My name on the deed

acowlet

My partner and I are engaged but as of yet unmarried. We’re looking at houses together with the intention of buying a starter home, as we’re looking to start a family in the next two years once married. My partner is concerned about my name being on the deed to the house as he will be contributing solely to the mortgage and down payment, and before we’re married is conscious that I could be entitled to half the value of the house if anything went awry. On the other hand I’m not comfortable moving into a house that I could be living in for 10 years where I’m not even named on the deed, especially as I will be bringing children into said house. Is my partners concern founded, and could that really be a risk if I haven’t contributed anything and we’re unmarried? Thank you. 

RAS

If you are married but not on the deeds, the financial settlement will look at all assets of the marriage regardless of ownership.

Short marriages tend to return people to the situation prior to marriage but the courts wouldn't support that if there were children. And if you've been together but not married, the years together count. 

You might want to suggest a 2 year fix and you go on the deeds at the end of that? If he's not happy with that, I'd reconsider the relationship. 

elsien

What’s the reason that you are not contributing anything to the property, as that may have some relevance to his thinking.

acowlet

elsien said:

What’s the reason that you are not contributing anything to the property, as that may have some relevant to his thinking.

That was always what we agreed as he said he didn’t expect that from me and he wants to be a traditional provider. I of course would pay for stuff for the house and food shopping and what not, but his wage is a lot more than mine so I wouldn’t be bringing that much in anyways. 

kimwp

acowlet said:

elsien said:

What’s the reason that you are not contributing anything to the property, as that may have some relevant to his thinking.

That was always what we agreed as he said he didn’t expect that from me and he wants to be a traditional provider. I of course would pay for stuff for the house and food shopping and what not, but his wage is a lot more than mine so I wouldn’t be bringing that much in anyways. 

If a friend was saying her partner was saying this, I'd be advising her to walk away from the relationship.

If he wants to be a provider, then he needs to provide, not put you in a vulnerable position.

gwynlas

You could set up a deed of trust to cover the deposit he is investing so should you break up he will be entitleed to receive this back.

However the mortgage company will expect you to be on the mortgage and any financial contribution you are making to the household will be enabling him to afford mortgage payment.

In the event of a break up married or not you should share equity 50/50.

If you are arguing about this now I think you should be examining your relationship as his behaviour sounds like coercive financial control couched in terms of being a traditional provider

swingaloo

acowlet said:

elsien said:

What’s the reason that you are not contributing anything to the property, as that may have some relevant to his thinking.

That was always what we agreed as he said he didn’t expect that from me and he wants to be a traditional provider. I of course would pay for stuff for the house and food shopping and what not, but his wage is a lot more than mine so I wouldn’t be bringing that much in anyways. 

And have you asked him EXACTLY what he means by that. What else he trying to control? Run a mile.

Voyager2002

gwynlas said:

You could set up a deed of trust to cover the deposit he is investing so should you break up he will be entitleed to receive this back.

However the mortgage company will expect you to be on the mortgage and any financial contribution you are making to the household will be enabling him to afford mortgage payment.

In the event of a break up married or not you should share equity 50/50.

In the event of a break-up when there are no children, it would be up to the pair of you how to share equity. If you cannot agree and are unmarried, the deed of trust would be followed.

In the event of a divorce (obviously after getting married), the courts would probably rubber-stamp anything you agreed, so long as the interests of any children were protected. If there are no children and it is considered to be a "short" marriage, the court would return most of the equity to the person who originally provided it and put you both back into more or less the same financial position as before the marriage. Otherwise, the division would be based on a fifty-fifty split.

Voyager2002

acowlet said:

elsien said:

What’s the reason that you are not contributing anything to the property, as that may have some relevant to his thinking.

That was always what we agreed as he said he didn’t expect that from me and he wants to be a traditional provider. I of course would pay for stuff for the house and food shopping and what not, but his wage is a lot more than mine so I wouldn’t be bringing that much in anyways. 

In a traditional marriage, ownership of the house was joint even though the wife worked in the home and cared for children while the husband earned the money for the household. 

mta999

Insist your name is on the deeds as joint tenants