House in whose name?

regularsaver1

I beleive your solicitor could have wrote out an agreement regarding your £30k deposit

Rimo2021

kit wrote:

My partner and I have just bought a house. I put down £30,000 in cash, he got the mortgage for £102,000. However the house has had to be in his sole name due to him holding the mortgage.
I offically dont own any of it although I put in the £30,000 and I pay half the mortgage

Yes - that's not a great situation. Theoretically you should own 81/132ths and your partner should own 51/132ths

Or else you own it 50/50 but he pays a bit more than half the mortgage every month or else makes a payment to you every month until you have back 15k which would have been his share of the deposit and you can then be earning interest on this.

For most people this isn't a problem, they stay together so it doesn't really matter who owns what proportion, or they split up but divide their asset fairly and go their separate ways. It can be a really tough thing to discuss because it feels so mercenary and goes against the idea that you care for each other and want to be together permanently in a what's mine is yours kind of way without necessarily wanting to get married.

Ems*Honie

I'm confused as to why the mortage has to be in only one name, ours is in joint names despite the fact that I dont contribute anything as I'm a housewife? (sorry to hijack op! Hope you get sorted)

InMyDreams

Ems*Honie wrote:

I'm confused as to why the mortage has to be in only one name, ours is in joint names despite the fact that I dont contribute anything as I'm a housewife? (sorry to hijack op! Hope you get sorted)

Snap, but maybe that's the crucial bit... you are a houseWIFE. Our mortgage is also joint, but we didn't include my income (which is negligable compared to hubbie as essentially I'm a stay-at-home-mum). Maybe it's different rules if you're not married.

suki1964 wrote:

Urm, Im not on our mortgage cos hubby's earnings were enough to cover and my job history was just a tad flakey of late - but the house is in both our names. If anything happens to him the insurance will cover the repayments, if anything happens to me then he can still make payments

So does your insurance not cover you if anything happened to you? I may be just a housewife, but I'm covered too. Without me, dh would have a hard time holding down his job and looking after the house and three small children (even if he could afford that level of childcare which probably doesn't even exist!). At the very least, he'd have to take a huge hit to his salary, rendering him unable to keep up repayments. I consider myself to make an invaluable contribution (literally, because you can't put a value on it, lol).

So Ems*honey, I would disagree that you or suki don't contribute anything. I mean obviously you know that, and you were just refering to handing over the dosh, but I mean more than that. Your contribution is still worth insuring if your presence is increasing your dh's earning potential.

cupid_s

kit wrote:

My partner and I have just bought a house. I put down £30,000 in cash, he got the mortgage for £102,000. However the house has had to be in his sole name due to him holding the mortgage.
I offically dont own any of it although I put in the £30,000 and I pay half the mortgage

This is very similar to my situation in that I paid the majority deposit on our house, while hubby got the mortgage based on his earnings. But the mortgage is still joint even though I pay nothing for it, and my money wasn't taken into account when we took it on. Therefore the house is also in joint names.

You really should question that just in case anything happens. The mortgage should be joint between you and your partner even if he was the one who took it out.

Plasticman

Rimo2021 wrote:

That's not very fair if Phil's partner is going to be contributing mortgage payments is it? I've seen it happen many times where someone moves in with a partner who had already bought a property, contributed equally for several years and got nothing when the relationship ended.. don't assume because Phil's income will be used to get the loan that he (or she) will be making the mortgage payments.

Yes, sorry - jumped to conclusions there. My post is only valid if you are the only one making a contribution to the mortgage / deposit.

Basil_Hume

Can someone please advise me then please?

My partner has £200k in saving and little income, whereas I have little savings and a decent income. On this basis, we'd be looking at a house of up to £250k, with me paying a mortgage of £50k.

Could the mortgage be in my name only? Or would it be a joint mortgage?

Cheers

UK007BullDog

OK, here goes: It can be both.

I would suggest for all you people out there living with a partner but not married to get a move and add yourself to the deeds if not the mortgage. If you split up and are not on the deed you might get nothing back even though you have paid into the mortgage account. It will turn ugly when you have to prove you paid money into it.

Just because you might not earn money to add to the mortgage you can (should) still be on the mortgage and the deeds.

Also if a partner dies and the survining partner is on the deed and the mortgage docs they can take control immidiately. The same goes for joint accounts and savings. There is a lot of hassle and time involved to get access to a deceased persons assetts even if married. Just think you are a family with kids and need money to feed them or pay bills and cannot get access to it.

If you are not on the mortgage docs and you need to sell the property it will need the help of a solicitor and again costs and time to get access. You might not even be able to talk to the lender due to the Data Protection Act.

So ALWAYS try to get onto the deeds and the mortgage docs, no matter how much or little you give in money towards the mortgage/property.

Basil_Hume

Ah ha. Thank you.

InMyDreams

Plasticman wrote:

Yes, sorry - jumped to conclusions there. My post is only valid if you are the only one making a contribution to the mortgage / deposit....

I don't know anything about your circumstances, but unless you are in a 'well established' relationship then I would suggest leaving the property in your name only. If the worst happens and the relationship fails then it will make things much simpler. Sorry to sound the pessimist but I've seen it happen too many times!

Sorry to be pedantic, but it's not even necessarily valid then imho. If partners are buying a new house together that implies to me a pretty 'well established' relationship (or maybe I'm just too traditional). How else would you describe 'well-established'? Hands up anyone who's bought a house with a partner they wouldn't describe as 'well-established'. I guess not including business deals and the like, but I'm sure that's not what we're talking about here.

You've seen what happen too many times? Relationships break up (even 'established' ones) and the 'non-contributing' partner unreasonably claiming part of the house? In what circumstances would that be unreasonable? I'm sure it does happen, and there are gold-diggers around, but I'm sure in most cases the opposite is true. The claim could be absolutely reasonable for any number of reasons, and all the more reason for the 'non-contributing' partner to get his/her name on the house, if you're worrying about reationship failure!