whether to add fiancé to deeds of house

[hilbil21]

Another thread has prompted me to post and just wondering what you guys think is for the best.

My mum passed away last year and I have inherited her house on which the mortgage is fully paid off.

My fiancé, 11 month old son and myself have moved in and fiancé is paying to decorate etc and also pays all bills as I don't work.

Am I being fair not having him on the deeds??

[blindsider]

Sounds like a typical case of what's mine is mine and what's yours is ours :-(

[LeaLeander]

Not in a million years should you add anyone to the deed of the house. Even if you get married, get legal protection of the house ahead of time. Or don't get married.

You know what the divorce rate is. You know how greedy and acrimonious people get about money and property when relationships break up. Hopefully you know how priceless that house is in terms of financial security for your self, and your children. Why on earth would you risk that????

[NotnowNigel]

What has he done to earn the house? NOTHING

Your parents left the house to you and it must have given them a lot of comfort to know that you and your ds would be secure.

I think giving half away would be letting them dowb.

[accendo]

I wouldn't.

[LeaLeander]

Your parents would be horrified.

If you do get married, put him on the deed for your 25th wedding anniversary present. Not before then. And print out this thread and keep it in your drawer and read it as necessary between now and then.

If you don't get married or the marriage breaks up while you are young - well, you'll be glad you didn't put him on the deed. You'll never regret NOT doing so as much as you potentially could regret giving him half your inheritance.

Just because you love someone and/or he loves you does NOT mean you have to compensate for everything lacking in his life. Why on earth do you think he is getting a "raw deal" because you don't automatically dole out your parents' hard-earned assets to him?!

[blindsider]

Unbelievable, I bet the advice would be totally different if the OP was a man. Unless she has a pre nup (which may or may not be valid) he doesn't need his name on the deeds. Frankly ones energy would be better served ensuring you are part of a loving trusting relationship than plotting for the day when it goes to rat shit. It makes one despair.

[blindsider]

I assume if they do get married all you hoarders will think it entirely reasonable that anything he inherits from his parents will be off limits too??

[LeaLeander]

In the US, no inheritances become marital property even when the couple already is married when one or the other receives a bequest.

For good reason. Why should family wealth be diluted because someone makes a bad choice of mate?

[blindsider]

The OP doesn't seem to have stated she is in the US??

[torontonian]

In the US, no inheritances become marital property even when the couple already is married when one or the other receives a bequest.

^ This. OP might not be in the US but it makes sense.

On the other hand if the inheritance is real estate and it is used as the marital home, the other party acquires some rights.

He is providing money for bills, you are providing a roof, all is fair. Protect the house. It is half his while he stays with you. He will only "lose" if there is a break up, and believe me that in that case you will be glad you kept your inheritance separate.

[winchester1]

We are in a similar position, ongoing coats such as insurance, basic decorating, wear and tear come from the normal joint family finances.
Things that add value we pay half each but if we split OH has to pay me back my share. OH owns outright like you and I have no rights to the property if we split but inherit the house if he dies.

[winchester1]

Coats - costs

[VinceNoirLovesHowardMoon]

He's paying living costs because you're not working because you're raising your child. That's not unfair, that's proper.
His outgoings are less than they would be if he had to pay rent or mortgage on top of that so he can save a good % of his wages. He wins.
He doesn't need to have a share of your house just because he's living in it. He's quite capable of saving his own capital while he works and lives with you and that's a bonus above what most people get to do.
When you're married the savings would technically become joint but personally I see no issue with you keeping your house for you and him keeping his savings for him, at least until you start earning again and contributing financially at which point you should have joint savings (or at least be able to both save equally)

[WeAllHaveWings]

I am the only person on the deeds of our house (dh couldn't get a mortgage when we first moved in together), never been an issue in 25 years of being together. We assume we'll split it 50/50 if we split and if I die first it will go to him as marital assets (small house

[Choughed]

If you are in a relationship, have a child and are going to get married actually yes, I think he should be in the deeds of the house.

He didn't too anything to "earn" it but neither did the OP, she inherited it.

[Offred]

Tbh I think the fairest thing is to not get married unless you want to share your house with him.

[Julius02]

I'm absolutely sure if it were the other way around that most posters would be saying he should put her on the deeds of the house - she's the mother of his child, raising his child, equal partners etc etc.

It should work both ways and I think you should add him to the deeds.

[HermioneWeasley]

I'm glad to see there are people here as unromantic as me. Agree, not only would I not add him to the deeds, but I probably would t get married I. These circs and would be taking legal advice to protect the asset.

You'll never get another chance to inherit from you parents, you don't want him to be entitled to half of it if the marriage doesn't work out. He has the huge benefit of living without housing costs and only needing to pay the bills, he's benefitting enough. He can use the balance o save up and buy his property if he wants.

And yes, on this basis he would be entitled to keep any inheritance from his family, or at that point you agree he is bringing as much financial,y to the party as you are and it makes sense to get married

[Julius02]

I also meant to add the phrase 'family money' that I see so often on Mumsnet. The money he is earning to provide for the family here is treated as 'family money' but the home and equity in it isn't? That really doesn't seem fair to me.

[nooka]

If you get married he will have a claim on the house regardless. You can try the pre-nuptual route but there's no guarantee that it will be considered in a divorce. I bought our first home before dh and I got married. When we separated I was told that even though dh had made no contribution (no mortgage) he was entitled to half of it and there was nothing I could do about it. Which was pretty gutting!

Marriage brings legal benefits, but it has consequences too.

[Whocansay]

Think of it this way. You're effectively saying that whatever happens, he's going to have half your house. Even if you split before you get married.

Don't do it.

[Offred]

Marriage is basically an agreement to share your assets and money with someone else.

I don't think you should marry if you aren't prepared to do that.

Unless he is very wealthy and could afford to buy another property outright that would be just his then I don't think a prenup would necessarily be upheld.

Much better to stay unmarried and also to get advice on how to protect yourself from him getting a beneficial int even if you don't marry. If he contributes to renovations/work etc, moved in there with you, you treated is as the family home and he lives there this may be the case if he claims it.

[Offred]

You could maybe stay unmarried and make a cohabitation agreement expressly detailing that your common intention is that he never have a share of the property.

[dangerrabbit]

Personally I would not put him on the deeds, but also not have a pre-nup so that he would get his share in the event of divorce