Mortgage and deeds in my name, what about partner??

efbeef

Hey all,

Would really appreciate advice!

I am in a position to apply for a mortgage to build on my parents land which is being gifted to me. I have a boyfriend for 7 years who I currently live with. He is not in a position to go in on a mortgage for a number of years as he is in a training contract.

If we settle in a few years can he come in on the deeds? He will be contributing to the repayments :-)

Thanks in advance for your help!

Atlantic Dawn

Not unless you applied for a new mortgage in a few years to pay off the current one. The mortgage has to remain with the person taking it out as this will be the original terms and the house can't be sold or transferred to any new owner(s) without mortgage being paid.

Supercell

The mortgage can be in one name and the deeds differently.

I'm the sole income earner in our house so the mortgage is in my name.
The deeds to the house though are in my wife's name and mine. No problem at all.
You need to talk to a solicitor OP

Trish56

efbeef wrote: »

Hey all,

Would really appreciate advice!

I am in a position to apply for a mortgage to build on my parents land which is being gifted to me. I have a boyfriend for 7 years who I currently live with. He is not in a position to go in on a mortgage for a number of years as he is in a training contract.

If we settle in a few years can he come in on the deeds? He will be contributing to the repayments :-)

Thanks in advance for your help!

Should not be a problem OP. Your Solicitor can transfer the property into joint names and contact lender re transferring mortgage into joint names. This will depend if you jointly qualify for the mortgage in joint names. If not married need to come to some decision re value of property and the value of gifted site so will need legal advice.

Ray Palmer

Just be aware that the way the law works now he can already claim part ownership of the property regardless of his name on mortgage or deeds. They made changes about cohabitating couples a few years ago.
If you check that out you might find there is no point. It also applies to inheritance tax too AFAIK.

efbeef

Thanks for all your replys!

I will be qualifying for a low interest mortgage so wouldn't want to be refinancing in a few years to add him to the mortgage :-/ I hope this to be our forever home so selling isnt in the picture.

Supercell, was it a smooth process to but your wife on the deeds? As simple as a trip to the solicitor and her taking out life assurance perhaps??

Ray Palmer, I just looked at the law and it kinda is really enough rather then going to the probably expensive process of changing deeds and mortgage.

D3PO

OP dont even worry about the deeds tbh.

weather your partner is on them or not is irrelevent in this day and age anyway. With the civil partnership bill after living together for 3 years he has rights anyway regardless of weather he is or is not on the deeds.

My at the time girlfriend and now wife is not on the deeds to my house I have no intention of wasting money to get this changed. She had rights under the civil partnership bill prior to our wedding and now has rights as my spouse on top of which these are strengtened by the will i have drafted.

efbeef

D3PO wrote: »

OP dont even worry about the deeds tbh.

weather your partner is on them or not is irrelevent in this day and age anyway. With the civil partnership bill after living together for 3 years he has rights anyway regardless of weather he is or is not on the deeds.

My at the time girlfriend and now wife is not on the deeds to my house I have no intention of wasting money to get this changed. She had rights under the civil partnership bill prior to our wedding and now has rights as my spouse on top of which these are strengtened by the will i have drafted.

That's great. Really has me reassured now! No point paying dead money in rent when your in a position to be paying a mortgage. Think I will be talking to my engineer next week now :-)

iguana

D3PO wrote: »

OP dont even worry about the deeds tbh.

weather your partner is on them or not is irrelevent in this day and age anyway. With the civil partnership bill after living together for 3 years he has rights anyway regardless of weather he is or is not on the deeds.

My at the time girlfriend and now wife is not on the deeds to my house I have no intention of wasting money to get this changed. She had rights under the civil partnership bill prior to our wedding and now has rights as my spouse on top of which these are strengtened by the will i have drafted.

The rights conferred by the cohabitating couples part of the bill are really quite limited. For example if the OP died and her house was billed to her partner, he would be liable for inheritance tax.

murphaph

It might be just me but I'd never contribute to a mortgage for a property where my name wasn't on the deeds.

Ray Palmer

iguana wrote: »

The rights conferred by the cohabitating couples part of the bill are really quite limited. For example if the OP died and her house was billed to her partner, he would be liable for inheritance tax.

Actually that is not the case. You don't pay inheritance tax on it if you are cohabiting couple longer than two years. This was seen as very progressive as it include homosexual relationships.

iguana

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Actually that is not the case. You don't pay inheritance tax on it if you are cohabiting couple longer than two years. This was seen as very progressive as it include homosexual relationships.

My mistake then. That's good then.

D3PO

murphaph wrote: »

It might be just me but I'd never contribute to a mortgage for a property where my name wasn't on the deeds.

why ? What exactly is the obsession of having your name on the deed ?

