero i don't think that only paying half of food and utilities is fair actually. She would have to pay rent if she lived elsewhere so why should she be able to live at her partners house for what is essentially peanuts?

I'm not saying she should be paying 50% of the monthly mortgage payment because actually i don't think that is fair either, but somewhere in the middle seems reasonable to me.

I can not believe that anyone would enter into the OP's arrangement without clear agreement on what is what.

True, but why should he get the benefit of someone paying towards his mortgage who doesn't have security of tenure? He couldn't just kick a tenant out but she - as far as I understand it - would only have the status of lodger so he could ask her leave at any time.

Presumably he didn't kidnap her and force the money out of her.

If we swap the gender roles, if my daughter had bought a house I wouldn't want her to let a boyfriend:

a) live there for nothing
b) have any share in the house if they split

I think the OP should have spoken to her boyfriend before moving in and possibly bought her own place on a buy to let and come to some agreement about bills.