MMD: Should Jennifer do the deeds with Brad?

HappyHelen_2

No No No No No No No !!!!! Have just paid a (turned out to be very horrible) ex a hell of a lot of money to get him off the deeds to what was MY house in the first place!!!

helebelway

no she should not - get him a rent book and agree an amount to cover costs and have get a joint account for food, trips, nights out etc...only

happyinflorida

Firstly she needs to ask him why he's wanting this. Depending on what his answer is, she needs to take time and think very carefully first. As he appears to want everything legally right for him, I'd recommend she go straight to her solicitor and ask his advice on what to do and get something legally drawn up, so if and when they split up, she's protected her share of the deposit/interest etc.
I wouldn't recommend joint bank accounts with someone who's not ok with money as if the account goes bad you are jointly liable and the bank will go after the one with the money for repayment.
If she does put him on the deeds she could risk losing the house, especially if he's bad with money and if they split up and he goes bankrupt, that would be very bad news for her as she'd have to come up with the money to buy out his beneficial interest (the amount he was deemed to be owed from the value of the property) or risk losing the house!
All very risky. I'm just not happy with him asking for this first, to me it looks very bad and shows that he'd possibly make her life hell if they did split up.

paulj2001

Perhaps she shouldn't be so concerned with mixing business and pleasure! At the end of the day, if he is contributing to her 'investment' then he should reap a proportion of the rewards; without getting too complicated, calculate value of property on day he moves in, take into account monthly contribution then calculate value of investment when (or if! Let's not be too pessimistic here please!) he moves out. If she wants to be more severe, should come to some agreement about simply remunerating his contributions - obviously then , we have the argument that he was paying for a roof over his head and is owed nothing! Oh the joys of UK property ownership....

Try renting! You may not 'make' money but then you didn't have to pay in the first place! (I say 'make' because unless you sell up and rent or buy a smaller property, you don't ever really see the money in your hands as everybody else's property values are increasing at approximately the same rate.) Also, when you get old, you have to sell your property to pay for your care home costs and you'll be nodding off next to somebody didn't own a property and has their care paid for by the government!

They could also buy a house in any of the majority of countries in the world where houses don't increase in value more in a year than most people's wages! the U.S for example - no language barrier there either, better standard of living, better weather (sometimes), nowhere near the level of taxation we suffer here, cheap cars, cheap petrol, etc, etc!!

Am I rambling? Sorry! Anyway, I've made my point!

tugboat-tony

When Ben has as as much to lose as you, and can match your lump sum contribution to the purchase- maybe fair enough. I think its too early.
Contribute fairly to bills etc thats all.:eek:

norman_turner

This young gentleman may be a very good guy, but I'm an old cynic and he seems just to eager to jump on the bandwagon and could prove to be a free loader with an eye on the main chance.
If a refusal to comply with his request upsets him you may have to consider whether he is the one for you.
Do not trust him genle maiden!!

mikeywills

This whole situation is bonkers, if someone moved in with you in your home renting for a couple of months and asked to be put on your deeds what would you say. Hell NO!!

So clearly, this is a no brainer, when you are married fine, but at the moment he has no ties to you if he lived elsewhere he would have to pay rent and bills so he would be no better off than he is now.

With time comes commitment, but at present putting him on the deeds could see you homeless if he left!!, not a good situation for you.

dahjoh

I would not put his name on the deeds. However, if he lives there for several years and contributes financially towards the property then a judge will deem him to be entitled to a share proprtionate to what he has invested. This will be the case whether they marry or not. I got stung like this after my second marriage failed after 6 years. I had the house already in my name when I married him as it was a settlement from my first marriage. As he had been with me for 6 years, the judge decided he had a financial stake in the property even though his name was never on the deeds or the mortgage. I had to give him £26000 when the house was valued at £170000. I have paid my original mortgage off but I will be paying for my ex's share for another 10 years!!!!!!

juliettes_2

Jen should definitely keep the deeds in her name. The fact that Brad has asked to be put on the deeds would make me nervous!

My friend was in this situation. Their solution was for him to pay rent (the same amount he was paying before he moved in with her), with a rent book. This way, he was contributing to the bills etc as he would if he was renting from any other landlord, but the house is still hers. It's worked really well for them.

Now they're getting married.... and when they move to a new house they'll buy it together.
:j

speaky_2

Absolutely no way!!

He's not contributing to the mortgage, he's paying rent and a share of the bills.

Any rights to some of the equity in the house, will surely be granted to him in time, regardless of whether his name is put on the deeds now.

If he shows such a lack of respect for his financial welfare, where's the proof that he's going to show any respect towards his partner's finances either. Some people really do "think the world owes them a living" don't they!!