Mortgage News Home

Friday August 8, 2008

Home Page   26,235 Active Members   Register Welcome, Guest    Sign In  

Home

Latest Headlines

Popular Stories

Bookmark Us

Reader Comments

SUBSCRIBE

SEARCH OUR SITE

RSS News

Mortgage Rates
  30 Yr Fix 6.52% 0.00%
  15 Yr Fix 6.10% 0.03%
  1 Yr ARM 5.22% -0.05%
  5/1 ARM 6.05% -0.02%
  30 Yr Tres 4.70% 0.04%
  Fed Prime 5.00% -0.25%
MND Features

- Wiki
- Video News
- Mortgage License Information
- Real Estate License Information
- Mortgage Content Syndication
- Mortgage Fraud
- Housing Bubble
News Archives

Submit A News Tip
or Story Idea
 

Free Subscription To News Alerts
Stay up to date on breaking news with our free News Alert Service.


Significant Others Need To Think About Their Legal Status When Buying A Home

7609 Views - Printer Friendly - Email This Story To A Friend
 
RSS COMMENTS(5) LINK HERE ADD NEWS TO YOUR WEBSITE

A young relative called over the long weekend. He had just made an offer on a house and wanted advice about inspections and other details. We had been in e-mail touch for several weeks as he worked through his mortgage pre-approval, structured the offer and generally obsessed over a very important decision. But I had never thought to ask a critical question of my own: "Are you and Leslie - his girlfriend - buying this house together?"

They would, he responded, both be on the deed, but only Eric would sign the note; as a retired Marine it would be a VA guaranteed loan.


Alarm bells went off everywhere. It was a touchy subject and it is tough to burst bubbles at 10 a.m. on a Sunday morning. Eric and Leslie are no doubt convinced they will be together forever as are most married couples, 50 percent of whom will, at some point, no longer be. But there is a very big difference between the legally married and likely to be divorced and those in Eric and Leslie's position. Significant others (SOs) lack a ton of legal protections that are automatically available to the married.

I laid out a few possible scenarios on the phone, the least uncomfortable I could come up with on the spur of the moment, and then started researching the subject. The dangers inherent in buying property with a significant other are - okay - significant. And worse than I thought.

This is not to say that unmarried couples should not own a home. Financially, where two people are sharing rent and paying taxes, it is a financial no-brainer. Sometimes people are ready to own but not ready to wed. It could be that an unresolved previous marriage precludes wedlock, and of course, in 49 states same sex couples are denied the legal protections available through that institution. In each of these situations buying a home may be exactly the right thing to do - financially and/or emotionally - but still may be darn dangerous legally. At its heart (and it is probably better in this case to ignore the heart) buying a home is a financial and legal transaction and should be approached with clear and open eyes. If the principals are not protected by the legal cover of marriage, it should be approached with clear and open eyes and the advice of an attorney.

Among the scenarios I gingerly laid out for Eric.

  • With the deed in both names, if Leslie should die Eric could end up owning a home with her heirs - her parents or siblings - while being totally responsible for the mortgage;
  • If the loan is solely in Eric's name and he should die this might not only endanger Leslie's partial ownership of the home by triggering the "due on sale" clause in the mortgage but tie up his estate which would still be obligated to pay the mortgage without the right to sell more than half the house.
  • With Leslie not a participant in the mortgage and because as SOs they have to file separate tax returns, Leslie would be unable to claim a part of the homeowner's deduction for mortgage interest or property taxes. They are non-traditional students (i.e. older than others in their classes) and earning low wages. The available deductions may well be more than Eric's tax obligation could absorb and these deductions would thus go to waste.

Since they are young and in love and I want to keep their trust and friendship I didn't even mention the biggest danger to their real estate dream. In a year or two they might split and if they do disentangling their real estate relationship could be more complicated and ugly than anything they might encounter in dissolving a marriage.

What if they did break up and both wanted to keep the house? There have been a couple of movies based on this situation and while it might be funny in fiction it is likely to be costly and emotionally draining in real life.

If only one wants the house how does that work? Can one SO force the other to sell or, alternatively, be held hostage by his or her refusal to do so?

What if the pair had made unequal contributions to equity? Maybe Leslie provided the bulk of the down payment or owned the good credit that made the purchase possible but Eric contributed dozens of hours to upgrading or maintaining the home or had the income necessary to carry the monthly payments. Somebody has to decide how to value the contributions and if it is the courts, the costs of the conclusion may be more than the equity is worth.

