Cash from Family towards a deposit.

bpj

Others have alluded to this, but it would be straightforward for the new owners to purchase with unequal shares, or set out exactly how the proceeds of any sale should be split between them (as long as they both agree).

So if the only concern is that the gift should stay with the family member, rather than the giver wanting to get their money back, that would seem the simplest option.

MobileSaver

6022tivo said:

Family member doesn't want the money back and it will pass upon death, but just want it protected if something happens

That doesn't make sense. If the family member doesn't want the money back then what are they protecting it against?

It's either a genuine gift or it's not and in this case it's clearly not.

deano2099

bpj said:

Others have alluded to this, but it would be straightforward for the new owners to purchase with unequal shares, or set out exactly how the proceeds of any sale should be split between them (as long as they both agree).

So if the only concern is that the gift should stay with the family member, rather than the giver wanting to get their money back, that would seem the simplest option.

Yup - essentially this is a gift to just one of the couple and should be treated that way. That would presumably mean the deposits they're putting in are unequal and both parties would want to protect their share should the relationship break down, but that's a very common situation and no different to if one party just had a larger deposit than the other.

6022tivo

user1977 said:

I'm not sure whether you're getting confused between two different things - if the gifter isn't ever going to want their money back, it doesn't make sense for them to register a charge. Are you just talking about one half of the couple who are buying wanting to make sure they get their portion of the money back?

Yes. I suppose that's correct. 

6022tivo

deano2099 said:

bpj said:

Others have alluded to this, but it would be straightforward for the new owners to purchase with unequal shares, or set out exactly how the proceeds of any sale should be split between them (as long as they both agree).

So if the only concern is that the gift should stay with the family member, rather than the giver wanting to get their money back, that would seem the simplest option.

Yup - essentially this is a gift to just one of the couple and should be treated that way. That would presumably mean the deposits they're putting in are unequal and both parties would want to protect their share should the relationship break down, but that's a very common situation and no different to if one party just had a larger deposit than the other.

Yes. That's about it. 

So is that how I go about it. 

I gift my child the sum, and he brings that to the mortgage deposit party? 

At somepoint in the future if things go pear shaped, he can stipulate what his portion of the deposit was? 

youth_leader

This might be of interest to you.

Deeds of trust: what they are and how they work | Finder UK

bpj

6022tivo said:

deano2099 said:

bpj said:

Others have alluded to this, but it would be straightforward for the new owners to purchase with unequal shares, or set out exactly how the proceeds of any sale should be split between them (as long as they both agree).

So if the only concern is that the gift should stay with the family member, rather than the giver wanting to get their money back, that would seem the simplest option.

Yup - essentially this is a gift to just one of the couple and should be treated that way. That would presumably mean the deposits they're putting in are unequal and both parties would want to protect their share should the relationship break down, but that's a very common situation and no different to if one party just had a larger deposit than the other.

Yes. That's about it. 

So is that how I go about it. 

I gift my child the sum, and he brings that to the mortgage deposit party? 

At somepoint in the future if things go pear shaped, he can stipulate what his portion of the deposit was? 

This would need to be agreed during the purchase, not in the future.

lookstraightahead

6022tivo said:

deano2099 said:

bpj said:

Others have alluded to this, but it would be straightforward for the new owners to purchase with unequal shares, or set out exactly how the proceeds of any sale should be split between them (as long as they both agree).

So if the only concern is that the gift should stay with the family member, rather than the giver wanting to get their money back, that would seem the simplest option.

Yup - essentially this is a gift to just one of the couple and should be treated that way. That would presumably mean the deposits they're putting in are unequal and both parties would want to protect their share should the relationship break down, but that's a very common situation and no different to if one party just had a larger deposit than the other.

Yes. That's about it. 

So is that how I go about it. 

I gift my child the sum, and he brings that to the mortgage deposit party? 

At somepoint in the future if things go pear shaped, he 

We were in negative equity when we split up. How would that work in your scenario? 

I think you need to give willingly to both or not at all. It's too complicated at divorce and can actually add to the stress and arguments. 

My ex mil bought us a car and upon the divorce tried to say it was my ex's. Thankfully my ex was on my side but had he not been it would have been a nightmare, as I had used that car to ferry around my ex mil grandchildren so it had been 'ours'

user1977

lookstraightahead said:

6022tivo said:

deano2099 said:

bpj said:

Others have alluded to this, but it would be straightforward for the new owners to purchase with unequal shares, or set out exactly how the proceeds of any sale should be split between them (as long as they both agree).

So if the only concern is that the gift should stay with the family member, rather than the giver wanting to get their money back, that would seem the simplest option.

Yup - essentially this is a gift to just one of the couple and should be treated that way. That would presumably mean the deposits they're putting in are unequal and both parties would want to protect their share should the relationship break down, but that's a very common situation and no different to if one party just had a larger deposit than the other.

Yes. That's about it. 

So is that how I go about it. 

I gift my child the sum, and he brings that to the mortgage deposit party? 

At somepoint in the future if things go pear shaped, he 

We were in negative equity when we split up. How would that work in your scenario? 

Well, it makes things much simpler - you don't need to argue about how to split the equity if there isn't any left!

lookstraightahead

user1977 said:

lookstraightahead said:

6022tivo said:

deano2099 said:

bpj said:

Others have alluded to this, but it would be straightforward for the new owners to purchase with unequal shares, or set out exactly how the proceeds of any sale should be split between them (as long as they both agree).

So if the only concern is that the gift should stay with the family member, rather than the giver wanting to get their money back, that would seem the simplest option.

Yup - essentially this is a gift to just one of the couple and should be treated that way. That would presumably mean the deposits they're putting in are unequal and both parties would want to protect their share should the relationship break down, but that's a very common situation and no different to if one party just had a larger deposit than the other.

Yes. That's about it. 

So is that how I go about it. 

I gift my child the sum, and he brings that to the mortgage deposit party? 

At somepoint in the future if things go pear shaped, he 

We were in negative equity when we split up. How would that work in your scenario? 

Well, it makes things much simpler - you don't need to argue about how to split the equity if there isn't any left!

Yes actually I agree 🤣

ok from a different perspective, if the one party has a higher share of the equity, should they have a higher share of the debt?