Its an archaciac mechanism that progressive legistlation has all but made obsolete.

roro2

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Actually that is not the case. You don't pay inheritance tax on it if you are cohabiting couple longer than two years. This was seen as very progressive as it include homosexual relationships.

I don't think this came about from the Cohabitants Act though - the exemption from inheritance tax is the private dwelling house tax relief that has been around longer. You have to have lived in the house for 3 years prior to the inheritance and remain there for 6 subsequent years.

Any other inheritance will be taxed and the lowest threshold applies between non-married people, unless in a civil partnership. AFAIK anyway.

stickybookmark

D3PO wrote: »

weather your partner is on them or not is irrelevent in this day and age anyway. With the civil partnership bill after living together for 3 years he has rights anyway regardless of weather he is or is not on the deeds.

Nope this is 5 years if ye don't have kids (shorter if ye do)

D3PO

stickybookmark wrote: »

Nope this is 5 years if ye don't have kids (shorter if ye do)

my bad your right. My point still stands though

stickybookmark

OP if you and your fella get married that will sort the issue anyway as he'll be entitled to 50% of the house in the event of divorce or 100% in the event of your death. Alternatively if ye are not planning on getting married, the Cohabitant's Act provides for the drawing up of a ''Cohabitant's Agreement' which clarifies what will happen on matters such as property in the event of break-up of the relationship or death of one of the Cohabitants. It's actually effectively a pre-nup for people that don't want to get married :

Section 202 of the Act of 2010 provides that cohabitants may enter into cohabitants’ agreement to provide for financial matters during the relationship or when the relationship ends, whether through death or otherwise. Such an agreement can provide that neither cohabitant may apply to the court for a property adjustment order, a compensatory maintenance order or a pension adjustment order or for provision out of the estate of the deceased other, subject to the court’s power under s.202(4) to vary or set aside a cohabitant’s agreement in exceptional circumstances where enforcing the cohabitant’s agreement would cause serious injustice. An agreement that meets the requirements of s.202 will be a cohabitants agreement within the meaning of s.202 even if entered into before cohabitation.

Section 202(2) provides that a cohabitants agreement is only valid if:

· The cohabitants have each received independent legal advice or have received legal advice together and have waived in writing the right to independent legal advice.

· The agreement is in writing and signed by both cohabitants.

· The general law of contract is complied with

murphaph

D3PO wrote: »

why ? What exactly is the obsession of having your name on the deed ?

Its an archaciac mechanism that progressive legistlation has all but made obsolete.

I dunno. I don't trust lawmakers not to repeal such laws!

MouseTail

murphaph wrote: »

I dunno. I don't trust lawmakers not to repeal such laws!

If the cohabitants Act, and the social progression it represented is repealed the least of our worries will be our mortgage deeds. We will have the Irish Democratic Party in power, Ganley in the Aras, immigration banned, compulsory dancing at the crossroads, have left the EU, and the last social and economic progressives will have turned the lights out.

Mrs OBumble

MouseTail wrote: »

If the cohabitants Act, and the social progression it represented is repealed the least of our worries will be our mortgage deeds. We will have the Irish Democratic Party in power, Ganley in the Aras, immigration banned, compulsory dancing at the crossroads, have left the EU, and the last social and economic progressives will have turned the lights out.

While I agree with you - it rankles the hell out of me that we're still not entitled to the tax-breaks associated with being married, but on the other hand living with me means that my low-earning other half is not eligible for welfare because of my income.

To be clear, I don't want him getting welfare. But if we could share his tax credits, we would be some hundreds of euros better-off each month.

murphaph wrote: »

It might be just me but I'd never contribute to a mortgage for a property where my name wasn't on the deeds.

If you're ever in that type of situation, you could just think of it as paying rent to the home owner. Then she can use the rental income for whatever she wants, including paying the mortgage.

The_Conductor

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But if we could share his tax credits, we would be some hundreds of euros better-off each month.

Seriously advise you get advice on this- you can in fact share both tax credits and bands- if you're recognised as a civil partner. You don't have to be married to access this.

Also- with individualisation of taxation- there quite simply aren't 'tax breaks associated with being married' any longer. Its all gone down the road of individualisation. At the risk of sounding ironic- women exerted tremendous political pressure on politicians to change it this way- as it was seen as a way of women getting their fair share of tax credits/bands- where previously the lot reverted to the (then) sole income earner- inevitably the man of the house.

