Can I compel my husband legally to put my name on an investment property?

R

Roxxxy

New Member
Messages
1
Hi. My husband got an inheritance and is putting all of it into buying a modest investment property.
I want my name to be included on that property as husband doesn't work and I pay entirety of our hefty mortgage and every single other family expense, hence I have no savings whatsoever.

He refuses to put my name on it. Is there any way I can compel him legally to do so?
Thank you


Editing to say I can't figure out how to 'like' all the great comments, but very good info given, thank you. Will be replying bit by bit.

Yeah, clearly this doesn't arise in a situation where there is good respect and communication.

To the person who said about this being more tax efficient, that's a good point. I didn't know this and it and comforts me a bit, thank you.

All great answers. Just learned the word 'dayouth' yesterday as it happens :).
 
Last edited:
Legally no. Morally yes. I agree that the answer is counselling rather than legal counsel. He might feel intimidated by your earning power and feel this is for him. But you have a good point here. Good luck.
 
I’m sorry to hear there was a loss resulting in inheritance.
Is there a specific reason behind your husband not working - between jobs, studying, disability, homemaker?
Is there any consideration to use some of the inheritance to pay down the mortgage ?
I agree with other posters above too.
 
As he does not work it is more tax efficient for the property to be in just his name, to use up his tax allowances. If in both names your share of any rental income will be taxed at your marginal rate eg ~50%
 
Persia said:
Aren't you entitled to 50% of it regardless by dint of being married to this "man"

Honey if it were me I'd be looking at a good divorce lawyer, this chap is a waste of

A) skin

B) your time

You can do better believe me.
Click to expand...
We don't know why he doesn't work. Until that's clarified you're comments are presumptive and quite sexist.

Maybe he's at home minding the kids. Plenty of women actually regard that as a full time job.
 
Not a lot of info given. Ordinarily of course he should pay his inheritance to the mortgage on the family home. As has been pointed out, maybe he is the homemaker. Maybe the marriage is in trouble, if that was the case, he knows the judge would rightly allow the wife and kids remain in the family home, leaving him homeless. It would be reasonable in this scenario to buy an investment property with his inheritance.
 
Des Pondent said:
Not a lot of info given. Ordinarily of course he should pay his inheritance to the mortgage on the family home. As has been pointed out, maybe he is the homemaker. Maybe the marriage is in trouble, if that was the case, he knows the judge would rightly allow the wife and kids remain in the family home, leaving him homeless. It would be reasonable in this scenario to buy an investment property with his inheritance.
Click to expand...
If he's the home maker then the judge would rightly allow him and the kids to remain in the home. No matter the circumstances there seems to be a power imbalance within the relationship and, quite possibly, a lack of mutual respect.

I know in my relationship there's no "my money" and "your money", there's just "our money" and for clarity I earn around 4 times as much as my partner.
 
ClubMan said:
Like the earlier assumption about automatic 50:50 shared ownership of marital assets, this is not necessarily the case.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, maybe he thinks it would best for the wife and kids to stay in the family home.
Who knows really what's happening in their marriage, we are all speculating.
The point I am making is there can be many reasonable reasons for buying an investment property rather than paying the inheritance off the family home mortgage.
 
I think if the OP used the word spouse instead of husband the comments would remain the same. Without knowing anything about their circumstances, it is not an unusual set up that one person in a couple works outside the home and a single income supports the whole family. In this case normally there is limited opportunity to build up savings.

It would seem however be unusual that one of the family assets is in joint names and the other in a single name, unless it was already that way prior to the relationship and one person was the sole owner. (Here I am assuming that the family home is in both names). The refusal to purchase a new family asset in both names without an apparent reason would ring alarm bells as to the intent of this. It feels more like a marriage question than a legal or financial one, if the OP is at the stage where they are considering legal options. And of course the primary question of whether this is the right use of the funds in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top