Adding My Name To Title | Mortgages | Discussion forum

Hi Norm ,
I will give you my advice but I know nothing and others here have knowledge about these things so I will chime in to get the conversation going.
I assume your mom wants to do this so she can rest assured that matters are settled when she passes on. But she probably doesn't know any more about these matters than you or I.

Norm Nuthatch said The way it stands is that if my relationship with my partner ever went downhill, then my Mom and I could both get kicked out of our family home as we would no longer be listed as owners of the property.

You said a mouthful.
Keep renting. Tell your mom to raise the rent. When your mom passes on you will inherit the house and it's yours including the debt on it. At that point you will own the house (almost) and should have enough of a stake in the property that a mortgage broker should be able to get you a mortgage for the outstanding $160 thousand and you will have rental income from the basement apartment .If you can't get a mortgage at that time then the house will have to be sold and YOU will walk away with $100000.00 after taxes, in your bank account and then you can both find a place to rent or buy somewhere else , especially since your spouse is deemed to be mortgage worthy by the bank.
Might be a good idea to quietly visit a lawyer for advice too.
I don't mean to offend I am just offering an outsider's perspective.
Common law partners aren't entitled to your inheritence. Unless you slip up.

Norm Nuthatch said
I declared personal bankruptcy several years ago and currently have little in the line of savings.
…
The bank has appraised the house at $280K, so the way I see it, my Mom is gifting me (us) an equity of $120K. However, because of my bankruptcy, our bank says the mortgage and title cannot be in my name. Is this correct?

That is definitely not correct. The minute one is discharged from bankruptcy, one can own property, like cars, real estate, or livestock, and borrow money. The challenge is to find a lender willing to lend to someone who has just emerged from bankruptcy.

How is my $120K recognized in title to the property? The way it stands is that if my relationship with my partner ever went downhill, then my Mom and I could both get kicked out of our family home as we would no longer be listed as owners of the property.

There is no recognition if your name is not registered in anyway on the property.

Never mind the relationship. Your partner can actually call the police and have you and your Mom forcibly removed immediately after your Mom's name is no longer on the property's records.

My understanding in Ontario is that if inherited funds are kept separate (e.g. own bank account) they are not part of marital assets whereas if they're mingled with joint assets (e.g. joint account) or used in a way that is not exclusive (e.g. wife inherits money that she uses to buy her own cottage but it's used for family use) then they do form part of marital assets. However the matrimonial home where both reside is exempt from the above, can't be chased from that, and both spouses entitled to 50% of it no matter who bought or owns it. I'm an amateur, I stand to be corrected as I've had no experience in the matter, but I do echo those who suggest legal advice if there's a possibility of break-up (which today goes without saying).

A very elderly neighbour either gave or loaned her daughter money to buy a home for the daughter and husband, they split and now he is entitled to stay in the home (with no intention or means to pay it back) which he is doing so the daughter has moved out to another place and her mom has to go to court to recoup a significant part of her and her dead husband's life savings. According to neighbourhood gossip via my wife who is notoriously uninterested in financial matters and likely got a bunch of details wrong.

Norman1 said
Never mind the relationship. Your partner can actually call the police and have you and your Mom forcibly removed immediately after your Mom's name is no longer on the property's records.  

Haven't read whole thread, but isn't OP's mom listed as joint with OP's partner on the property title? Even if his mom were to pass away, at most, the title would be update to "The Estate of ". Assuming OP is the sole or one of the primary beneficiaries in his mom's estate, he has a vested interest in that interest in the property. If he has separately paid into the home, then that needs to be documented in writing, ideally while his mom is still living and can attest to this. That way, if it ever ends up in court, OP has evidence to substantiate not only his mom's recorded interest in the property but his own unrecorded equity interest in the property. One way to approach is this is written acknowledgement from his partner that his payments thus far have been recorded as "equity purchases" and not as "rent."

Cheers,
Doug

That depends how long ago the mother was approved for the HELOC.

She may have had a well paying job when she applied. Now, in poor health, her income has dropped substantially and would no longer qualify.

Saver-Mom said
Agree with the advice to consult a professional.
Also, advice may vary by province.
In my province inheritances are protected even from married spouses.

Found this out when a friend got divorced. She had no claim to the family home which was bought with money from the sale of a prior home inherited by her husband.

Her husband may not have inherited the home. Instead, he inherited just the right to live in the home. The estate actually owned the home.

When the previous home no longer suited him, the estate sold it with his consent in return for the right to live in another house. When the estate bought another house, the husband got the right live in it. The husband and she then lived in that home.

It is a way for someone to "rule from the grave" and keep money out of the hands of ex-spouses of beneficiaries who seem to have poor judgment in partners.

Yes, an estate can transact and hold real estate indefinitely. It depends on the will.

The executor's duty is actually to follow the instructions in the will. Lots of wills are just about liquidating and distributing. But, that's not all that a will can instruct.

The counterbalance is the expense of creating and running an estate that continues for a long time. Tax returns will have to be filed each year. Executor may refuse the appointment if it looks like he or she will need to run the estate for decades and there's no provision for appropriate compensation.

That's a common thing to do. Pay out to a beneficiary over time instead of all at once. Usually it is over a specific period of time.

The problem with payments "for the rest of the beneficiary's life" is that it will delay the determination of the residual for estate. Beneficiaries entitled to the residual of the estate will have to wait a long time or they may be motivated to arrange an "accident" for that beneficiary.

Just sondering, Norman, are you or have you ever been a lawyer? Bill seems to take your word at face value without attribution. I am unclear how we should understand your comments.

I am well aware, however, that estates can hold real estate. I have personal knowledge of someone who died in 1966. This was before reforms in matrimonial law. His will allowed his widow to live in the house for the rest of her life, after which it went to their only child. The wife lived there another 30 years until she died but never owned it. It then passed to the daughter who was, by then, about 50.

There are also innumerable cases of estate assets being held back until beneficiaries reach age of majority or later, as specified by will.

Norman1, I suppose it's always possible to will, say, 50% to one beneficiary at time of death and the other 50% (plus any income the estate earns) to be distributed over a period of years to another beneficiary (the one with the covetous, manipulative spouse with a roving eye), so as not to hold up the first beneficiary's inheritance. Speaking hypothetically, of course!

AltaRed, I'm not sure if a testamentary trust has to be specifically established by the Will terms or if an estate is just considered by definition to be a testamentary trust. I'm guessing the latter but in the case of an extended estate the settlor would want to specify the terms and conditions of the trust going forward so would do so in the Will.

I think we all get that anything we read on a site like this is information to be verified and double-checked elsewhere before acting on it, but maybe a reminder now for some folks isn't a bad idea.