Unfortunately- women's lib went full circle on this- and in situations where women are the higher earners and/or there is a stay at home man/father doing childrearing- the situations as it stands do not allow for this. Even staunch feminists- such as Ivana Bachik- are fighting for mens rights on this- insofar as women are being discriminated against, because the rights afforded to men are lesser than those afforded to women, and in non-traditional situations (e.g. where the woman is the principal household earner)- the couple are worse off, because mens rights were never addressed- in the rush to address women's rights.

MouseTail

The_Conductor wrote: »

Unfortunately- women's lib went full circle on this- and in situations where women are the higher earners and/or there is a stay at home man/father doing childrearing- the situations as it stands do not allow for this. Even staunch feminists- such as Ivana Bachik- are fighting for mens rights on this- insofar as women are being discriminated against, because the rights afforded to men are lesser than those afforded to women, and in non-traditional situations (e.g. where the woman is the principal household earner)- the couple are worse off, because mens rights were never addressed- in the rush to address women's rights.

I don't see how this is a men's rights issue, they are treated the very same as women in terms of individualisation and access to the Home Carers Tax Credit.

The_Conductor

MouseTail wrote: »

I don't see how this is a men's rights issue, they are treated the very same as women in terms of individualisation and access to the Home Carers Tax Credit.

Women viewed 'individualisation' as a manner of securing their future- without any thought as to what it might mean if they were to become the principal earner in the household. The net effect of this policy- in the likes of Mrs. O'Bumble's case- is they are perhaps as much as 6k per annum worse off than they might otherwise be.

Its been discussed ad nauseum- there is even a specific Lisbon protocol dedicated to it- it was a tax policy that was seen as enshrining greater independence for women- but has failed miserably, and is one of a plethora of measures which is seen by the Commission as perpetuating poverty in lower to middle income households. Even the Iona Institute have policy papers on it- both sides of the political spectrum are decrying it.

MouseTail

My memory of its introduction, and I wasn't living here at the time, so I may be wrong, is that it wasn't lobbied for by women's groups at all, and in fact there was a backlash against it at the time by the likes of NWCI. McCreevy introduced it to push women out of the home as there was a chronic shortage of labour at the time.

riclad

THERES NO TAX advantage to being married,as far as i can see,
apart from if one person dies,
and you inherit the house, assets etc
getting your name on the deeds gives you certain rights,
in the event of a breakup.

Mrs OBumble

riclad wrote: »

THERES NO TAX advantage to being married,as far as i can see,
apart from if one person dies,
and you inherit the house, assets etc
getting your name on the deeds gives you certain rights,
in the event of a breakup.

Ahh - this: (ref http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it1.html#section1)

Tax credits for the years 2013 and 2014
Personal Circumstances 2013 2014
Single Person €1,650 €1,650
Married Person or Civil Partner €3,300 €3,300


We are not married or civil-ised, so we cannot take advantage of pooling our tax credits.

It's not about gender or individualisation: the right for married people to not have their credits pooled is a whole different issue, and I agree that it now exists.

It's about the fact that the Welfare rules are different: we don't have to be civil-ised in order for me to be expected to support him, but the tax system doesn't work like this.

Grossly unfair, IMHO.

The_Conductor

I'm sure you're very civilised

Yes- its unfair- but to be honest- the entire tax code is unfair.
By rights simple PAYE tax payers should not be shouldering an unfair tax burden- as a sop to businesses who are able to avail of all manner of reliefs.
Anyhow- we have strayed so far off topic- and outside the remit of this forum- I need to stop.

Sorry that things are unfair- yes, they are unfair- all we can do is acknowledge they are unfair and sympathise with you.

johnnyskeleton

stickybookmark wrote: »

OP if you and your fella get married that will sort the issue anyway as he'll be entitled to 50% of the house in the event of divorce or 100% in the event of your death.

If I was going to make the law up, id use less even numbers eg 43.2% and 70-80% respectively, just to make it more believable.

stickybookmark

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If I was going to make the law up, id use less even numbers eg 43.2% and 70-80% respectively, just to make it more believable.

I spose what I was thinking of is that in divorce situation one is generally entitled to half of their spouse's assets are they not?

And if you're married with no kids, and your other half dies intestate you automatically inherit their house.

The_Conductor

stickybookmark wrote: »

I spose what I was thinking of is that in divorce situation one is generally entitled to half of their spouse's assets are they not?

And if you're married with no kids, and your other half dies intestate you automatically inherit their house.

Normally- your general entitlement would be to half the assets acquired during the course of the relationship- not half the total assets.

SarahLil

EF beef I am in the same sort of situation as yourself, guys off the topic slightly but I am just wondering where would I stand if something happened to my partner and he passed away, after him contributing to the house and upkeep and with no name on the deeds would his family have any entitlement to go after me for a share of the house as we are not married because he has put money into the house?