(Closed) BFF just "bought a house" with her BF, only his name is on the deed…

posted 7 years ago in Relationships
  • poll: Do you think this is fair?

    Absolutely. They aren't married, there is no reason to have the deed in both names.

    Not at all. If she's paying 50% she should own 50%.

    Unsure/other, please comment.

  • Post # 62
    Member
    2389 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: July 2011

    I don’t see the problem (well, except for the fact the she thinks they both own the house).  He owns it, she lives there and helps with the mortgage which is basically paying rent.  She’s a tenant.  She also splits the utilites, like a tenant.  

    Is her concern that she wants something out of it if/when she leaves?  Because frankly she’s in the best situation possible.  She can just walk away, no strings.

    If she wants to own something herself, she should buy something herself.

    Post # 63
    Member
    3885 posts
    Honey bee
    • Wedding: September 2011

    Keep in mind that, if they break up, she hasn’t exactly spent all that money on “nothing.” She would have to pay to put a roof over her head one way or the other, rented or owned. Unless she declined the chance to live somewhere rent-free, she’s not “wasting” her money by not being on the deed.

    She also is not taking on any of the risk of the property declining in value, and I know many people (married/unmarried couples and singles) who are way underwater in the property. If the boyfriend’s house loses value and they split up, since her name is not on the deed, she can walk away. He will be stuck with a house that is worth less than he owes. 

    Two sides to every story. There is no “right” way to handle a home purchase between a couple. It sounds really like your friend should have sorted this out before the home was bought, not after, and that she and her boyfriend should have come to an agreement they can both accept.

    Post # 64
    Member
    267 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: June 2013

    this makes perfect sense to me if the downpayment was solely his. purchasing a home takes an upfront commitment beyond the monthly mortgage, of course.

     

    if you are roommates with someone (which is what she is if they aren’t married) you pay your share of the mortgage and monthly expenses. that has nothing to do with what it cost to purchase the home. and let’s just say they split (not that i’m wishing them anything negative!), she should take from it what she put into it. if she put nothing into the downpayment, she has no rights to the house — she paid rent to live there plain and simple.

     

    it’s easy to get caught up in what we, as outsiders, think is fair when we haven’t put a dime into it.  it sounds like they know exactly what they’re doing. 

     

    Post # 65
    Member
    10640 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: January 2011

    View original reply
    @ThisDeluxeLife:  I would agree, except it sounds like she thinks it belongs to her, and I doubt he has said anything to correct that.  She might not be willing to pay so much a month if she only thought she was renting.

     

    View original reply
    @MrsN14:  She’s already doing that, so you think she should be put on the mortgage, be responsible for the debt and still have nothing to show that she has claim to ownership?

    Post # 66
    Member
    1497 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: June 2013

    She should pay rent, but 50% of the mortage is way too high for someone who has no rights to the house whatsoever.

    Post # 67
    Member
    2597 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: October 2010

    @LovelyLaura8:  I voted “unsure other.” 

    If she didn’t contribute anything to the purchase of the house (downpayment, closing costs, etc.) and if 50% of the mortgage is equal to or less than what she would pay in rent elsewhere, then I don’t think its inherently unfair for her to pay that to live in the house.

    However, if she’s paying 50% of the mortgage and it IS more than it would cost her to live elsewhere, yeah, I think that kind of sucks.  If she put anything toward the purchase without having her name on the deed, I’m sorry, she’s a damn fool.

    If I were her, I’d also be careful not to pay for any improvements in the house either.  I mean, if he decides to put in new carpeting, a new stove, landscaping, whatever – that should 100% come out of his pocket.  He’s getting 100% of whatever equity they build into the house and all the tax breaks so he should fund all the improvements.

    I hope your friend isn’t being taken advantage of.  If she’s banking on them marrying one day and her name eventually being on the house…that may not be wise. 

    Post # 68
    Member
    3276 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: June 2014

    View original reply
    @AB Bride I think she should be put on the mortgage and have full rights to the house. I think it’s silly to make a SO pay rent if you want them to live with you. FH just bough a house in his name that I will live in rent free( pay for groceries, etc) but once were married and have a joint account ill be on the mortgage/deed, etc. just my opinion

    Post # 70
    Member
    3415 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: September 2014 - Lodge

    Its kind of unfair to judge the situation if you don’t know the whole story.  Maybe her credit isn’t as good and therefore only his name could be on the deed.  Maybe her credit is ok but she didn’t have enough income to debt ratio.  Or maybe it is how it looks.  In either case he/and she both know what is up and if they break up its cut and dry he gets the house and she doesn’t.  Its no different than if they were just roommates and he owned the house, if he for some reason kicked her out the house would still be his.

    I hope everything works out for them.  Maybe she doesn’t know what she’s getting into but she’s a big girl and has to figure this all out on her own.

    Post # 71
    Member
    5658 posts
    Bee Keeper
    • Wedding: August 2012

    @LovelyLaura8:  Assuming she put nothing down on the house, there is nothing different from this than moving in with someone who already own’s a home and paying your fair share of the bills. Why should she get a free ride just because he’s a homeowner?

    Post # 72
    Member
    1042 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: June 2012

    My home is under my name, and my parent’s names because I financed our place. DH pays a portion each month.

    If we are to ever break up, financially, it would be split 3 ways, so he would get 1/3 and I’d get 2/3.

    Each situation is different, and it may make sense for some, but not others.

     

     

    Post # 73
    Member
    2389 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: July 2011

    View original reply
    @everyheart:  Why?  He can charge her whatever he wants or whatever they, together, deem fair.  Why shouldn’t she pay more than the market average?  This is where she’s choosing to live – no one’s making her.  Some people choose luxury apartments and some choose to save money and live in a place that’s not as nice.

    Post # 74
    Member
    9765 posts
    Buzzing Beekeeper
    • Wedding: August 2012

    If she thinks of this house as half “hers”, then she should have insisted her name be added because she’s screwed otherwise. But if she just sees it as paying rent on a nice place to live I don’t see any issue with that. Although her payment does sound rather high.

    Post # 75
    Member
    4369 posts
    Honey bee

    If she didn’t pay for any of the down payment, she should negotiate for market rate rent.

    Post # 76
    Member
    2432 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: June 2009

    Bad, bad, bad idea. I had a coworker who did this a few years ago. She AND her parents also invested a ton in home improvement expenses. When he dumped her two years later, she got absolutely nothing. He even kept the dog they adopted together.

    The topic ‘BFF just "bought a house" with her BF, only his name is on the deed…’ is closed to new replies.

    Find Amazing Vendors