We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Deed of trust - legally enforceable?
Options
Comments
-
No need for rudeness, I'm sorry you don't understand why deeds of trust exist. My view is perfectly rational and logical.
No rudeness whatsoever.
Ok, perhaps implying you weren't rational was wrong, incredibly cynical may have been more like it.
Of course I understand why they exist, but the way LittleMax articulated it was far better and realistic than the simplistic "you don't trust someone as far as you can throw them so need a contract".
It's just an insurance premium, in my eyes. I've never needed and doubt I ever will, but I still purchase it. I have 100% faith in my ability to never cause a car crash, yet I still have car insurance every year. I know you're a pedant so, just for this example, can we ignore the fact that it is a legal requirement before you instantly jump in with "you have it because you are required to by law"?0 -
No rudeness whatsoever.
Ok, perhaps implying you weren't rational was wrong, incredibly cynical may have been more like it.
Of course I understand why they exist, but the way LittleMax articulated it was far better and realistic than the simplistic "you don't trust someone as far as you can throw them so need a contract".
It's just an insurance premium, in my eyes. I've never needed and doubt I ever will, but I still purchase it. I have 100% faith in my ability to never cause a car crash, yet I still have car insurance every year. I know you're a pedant so, just for this example, can we ignore the fact that it is a legal requirement before you instantly jump in with "you have it because you are required to by law"?
The analogy of your car insurance isn't really the best as you already said. However with that said do you have just 3rd party or full comp - that's more equivalent of the debate here.
I'd describe a DOT as the equivalent of the full comp version, not having enough faith in your own abilities to effectively control a motor vehicle.
I prefer pragmatic to cynical, but nothing wrong with being a cynic.0 -
The analogy of your car insurance isn't really the best as you already said. However with that said do you have just 3rd party or full comp - that's more equivalent of the debate here.
I'd describe a DOT as the equivalent of the full comp version, not having enough faith in your own abilities to effectively control a motor vehicle.
I prefer pragmatic to cynical, but nothing wrong with being a cynic.
Hmm, yes and no to your point about fully comp. Can you claim on TPFT insurance if your car is left on a street and gets written off because someone crashes into it and does a runner? Doubtful. Let's leave that analogy there as it wasn't great in the first place and your response was equally as poor.
Aaaaaaaaanyway, I'm sure this is as boring for everyone else as it is for me so probably best to get back on topic. Before we do though, I'm interested to know if you've ever been in the position to feel the need for a Dot? Or have you always gone 50:50, or could be that you are single and have never needed to consider it?0 -
Hmm, yes and no to your point about fully comp. Can you claim on TPFT insurance if your car is left on a street and gets written off because someone crashes into it and does a runner? Doubtful. Let's leave that analogy there as it wasn't great in the first place and your response was equally as poor.
- I believe you can claim from the MIB. I disagree my response was poor, at least from this side of the argument it makes sense.
Aaaaaaaaanyway, I'm sure this is as boring for everyone else as it is for me so probably best to get back on topic. Before we do though, I'm interested to know if you've ever been in the position to feel the need for a Dot? Or have you always gone 50:50, or could be that you are single and have never needed to consider it?
You've made an interesting presumption there, by giving me 3 options, and none are applicable.
I would never get a DoT (that is obvious I suspect)
I neither go 50:50
Nor am I single
I trust the person I'm with, don't count the pennies or the pounds. It's only money and I cant take it with me. If the other party screws me over, then so be it. But I'm not going to go into a partnership with someone I claim to love by asking them to fill out a contract.
As for the 50:50 nonsense, it's not relevant. I earn money for my family, that money isn't mine and I wouldn't expect someone to 'match' me financially to justify their existence.0 -
You've made an interesting presumption there, by giving me 3 options, and none are applicable.
I would never get a DoT (that is obvious I suspect)
I neither go 50:50
Nor am I single
I trust the person I'm with, don't count the pennies or the pounds. It's only money and I cant take it with me. If the other party screws me over, then so be it. But I'm not going to go into a partnership with someone I claim to love by asking them to fill out a contract.
As for the 50:50 nonsense, it's not relevant. I earn money for my family, that money isn't mine and I wouldn't expect someone to 'match' me financially to justify their existence.
Fair response.
Are you married?0 -
Fair response.
Are you married?
No, so no added protection there
Marriage doesn't really appeal, again it's just a bit of paper if you look at it from a 'romantic' point of view, or a very lengthy contract from a pragmatic one.
I don't need to show 50-100 people who I barely see anymore (due to life and children) that I have managed to convince someone to put up with me!
Better things to spend time, money and effort on.
(though I do believe wills are important)0 -
No, so no added protection there
Marriage doesn't really appeal, again it's just a bit of paper if you look at it from a 'romantic' point of view, or a very lengthy contract from a pragmatic one.
I don't need to show 50-100 people who I barely see anymore (due to life and children) that I have managed to convince someone to put up with me!
Better things to spend time, money and effort on.
(though I do believe wills are important)
Finally, we agree on something. :beer:0 -
In 20 years time the deposit could be worth less than a small second hand hatchback.
Why not just buy in one persons name, the other saves up the equivalent and then buys into the property?
"Your mortgage wouldn't be £650 for a start. You don't get to deduct your whole mortgage for tax purposes for another. But I wont bore you with the details. Just make sure that should you ever decide to rent out, you come back and learn the basics"
Only just read your comment above. What do you mean my mortgage wouldn't be £650 for a start? Are you my lender now? That is the amount we've signed up to so what on earth are you talking about?
The second bit yes I agree I made a mistake. I totally understand that mortgage can't be fully deducted but just made a slight error here. What I was getting at in the main was the residual money from rent less what we pay to our mortgage provider.0 -
"Your mortgage wouldn't be £650 for a start. You don't get to deduct your whole mortgage for tax purposes for another. But I wont bore you with the details. Just make sure that should you ever decide to rent out, you come back and learn the basics"
Only just read your comment above. What do you mean my mortgage wouldn't be £650 for a start? Are you my lender now? That is the amount we've signed up to so what on earth are you talking about?
The second bit yes I agree I made a mistake. I totally understand that mortgage can't be fully deducted but just made a slight error here. What I was getting at in the main was the residual money from rent less what we pay to our mortgage provider.
You would pay a higher rate for a BTL mortgage.0 -
I can see where you are coming from with this one. Just to ensure I am understanding it correctly, would you care to run your idea based on the following numbers?
Purchase price - 315k
Deposit A - 150k
Deposit B - 15k
It's actually 91%:9%, recently changed from 88:12.
mortgage £150k split payments on £7.5k & £143.5k
5% 95% payment split will work, if either party overpays a lump sum easy to rework the debt servicing(note equity share does not change).
That way you both put in £157.5k to own equity 50:50.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards