Partner refusing to discuss deed of trust!

FBaby

Person_one wrote: »

An engagement is a plan to get married, its not marriage, and engagements break quite frequently.

They break quite frequently because people get engaged before thinking what it actually means.

Anyway, we'll indeed agree to disagree, but that trend of thought does explain why the rate of divorce is so high.

Torry_Quine

Errata wrote: »

Her savings is precisely the point as it appears the bloke is contributing nothing to a deposit. Beggars can't be choosers.

We all bring something into a marriage and that doesn't just mean finances. If you intend to marry and share your lives then it all becomes the assets of the marriage to my way of thinking.

Soubrette

Carl31 wrote: »

Anyone that cared about their partner would aknowledge their generous contribution to there living arrangement. In some ways, yes i think its a negative way of looking at things, but with divorce more common place than life long marriage anyway on this country, its foolish to think because things are rosy now, they will be for ever

What about negative equity? Would you be prepared to take on your share of that if it occured? Seeing as you would have the larger stake in the property? If so, use that as your selling point, you need protection as you are taking on more risk

Actually the bit in bold is not quite true, over 50% of first marriages do last a lifetime - it's just that some people get divorced more than once so the figures make it look like more people are divorced than stay married.

It's not just about divorce though, if you are not married - what if your partner dies, does his half of the house go to you or his next of kin? If the latter then will they take into account your deposit?

Mojisola

Soubrette wrote: »

It's not just about divorce though, if you are not married - what if your partner dies, does his half of the house go to you or his next of kin? If the latter then will they take into account your deposit?

This is another thing to think about - Deb - are you going to own the house as tenants in common or joint tenants?

Until you are married, if he should die the inheritance laws could leave you in a very difficult circumstances unless you've both made wills and vice versa if you should die.

Person_one

FBaby wrote: »

They break quite frequently because people get engaged before thinking what it actually means.

Anyway, we'll indeed agree to disagree, but that trend of thought does explain why the rate of divorce is so high.

I suppose we'll have to, because I definitely don't agree that that's the only reason engagements are ever broken, or married couples ever divorce.

Even with the best will in the world (on both sides) things can still change in ways you can't plan for, and a broken engagement is better than a divorce or an unhappy marriage.

Torry_Quine

Person_one wrote: »

I suppose we'll have to, because I definitely don't agree that that's the only reason engagements are ever broken, or married couples ever divorce.

Even with the best will in the world (on both sides) things can still change in ways you can't plan for, and a broken engagement is better than a divorce or an unhappy marriage.

I am mostly in agreement with you here.;)

However for some people an engagement means little as they have no real plans to marry and start their new lives together. It should be a time of talking about what both of you want from marriage in important areas such as children, work, money etc. A broken engagement is better than marrying and then divorcing.

FBaby

Person_one wrote: »

I suppose we'll have to, because I definitely don't agree that that's the only reason engagements are ever broken, or married couples ever divorce.

Even with the best will in the world (on both sides) things can still change in ways you can't plan for, and a broken engagement is better than a divorce or an unhappy marriage.

Well I do agree with that, and that's the reason why I thought long and hard before agreeing to get married. No point in doing so unless i am prepared to take the risk because I believe it is very low. If it does happen, then I will accept that you can't control everything in life.

littlejaffa

Why not flip it over? ask if he'd be happy to put the entire house in your name only - if your never going to split up and love each other happily for ever it makes no difference.
If he feels a need to have the house in join names and have equality in ownership then he's thinking materialistically and should understand your wanting the deed for 25%.
Personally I can see no reason not to have it - if my partner put in 25% and i had nothing to offer i'd think them mad if they didn't want to protect that - no one can tell the future and there's no harm in the deed if you don't break up

Errata

If someone loves someone they will want to protect them. If that means a deed of trust - why could their objection be?

coolcait

Errata wrote: »

A deed of trust works exactly the same way as house insurance. It sits on the shelf until it's needed.

I think this is a very good way of putting it.

Looking at the various insurances held by my household...

I really don't believe that our house will be swallowed by old mine-workings, or be destroyed in any other way. But, if I am wrong in that belief, the disaster will be covered by insurance.

I really don't believe that our house will be engulfed by fire, or be destroyed in any other way. But, if I am wrong in that belief, the disaster will be covered by insurance.

I really don't believe that our car will be written off in an accident, or be destroyed in any other way. But, if I am wrong in that belief, the disaster will be covered by insurance.

I really don't believe that our holiday will be ruined by illness, or be destroyed in any other way. But, if I am wrong in that belief, the disaster will be covered by insurance.

I really don't believe that our relationship won't last, or that it will be destroyed in some way. But, if I am wrong in that belief, the disaster will be covered by insurance.

Or, to extrapolate from a point made by a few others, if the OP's OH thinks that the relationship will last, what's the problem with agreeing to the OP having insurance?