MMD: Should Jennifer do the deeds with Brad?

Davirv

Beware sharing! I let a girl into my house. She was an utter pain. I asked her to leave. She qualified for legal aid, so got solicitors on to me to claim she had a constructive implied trust based partly on a recent case Stack v Dowden. That means she did not even have to prove there was a common intention between the parties that she would benefit. She made no financial contribution to the house and was not on the mortgage. She just did a bit of housework and supervised builders add an extension. The extension was her idea, now I know why. To avoid big legal costs at court I had to pay her a huge amount of money to go.

Tiny_Tiger

Brad should not move in till they get married! Financial commitments of this nature cannot come before solid personal commitments.

You can't have everything, every way. If he's paying into the mortgage, then he needs to know his 'investment' isn't worthless. If she doesn't let him, what does that say about the relationship in the first place?

Surely, then, its easier to stick to good old fashioned morals - Wait till they get married and are reasonably sure they intend to stick together forever! There's no problem with waiting - or maybe there is - and that is a good commentary on society in general.

Primrose

Absolutely not. She should retain her independence, knowing his track record. In my book, somebody would have to provide a very long track record of financial stability and competence before I would risk entrusting my financial future in their hands. Let him contribute towards the bills on the understanding that if they are still together (and/or married) in five years time, then the situation would be reviewed. If Brad doesn't like this, one can only wonder about his ulterior motives.

CCCele

Brad should make sure whatever money he pays goes into the mortgage, and it is not her paying the mortgage and him paying all the bills. That way if they split up, his financial contributions are recognised.

Oscar7

If Jennifer doesn't trust him then why are they moving in together? The relationship is doomed before it begins. I think that they should keep all things seperate and continue to date until they are ready to make an emotional commitment based on mutual respect and understanding. Then, if they REALLY love each other they should work out a financial way forward together that will benefit BOTH of them in the long term. If you really love someone then you work things for their benefit as well as your own. If this isn't happening for Jen then the alarm bells should start to ring that maybe he's not for her.

adagio_2

It does not sound as though it would be in either of their interests. If Brad were to default on large consumer debt they could be faced with a forced sale of their home. Better to keep the situation as it is. If Brad is contributing to the mortgage then he will gain a beneficial interest in the property which might mean he gets some return if the relationship fails.

Tonylm

The phrase "she bought her house two years ago... and ...now her boyfriend is moving in... suggests that she has not been going out with him for the two years she has owned the house and therefore they are still in the early stage of a relationship.

In this case I would say definitely no to putting him on the deeds. Where he lives now he is presumably paying rent and bills so if he pays her the same he is no worse off and if the relationship lasts they can consider joint ownership AND joint mortgage later.

If he doesn't accept this it must call into question his commitment to the relationship in the first place.

In response to "howlinrourkie" my understanding is that however long you live with someone and no matter what you contribute to what you have no claim on a house unless you are on the mortgage/deeds or have some other written agreement drawn up.

jonsterne

Under no circumstances should you consider adding Brad!!! to the deeds

olly300

If Brad wants any rights to the property then he should propose. Otherwise he looks to me like a gold digger.

Jamp

Davirv wrote: »

Beware sharing! I let a girl into my house. She was an utter pain. I asked her to leave. She qualified for legal aid, so got solicitors on to me to claim she had a constructive implied trust based partly on a recent case Stack v Dowden. That means she did not even have to prove there was a common intention between the parties that she would benefit. She made no financial contribution to the house and was not on the mortgage. She just did a bit of housework and supervised builders add an extension. The extension was her idea, now I know why. To avoid big legal costs at court I had to pay her a huge amount of money to go.

Crikey that's frightening.

How can people protect their investment if a boy/girlfriend moves in then? What if the arrangement was that the b/gfriend is a lodger and there's a tenancy agreement for them to pay rent (not "half the mortgage and bills", although the rent might 'happen' to equal this...)?