Deed of trust when married

[Mercier1]

Hi everyone.
Tomorrow I’ll be exchanging on a house my husband and I are buying. We currently live in his house he bought six years ago with parental help for the deposit. We moved in together when he bought it and I’ve always contributed to the mortgage and bills. We decided on a ratio in line with who earned more. We were soon engaged, got married, have a baby and another on the way.

We’ve decided to move on and the next house is in both names. I will be contributing 10k or so to the purchase but obviously my husband has a lot more equity now and more cash from his parents (he says 80K) between both lump sums they have gifted him/us.

Tonight final paperwork is coming across and lawyer drops in a letter about if we want to draw up a deed of trust to protect my husbands investment in case anything went wrong. I don’t know how I feel about this. We are a married couple and I’m about to give birth to his second child. That entails a loss of earnings/mat leave etc. In the future I imagine I will have money to put into the house, an inheritance maybe one day of my own.

I feel weird signing a deed of trust as a married woman. But then I guess it’s a huge sum on money and we have been going through a difficult time lately so I can imagine what my husbands thoughts might be tonight.

We exchange tomorrow so it’s prob too late but anyone got experience or insight for me?

If you are planning on growing old together it doesn't matter. If you are anticipating a less secure future then again it probably doesn't matter. As spouses if you ever had a difficult divorce, arbitration or the Courts would start with everything owned 50/50. If you have kids their needs would be prioritised. At this stage I don't think it matters. A trust to put the property 14%/86% in undivided shares in his favour would not work for him.

However, having your name on the property at the Land Register means if you go through problems he cannot mortgage the house up to the hilt, transfer the loan money to Thailand, post the keys through the letterbox and jet off to fuck prostitutes.

I do plan to grow old together but who knows. I’m growing his baby after all. I was kind of put out by this letter implying it would protect his investment etc. It doesn’t take into account the unpaid childcare I do or loss of earnings etc. Anyways he hasn’t pressed it, but wondering if I refused to sign it would that be a shitty move on my behalf? The scenario outlined about is terrifying!

From your wording it sounds like there isn’t a deed of trust to sign right now - only the solicitor asking if you want to create one?

So you can go ahead with the exchange and then consider this properly without a gun to your head.

It might be worth consulting a solicitor independently before you sign anything.

Someone has suggested this to your lawyer. It's not normal for a conveyancer to ask if you want a deed of trust drawn up.
I'd be declining the offer because your new house is your family home and not a business investment of your husband's. .

It wouldn't take into account unpaid childcare. Because caring for your own child isn't unpaid childcare. If you go down that route. He could claim the childcare is paid because he is the one earning all/the majority of the money for a few years and your living costs (plus extras are covered).

There's no right answer here. What's right for one couple isn't right for the next.

It wouldn't be a problem to me to have his deposit protected, as long as everything after that was a 50/50 split.

If you're worried about loss of earnings then I'd be looking at going back full time and splitting the childcare bill as you split all your bills - proportionate to income. Unless of course it comes out of one pot.

If he's wanting to protect his investment I'd be wanting to protect my earnings.

I would avoid signing it and not bring it up, mainly because of the additional unwanted hassle it would potentially create in the future. If you were to sign it and subsequently part ways if things were to go wrong (I really hope that you never have to encounter that!) the fact that you've got children and are foregoing an income to look after them means that the Deed wouldn't necessarily carry all that much weight in the end. The priority when couples split is to make sure that there's adequate provision for children. That doesn't necessarily mean splitting things according to the contribution proportions. Judges' first considerations are how children are going to be housed, not who put in what. You're still better off not having a Deed to argue about in the long run though.

It's not a shitty move not not sign it. Tell him you sign it when he signs a post nup taking into account your loss of earnings, pension and future career progression prospects (with associated loss of earnings) due to growing and raising his children. If he has a problem with this he's obviously just looking out for himself, is not concerned about fairness wrt your future (or DC), and is not 100% certain you will be together in the future.
It really peeves me that women are still at a financial disadvantage purely because we have to bear the children. And end up doing most of the childcare.

Notacluewhatthisis
It wouldn't take into account unpaid childcare. Because caring for your own child isn't unpaid childcare. If you go down that route. He could claim the childcare is paid because he is the one earning all/the majority of the money for a few years and your living costs (plus extras are covered)
Sorry but I completely disagree with this. OP's DH covering living costs during the time OP will be caring for the children will in no way reimburse her for her loss of earnings and the potential impact this could have on her career, future earning capacity and let's not even go into pensions etc. If OP's DH is willing to benefit from OP sacrificing her career to look after their joint children then he must be prepared to shoulder his share of the cost of this. If he didn't want to do this then he should be absolutely clear with OP and not agree to an arrangement where she does more childcare than him. This could include them taking shares parental leave to make sure that everything remains fair.

My advice to OP would be to discuss with your DH what he thinks of the idea of the trust. If he is keen then it implies that he still views you as two separate entities despite being married and having kids. I would be very reluctant on this basis to make any career sacrifices that were not matched by your DH as it may well be that he is keen to protect his investment whilst also making sure that you are the one that takes the financial hit for having kids.

