New joint morgage but its 'my' equity

ValHaller

punkypin wrote: »

.... I moved in with my Husband who has mortgage. I had a part time job and we decided it would be best that I study at Uni for a better future. Now Im qualified My husband wants to move house. I have no savings from being a student and he says he wants the solicitor to take into account 'his equity' before we take a joint mortgage.

This sounds more like an exit strategy on his part than an investment in your partnership.

I had a lot of equity in a property when I got married. We kept the house in my name through inertia - but now I realise that I should at least have done a will. When we moved, we bought together as Joint Tenants with no Trust Deed - just mutual trust that there will be no need to separate financial affairs.

My wife has gone through a degree and other education for entry to the degree and I have always regarded this as an investment in her and our partnership. With or without a job, she brings so much to our life together and the education has done so much for her and us that I wouldn't begrudge her any of it, even if she did not work.

I suggest that you tell you husband that you will buy Joint Tenants with no Trust deed as a permanent partnership or he buys on his own and everyone has their exit strategy.

JPB123

MrsPBikerChick wrote: »

Incidentally, if you take out a joint mortgage you will almost certainly be required to own the house as joint tenants rather than tenants in common. With the former the house is owned equally and there are no shares, which you can have on with the latter (this is how shared ownership schemes work). I suspect the only way he might find he can protect "his share" of the equity is by way of a legal charge over the property, and no mortgage company is going to like that in case it supersedes their charge (ie their security for the mortgage). If I remember back to my property law lectures correctly, I think while it is possible to make a beneficial trust in land by way of a deed this is on,y in equity and therefore not enforceable against someone holding a legal charge over a property (ie the mortgage company). In short, trust or not if the mortgage company calls in their charge because of a default he won't have a leg to stand on. Besides, as a joint mortgagor he will be jointly and severally liable the same as tou irrespective of who contributed what at the time of purchase.

Not true. You can have a joint mortgage on a property as joint tenants or tenants in common. It doesn't make a difference as far as the lender is concerned. He can't put a charge on the property, but could look to set up a Deed of Trust after completion.

I am an Independent Mortgage Advisor. Any posts here should not be construed as advice.

hazyjo

Did you buy the house together, but in his name? Or was it his house, and you moved in?

I can see both sides, but then I've been married twice! Unfortunately, things don't always go to plan.

I did put MUCH more into both houses, but was lucky enough to come out with pretty much what I put in. I would have been gutted if my exes had taken half of the money I put in (especially as the first one run off with his secretary and gave me zero choice about our marriage!). Actually, you have to have been married X amount of years before it goes to 50/50. Three years, I think, maybe two.

But that was money I had, in property I owned, before I met them, so presumably different.

If you don't think you'll ever split up, it doesn't matter either way if he officially 'owns' more of the house than you. If you're feeling sore about it, maybe you do have your doubts somewhere deep down about it lasting?

In your shoes, if I'd been on a lower wage and bought something jointly with my husband, I would be peed off if he flung that on me too. But I am surprised it's not been mentioned before - especially when you were both looking/buying.

Jx

zzzLazyDaisy

JPB123 wrote: »

Not true. You can have a joint mortgage on a property as joint tenants or tenants in common. It doesn't make a difference as far as the lender is concerned. He can't put a charge on the property, but could look to set up a Deed of Trust after completion.

I am an Independent Mortgage Advisor. Any posts here should not be construed as advice.

It makes no difference as far as the lender is concerned.

But from your point of view, OP it makes a big difference. Say you put the house in joint names as tenants in common 90/10 with you having 10%. If for some reason he becomes unable to pay his 'share' of the mortgage - redundancy, illness, debt etc, then YOU are still liable for the whole of the mortgage regardless of what share you own.

When I married my ex we both sold our houses and bought one together. He put a lot more into the new house than I did, but we still bought in joint names, and it was swings and roundabouts - he took early retirement not long after through (unforseen) ill health, and I took over full responsibility for the mortgage and paid it off. That's what married people do, they support each other.

To be honest I would be saying to him, sweetly, 'I've thought about it and seeing as the equity is so important to you, I think it would be cleaner and less complicated if you buy the next house in your name with your equity. You can be responsible for your mortgage and we can split the rest of the bills. That way there will be no misunderstandings about who the house belongs to.'

At the end of the day it won't make much difference - if you get divorced the starting point is 50/50 no matter whose name the house is in.

comeandgo

I'm probably in disagreement with most of you. My husband came from a divorce with money, that money is his and his childrens, not mine or my childrens but what we have bought, saved when we have been together is "ours". I will not take from anyone what I dont feel I'm entitled to or have worked for.

tattycath

ValHaller wrote: »

Well, firstly the husband probably is not legally qualified. And secondly he will have even more conflicts of interest.

I think you've misunderstood. I think the advice was to get a different solicitor to the one her husband is using -not to get legal advice from her husband.

MEM62

punkypin wrote: »

Keep your advice coming before I confront my Husband with my 'findings'

Leave!

It would be interesting to see his reaction if you were ever the one to be in the stronger financial situation.

zzzLazyDaisy

comeandgo wrote: »

I'm probably in disagreement with most of you. My husband came from a divorce with money, that money is his and his childrens, not mine or my childrens but what we have bought, saved when we have been together is "ours". I will not take from anyone what I dont feel I'm entitled to or have worked for.

I agree that issue needs to be be dealt with, but it can be dealt with by the wills. We left everything to each other, and when the second died, instruction to divide the equity equally between his sons and mine.

But OP hasn't mentioned any children of a former marriage.

ValHaller

tattycath wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood. I think the advice was to get a different solicitor to the one her husband is using -not to get legal advice from her husband.

You have to admit, I did it with a very straight face.

Vomityspice

Perhaps the OP's partner is trying to avoid the 'Geoff Boycott' swerve??

see:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048824/Geoffrey-Boycott-loses-High-Court-battle-damages-lawyers-2-5m-house.html

If the OP purchased the house as joint tenants then it is very simple to severe the tenancy with one letter (indeed, when getting divorced, your legal advisor will usually suggest it is one of the things you need to do!) and hey presto, she is the beneficiary of 50% of the equity.

Depending on the circumstances this may be seen as entirely fair (married 30 years etc) or morally repugnant (married 6 month....).

Further, the use of a discretionary trust could ensure that the OP's 'share' ofthe house (in the event of her death) is then protected from being automatically inherited by their spouse. Depending on the views of the OP, they could give their partner a life interest and on their death, her 'half' of the estate distributed to her beneficiaries. Further, there are possible benefits by using a trust (i.e. if he goes bankrupt, her share is protected)

As a final thought, it would concern me if at the start of a relationship my partner was talking in terms of shares...... (