Buying house together - but unequal deposit

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Spot on, Hero. If people don't want to talk openly and honestly about everything why would they want to do anything else together? And when you've been married for a while you'll be having lots of conversations in private and public which don't involve using words - one of the great joys of a close and trusting relationship.

november

heroicnich wrote:

Hi November,

I think, from what posters on another thread on this board have said, if you are the sole owner, and pay the mortgage, then the house is yours. If your partner (husband etc) starts to pay the mortgage, or makes changes to the house that add value - e.g. conservatory, new kitchen - that they pay for, then they can claim a portion of the equity, but not necessarily half. And to be honest, if you have children, surely a court would consider the fact that they need a home?

biblejohn wrote:

Spot on.

Another thing they do consider like in the girl i knows case is how long the couple have been married. If they have only been married a few months then get divorced, the courts are highly unlikely to award the new husband 50% of everything.

Oops sorry I've been working too hard and forgot to check this thread.

Thanks to both for the information. I had previously been told there was a difference in a partner and husband. What you say logically makes more sense as I couldn't see how or why I should continue to have the financial liability but him be able to backdate any benefits!

Yes he has paid for major work on the house and I would expect him to have some financial benefits from when he moved in and the work. That's only fair. Re. the children, yes I know they let you live in the house but in some respects they are irrelevant to home ownership as if he had a 50% stake it would have to be sold when they reached a certain age (grew up) to repay him should we seperate.

I am very cautious due to having lost my home several times before due to separation (both owned and rented and with and without children!)

Not that I anticipate our separating and as I said both he and I were in agreement on it being a ridiculous scenario should it have been true. I am actually also busy starting to organise our wedding

heroicnich

All the best with the wedding planning... and when I finally get into the house (hopefully at the end of the month), maybe I'll see you on the wedding tips board!

Nich x

november

There's a wedding tips board? Someone point me in the right direction please.

heroicnich

It's under 'Marriage, Relationships and Families'... there is a sticky at the top of the board called 'wedding tips start here'. Beware! It's very long and you can get ridiculously absorbed reading everyone's ideas!

november

Thanks

I never look at stickies as I tend to browse by new posts or look for forum titles.

rozeepozee

november wrote:

I had been told that once you marry everything you own becomes 1/2 your spouse's in the UK. Also that although you can draw up pre-nups etc they are not legally binding in this country.

I must admit I had given up asking about it due to statements made on previous threads where the assumption was that if I'm asking I shouldn't be marrying.

I raise the issue because I also wondered in Hero's case I know they could buy as tenants in common but when they married would that override that? It doesn't seem to make sense if marriage didn't override 'tenants in common' but did override sole ownership*

Apologies in advance and I reserve the right to amend this as I have been out and had more than a glass of wine :beer: Also, I haven't read all the other threads, so I may repeat what's already been said...

OP, before you wed, I would advise to hold the property as tenants in common rather than relying on letters signed by each of you etc. as suggested (and the way you apportion it is up to you, however it seems fair depending on your particular situation). The deed that will be drawn up to declare your tenancy in common will be legally binding and there will be evidence that you have had legal advice (unlike with the other options).

Once you marry the situation does change but, as indicated in the quotes above, it is far from straightforward. Technically, assets such as the matrimonial home become 'matrimonial assets'. However it's not so simple as a 50/50 split (as there is in some states in the US). It depends on the particular circumstances of the case, things like the length of the marriage, so for example, if one partner has put loads more cash in and the marriage ends after a couple of years, that person is far more likely to be able to argue that he or she should get his or her full share back, but if the marriage is 'long' (usually over seven years for all you romantics out there :rolleyes: ) then it is more likely to be on the lines of half each. Pre-nups are not legally binding but these days a court will take what they say on board so long as both parties have had independent legal advice prior to the agreement being entered into. If children are involved, the situation is different again and the court will put the interests of the children over and above the financial interests of the couple, looking first to ensure the children have a roof over their heads. This might mean, for example, the wife (if she is the one who has residence) getting a greater share, sufficient to either stay in the former matrimonial home or rehouse herself in a place big enough for both she and the children. Does that make shenche...?

My two penneth: looking at marriage as a 'business' arrangement may seem unromantic and it is more likely to be fair IF the parties split up as, sadly, almost half will.

gentlepurr

hi,

my husband and i bought our house as tennants in common, as i contributed 75% of the first house we bought. we have moved house twice since, and pool our resourses to pay a mortgage, which is now around £30,000 on a £300,000 house. the main reason we did this was because my hubby has a child from a previous marriage, and i didn't want any child of our marriage to be comprimised by a person my hubby has not seen for 20yrs.

however, we are now splitting up, and although the tennants in kind was drawn up as a part of the conveyance on our house, and done legally via our solicitor, this has no legal binding at all in a divorce court. just thought i would clear that point up.

xx

rozeepozee

I agree with the above post, in case it wasn't clear in my post above that. Marriage results in a whole new set of rules for how the assets of separating couples are split.