Eric was very quiet at the end of our talk. Perhaps he thinking quickie wedding. More likely he was deciding never to call this particular relative again. I hope he isn't thinking about giving up his dream of home ownership. I have seen the pictures and the house is lovely and probably perfect for both Eric and his SO. But, as I said before, I then began to do some research on the subject and found even more uncomfortable scenarios but also some helpful information.

We will go there next.



Story Views: 7609 | Permalink

Story Tools



Email This Story To A Friend

Subscribe To News Alerts
 

Related Tags

Select a Tag for more information related to that Tag. (View All Tags)
 

 

Comments (5)

Post Comment Comments RSS


My boyfriend & I of 6 years, just purchased a house together. He has cold feet about marriage, but loves me and want to be with me forever and says this is a great investment for our future. I agree and think a marriage would be a great investment as well. But, my question is: what are each of our legal right as an unmarried couple toward this home? What would happen if God forbid we were to break up? Who is responsible for the home and financing?

Above Posted By: Anonymous | Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:59:14 EST

Well, I thought I had it all figured out. My girlfriend just moved in and, as a gesture of committment to our relationship, I wanted to gift her part ownership of my condo and devise an arrangement where she would increasingly gain ownership as she made payments toward the mortgage. This article made it clear there are many other angles to this agreement that I need to think and learn about. Anyone know a good RE lawyer?

Above Posted By: Joshua | Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:07:05 EST

As a gay attorney in Westchester County, I have negotiated many home purchases for SOs. I always put both parties on both the deed and the note, avoiding triggering the "due on sale" at the first death. To replicate the protections afforded by Tenancy by the Entirety available to married people, my clients usually take title as Joint Tenants, automatically inheriting the deceased partner's interest and avoiding estate problems. Joint Tenants must agree on a sale, one cannot sell his interest.

Above Posted By: JD Rawcliffe | Wed, 6 Dec 2006 23:54:59 EST

Good food for thought! As an experienced Realtor I have seen buyers put only one person on the note and yet had 2 on the deed-I have always thought this was a bad idea and now I can show several different instances instead of the obvious (you 2 might not make it) scenario.

Above Posted By: angela barney | Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:21:27 EST

Thank you so much for this timely topic. As a gay woman about to purchase a home with my partner of three years, this is a very real issue for us right now. Unfortunately, we don't have the option of marriage, so we're trying to do everything we can to protect ourselves legally. If we could just get married, it would be a lot easier, but lawmakers are too bent on protecting the "institution" of marriage. With a 50% divorce rate, however, I'm not really sure what they're protecting. ,0(

Above Posted By: WendyInDC | Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:57:55 EST


Post A Comment

Please fill out the form below to submit a comment.

Name: 
(Required - Type Anonymous or Use First Name Only if Private)
Email Address: 
(Not Required So No Fake Emails Please.)
URL or Weblog:
(Leave Blank If You Don't Have One - Use http://)
Comments: 
(Please keep comments on topic. No HTML Allowed. No Advertisng.)
Please Note: Due to Comment Spam, all comments are reviewed by hand. Most comments will appear shortly after submission but it may take up to 12 hours to appear. If you would like to come back, click here to Bookmark the page.
PLEASE DO NOT USE ALL CAPS


Character Count =     (5000 Character Limit)

If you would like to leave a longer comment, please submit your comments in 5000 character increments and we will merge your comments.
Notify me via email when my comment is approved.


Note: Please don't bother spamming. All submissions are reviewed by our our editorial staff. Comment spam and irrelevant links will not be approved.

 




NEW VIDEO
(2 New Today)
NEW! The Future of Fannie and Freddie
NEW! Fannie Flub


Reader Comments (More)
Let’s face it. It seems that each time the government introduces new laws to combat real estate fraud someone introduces innovat...
Read
While this information is not as bad as analysts expected it to be, it certainly is not good. We are in a real crisis here in this...
Read
Bravo..about time. I would like to see regulation on after the fact loans that are modified after documents have been signed. It i...
Read
Home - Contact - Sitemap - Disclaimer - Privacy Statement - Advertising
All Content Copyright © 2003 - 2008 Brown House Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form without the express written permission of MortgageNewsDaily.com is prohibited.