Property in joint names?

flossy_splodge

Not sure of best place to put this so apologies if in wrong place.
I am shocked to have discovered that my DD is not on the deeds etc of the new house she and her new husband are in the process of buying.
Apparently he has come up with a lot of reasons why but basically he earns a lot more than she does so it wouldn't be 'fair'.
I thought marriage was an equal partnership and was based on trust?
Do you think I'm right to be concerned that she go ahead without any protection of her interests particularly as it seems 'they' are going to try for a baby asap.
warning bells are going off in my head!:eek:
Thoughts please you good people.

LauraWxx

Does she possibly have adverse credit and therefore they have used his name for the mortgage as it would only be him getting credit checked??

Personally, if it was me, i wouldnt buy a property with my bf without having my name on the deeds.

I suppose the other question is...is she going to be paying half of the mortgage, if not perhaps this is why??

angelsmomma

I wouldn't do if either.

I think it won't matter much anyway though if they are married and have a child her interests will be protected if they ever divorce.

I would have thought the house becomes a marital asset since it was bought during the marriage.

FireWyrm

There is quite possibly more to this than you know. There are many reasons why she might not want to be financially linked to her husband or he to her. It could be that she doesnt have sufficient credit rating to pass a mortgage evaluation. It's also equally possible she suspects issues in his finances and although he is obviously not struggling yet, you may forsee a situation where she could potentially become partially or completely liable for the mortgage.

In terms of a marriage, the asset isnt necessarily split 50/50 either. For instance, I have a mortgage. It is in my sole name because my husband has no credit rating at all. He doesnt work, or claim benefits, in fact, he doesnt contribute a single penny to the house. He does however look after our children and run the house on a day to day basis. Generally then, this might be considered to be a fairly normal traditional arrangement except that the roles are reversed. That's fine. Looking forward however, if we were to divorce, the children are usually awarded to the mother and not the father. If he were to leave, I would not expect him to have any claim on the house since he has never contributed financially and it would remain the dwelling place of his children and myself. Equally though, knowing that he has no assets nor means to provide, I would not expect any maintenance for the children either.

See, this is rarely a black and white scenario and there is likely to be more to this than you know.

cr1mson

FireWyrm wrote: »

That's fine. Looking forward however, if we were to divorce, the children are usually awarded to the mother and not the father. If he were to leave, I would not expect him to have any claim on the house since he has never contributed financially and it would remain the dwelling place of his children and myself. Equally though, knowing that he has no assets nor means to provide, I would not expect any maintenance for the children either.

See, this is rarely a black and white scenario and there is likely to be more to this than you know.

I hope you mean in the event of rather than looking forward!

Mojisola

FireWyrm wrote: »

He doesnt work, or claim benefits, in fact, he doesnt contribute a single penny to the house. He does however look after our children and run the house on a day to day basis. Generally then, this might be considered to be a fairly normal traditional arrangement except that the roles are reversed. That's fine.

Looking forward however, if we were to divorce, the children are usually awarded to the mother and not the father. If he were to leave, I would not expect him to have any claim on the house since he has never contributed financially and it would remain the dwelling place of his children and myself. Equally though, knowing that he has no assets nor means to provide, I would not expect any maintenance for the children either.

The children usually stay with the parent who is their main carer. In your scenario, it's likely that he and the children would stay in the family home until the youngest reaches 18.

If the couple are married, the house would be a marital asset if it came to divorce for flossy's DD so she wouldn't be turned out on the street as she could be if they weren't married, unless it's a very short marriage.

As others have said, it's possible there's a good reason why the house should only be in one name but, if the main reason is that he is bringing more money into the relationship, that would worry me.

FireWyrm

cr1mson wrote: »

I hope you mean in the event of rather than looking forward!

Of course. We've been together 17 years this year...but I've ever been the practical one of the partnership.

LauraWxx

sorry just seen your note regarding the protection of her interests...which would suggest she is either putting in some of the deposit or contributing to the mortgage....I would def be looking to get my name on the deeds if I was her.

FireWyrm

Mojisola wrote: »

The children usually stay with the parent who is their main carer.

If he walked out, the house would not be split until the children are 18. More to the point, he could not provide for them anyway, so how would a judge order them placed with him? The children would remain in the home where they belong.

If I walked out, he would lose the house since he cannot pay the mortgage. In any case, I'd sooner set myself on fire than walk out the door without the children. In that scenario, I might consider an ammicable sale but he wouldnt get 'half' since he has never paid into it.

Mojisola wrote: »

In your scenario, it's likely that he and the children would stay in the family home until the youngest reaches 18.

He couldnt service the mortgage and social wouldnt do it for him. The house would be reposessed and no-one has an asset OR a place to live. That's a ridiculous outcome and no judge would make everyone homeless just to abide by the 'half' an asset rule that one half of the partnership has never paid into.

Fire_Fox

If your name is not in the deeds you do not have the automatic right to remain in the house in the event if a split, your daughter could therefore be thrown out at very short notice. However you CAN have a legal claim on any assets if you can demonstrate you contributed financially or otherwise to the relationship, for example if you are raising children, also if you have set your career aside for the other partner. In the event of a divorce what the legal system deem fair is not always the same as what individuals deem fair.

You can only be named on the deeds of a property if the lender agrees, they invariably also want that party to be named on the mortgage which means they need to pass credit checks. IMO if your daughter intends to start a family she should take legal advice on the implications of living in a home she has no rights to. She might also enquire about owning as 'tenants in common' with a split that is not 50/ 50 and about what happens if her husband is to suddenly die.

InMyDreams

FireWyrm wrote: »

If he were to leave, I would not expect him to have any claim on the house since he has never contributed financially and it would remain the dwelling place of his children and myself. Equally though, knowing that he has no assets nor means to provide, I would not expect any maintenance for the children either.

Gulp! Seriously, you think he hasn't contributed and you should end up with the whole house? And the children? And he would end up with nothing? No assets or anything. I hope you are paying into a seriously good pension for him to make up for all the lost years looking after your house and children while you climb a career ladder and accumulate assets in your own name, including the family home. I hope there aren't many women left who would be happy with this sort of arrangement! It's attitudes like this that devalue the role of stay-at-home parents of either sex and puts society off looking after their own children