What Bumpity said.
And don't sign anything without speaking to a solicitor on your own behalf.

Get your own legal advice. And don't do anything just because of timing.

Bumpitybumper I get what you are saying. But she is also benefiting too. She wants to be sahm, she also wanted the kids. If she doesn't want to be sahm, then she shouldn't be. If she doesn't want her career damaged she should go back after mat leave. It's shit that women have to do that though.

What I am saying is that being a sahm is of benefit to him and her.

I think people often talk about free childcare as though the working parent isn't making any contribution and the sahm isnt benefitting too. Also I am not saying she should sign it. This is a personal decision, that only she and her husband can come to an agreement on.

What posts are you reading notaclue? Where does it say anything about the op wanting to be a sahm?? And you say she wanted the kids... so her dh didn't want them?
You are approaching this from a very odd angle.

What if it was the other way round?

I nearly lost everything to someone I thought I'd be with forever.

He royally fucked me over.

Had I not had a deed of trust I would've lost £250k to someone who used me.

Don't sign anything like that without your lawyer looking at it first!

I wouldn't sign it, it's not appropriate when you are married with kids. It's not the same as when you were unmarried and living together and had no responsibilities. I'd also be getting back to work FT as soon as your maternity leave is finished and working your socks off to ensure you have a good career to protect you and your DC. Because he has just told you what he is like and when a man tells you these things you should listen.

My parents have worked rediculously hard all their lives and have been careful with investments and not overspending.

It would feel wrong for any partners to benefit from that. Why should you get £40,000 of his parents money? Half of his money - yes. Half of his parents money - No.

Don't sign it. And take independent legal advice.

@Notacluewhatthisis
You imply that the only reason why someone would become a SAHM/go PT is because they selfishly want to do this for their own benefit. In my experience this is true in the minority of cases and it is far more common for women to make this decision either because as a family they can't afford childcare, both parents want to avoid placing their children in childcare for what they view to be overly long hours or both parents don't want to use childcare at all. I also think many families struggle to maintain two high flying careers once children come along unless they can afford and want to utilise nannies. Basically my point is that a woman that sacrifices her career once children come along is often doing so for the benefit of the whole family so it is incredibly unfair to say that they she is rewarded by getting to fulfil this role whilst her husband gets all the longer term of benefits of this set-up by having an uninterrupted career with all the opportunities and increased financial benefits this provides.

Supporting your partner for a few years when she looks after the children will probably not have a massive impact on OP's DH's career or financial prospects in the future and may have a limited impact now depending on childcare costs and OP's salary. You absolutely cannot say the same for OP who could well struggle to rebuild her career and financial position.

And @Mercier1 be prepared that when you don't sign it ... you'll get the inevitable "she was only in it for the money otherwise she would sign it"

I've experienced some nasty breakups involving money :(

I don't really see the point if you're married as won't it all be marital assets anyway if you
Split?

We had one for our first flat as my partner put in the whole deposit (25k) We didn't have one when we moved into this house - we had a lot more equity between us because the flat went up in value, but I would have signed it as he was technically still entitled to get his original deposit back first morally I guess. But he couldn't be bothered as it seemed a bit petty. And we're not married!

@costacoffeecup a deed of trust is separate to any marital assets if they divorce. He is wanting to protect his parents money. Any money made after that in equity would be split.

Bumpitybumper I haven't implied it's selfish at all. I have a always been a firm believer is a choice each family should make and any choice is valid. Clearly you are projecting if you think I think being a sahm is selfish. What I am saying is that both often benefit. Not wanting to put your child in childcare is a choice. Both OP and her dh had these children and are both making choices.

Both roles have benefits and both have shitty bits.

People underestimate the pressure of being the sole wage earner, as well as underestimating the pressures of being a sahm.

If OP doesn't want to be a sahm, she doesn't have to be. They could have had one child, if childcare was too expensive and she wanted to maintain her career and earning power.

I am not saying being a sahm is the wrong decision. Simply that when one person is a sahm, their contribution is looking after the children. The working parents contribution is equally as important and that's what it should be. A partnership with both contributing but in different ways. Both contributions are important.

I mean, come on, can you imagine a man saying 'I provide her with a free accomodation'.

Again, I am not saying op should sign. Just that while she saying she provides free childcare, she need to recognise he is making an equally valuable contribution as well.

These deeds of trust /prenups are more so a gentleman's agreement, I'm not sure they are actually legally binding

You need to get legal advice.
Although if you don't get advice any deed of trust or post nup you sign is likely to be less enforceable.

In fact a good lawyer would warn him that this is not the best way to protect his parents money. And all that is likely to happen is it would make any divorce more costly to sort out.

If his parents are giving him money - surely they have to sign documents to say it is a free gift, for the mortgage company? Otherwise they could just register a charge on the property. But this is definitely something worth you all getting good legal advice.