Should I invest in my house, when it's in my wife's name?
The best answer to this question will depend on you and your wife. What is 'fair' for some may not be 'fair' for others. Some couples split expenses 50:50. Some split proportionately based on income. Some pool everything together. What works best for you will depend on your relative incomes, your financial goals, living standards, and most importantly, your personal beliefs. Here is a great question with various viewpoints: How to organize bank accounts with wife. It doesn't touch heavily on home ownership / pre-nuptial agreements, but might be a good starting point to getting you to think about your options. Consider providing another loan to your wife for additional investments in the home. It seems you are both comfortable with the realities of the pre-nuptial agreement; one of those realities seems to be that in the event of divorce you would lose access to the house. Loaning money has the benefit of allowing for the improvements to be done immediately, while clearly delineating what you have spent on the home from what she has spent on the home. However, this may not be 'fair', depending on how you both define the term. Have you discussed how expenses and savings would be split between you? Since there is no mortgage on the house, she has effectively contributed her pre-marital assets towards paying substantially all of your housing costs. It may be 'fair' for you to contribute to housing costs by at least splitting maintenance 50:50, or it may not be. Hopefully you talked about finances before you got married, and if not, now would be the best time to start. I personally would hate to have an 'uneasy' feeling about a relationship because I failed to openly communicate about finances. Have you talked with her about this? On the one hand you have a point.  Given the prenuptial agreements why should you invest in something that you can never have interest in.  However, you also live in the property.  You did not go into the arrangements but presumably you should be contributing to the upkeep of the home as otherwise you would live there for free. Additionally you did not mention it but it sounds like the prenuptial does not cover your assets.  In the event of divorce she, presumably, would own half of your 400K.  Correct? The key here is a conversation.  What is right for the two of you?  While some might be very uncomfortable with the situation, as is, you two seem to be okay with it.  Go from there, build on it.  Come up with something that is equitable for both parties and your heirs. If you are concerned about it being inequitable due to the prenuptial agreement, discuss the idea of amending the prenuptial agreement to give you some consideration for your investments in the house. Prenuptial agreements often get amended over the course of a marriage.  How do you proceed? It has to start with discussion. It's not an unreasonable concern given your legal separation of assets, so broach the subject and go from there. Perhaps you'll find there's a good reason for you to invest in the property even without having interest in it, who knows. "The prenup complicates things. The traditional vow of a marriage is ""What's mine is yours, what's yours is mine"". With such a traditional marriage it doesn't matter too much which partner's name something is in, in the event of a divorce the assets of the couple would be considered as a whole and then split. But you have a prenup which is presumably intended to change this traditional arrangement (and may or may not actually be enforceable). I think you are as such right to be wary. I think your only way forward long term is to amend the prenup and/or the legal status of the house to recognize it as a shared asset that you will both be contributing to and that it's value should be split in some way in the event of a divorce. In exchange you should probably be contributing some or all of the cash pile you have from selling your house to the common pot. Another loan may seem like a good option in the short term but in the long term the appreciation on a house is likely to be worth more than any interest on the loan (assuming you are using an interest rate comparable to commercial mortgage deals), plus any interest may well end up being taxable." I'm not going to speculate on the nature of your relationship with your wife, but the fact that you are worried about what would happen in the event of a divorce is a bit concerning.  Presumably you married her with the intent of staying together forever, so what's the big deal if you spend 50k upgrading the house you live in, assuming you won't get divorced? Now, if you really are worried about something happening in the future, you might want to seek legal advice about the content of the prenup.  I am guessing if the 400k were your assets before marriage, you have full claim to that amount in the event of a divorce*.  If you document the loan, or make some agreement, I would think you would have claim to at least some of the house's appreciation due to the renovations if they were made with your money*. *obligatgory IANAL "It is my opinion that part of having a successful long-term relationship is being committed to the other person's success and well-being. This commitment is a form of investment in and of itself. The returns are typically non-monetary, so it's important to understand what money actually is. Money is a token people exchange for favors. If I go to a deli and ask for a sandwich. I give them tokens for the favor of having received a sandwich. The people at the deli then exchange those tokens for other favors, and that's the entire economy: people doing favors for other people in exchange for tokens that represent more favors. Sometimes being invested in your spouse is giving them a back rub when they've had a hard day. The investment pays off when you have a hard day and they give you a back rub. Sometimes being invested in your spouse is taking them to a masseuse for a professional massage. The investment pays off when they get two tickets to that thing you love. At the small scale it's easy to mostly ignore minor monetary discrepancies. At the large scale (which I think £50k is plenty large enough given your listed net worth) it becomes harder to tell if the opportunity cost will be worth making that investment. It pretty much comes down to: Will the quality-of-life improvements from that investment be better than the quality-of-life improvements you receive from investing that money elsewhere? As far as answering your actual question of: How should I proceed? There isn't a one-size fits all answer to this. It comes down to decisions you have to make, such as: * in theory it's easy to say that everyone should be able to trust their spouse, but in practice there are a lot of people who are very bad at handling money. It can be worthwhile in some instances to keep your spouse at an arms length from your finances for their own good, such as if your spouse has a gambling addiction. With all of that said, it sounds like you're living in a £1.5m house rent-free. How much of an opportunity cost is that to your wife? Has she been freely investing in your well-being with no explicit expectation of being repaid? This can be your chance to provide a return on her investment. If it were me, I'd make the investment in my spouse, and consider it ""rent"" while enjoying the improvements to my quality of life that come with it."
"I'm not an attorney or a tax advisor. The following is NOT to be considered advice, just general information. In the US, ""putting your name on the deed"" would mean making you a co-owner. Absent any other legal agreement between you (e.g. a contract stating each of you owns 50% of the house), both of you would then be considered to own 100% of the house, jointly and severally: In addition, the IRS would almost certainly interpret the creation of your ownership interest as a gift from your partner to you, making them liable for gift tax. The gift tax could be postponed by filing a gift tax return, which would reduce partner's lifetime combined gift/estate tax exemption. And if you sought to get rid of your ownership interest by giving it to your partner, it would again be a taxable gift, with the tax (or loss of estate tax exemption) accruing to you. However, it is likely that this is all moot because of the mortgage on the house. Any change to the deed would have to be approved by the mortgage holder and (if so approved) executed by a title company/registered closing agent or similar (depending on the laws of your state). In my similar case, the mortgage holder refused to add or remove any names from the deed unless I refinanced (at a higher rate, naturally) making the new partners jointly liable for the mortgage. We also had to pay an additional title fee to change the deed." "I don't believe it makes a difference at the federal level -- if you file taxes jointly, gains, losses, and dividends appear on the joint tax account.  If you file separately, I assume the tax implications only appear on the owner's tax return.  Then the benefits might outweigh the costs, but only if you correctly predict market behavior and the behavior of your positions. For example, lets say you lose 30k in the market in one year, and your spouse makes 30k.  If you're filing jointly, the loss washes out the gain, and you have no net taxes on the investment.  If you're filing separately, you can claim 3k in loss (the remaining 27k in loss is banked to future tax years), but your spouse pays taxes on 30k in gain. Where things get more interesting is at the state level.  I live in a ""community property state,"" where it doesn't matter whether you have separate accounts or not.  If I use ""community money"" to purchase a stock and make a million bucks, that million bucks is shared by the two of us, whether the account is in my name our in our name.  income during the marriage is considered community property.  However property you bring into the marriage is not.  And inheritances are not community property -- until co-mingled. Not sure how it works in other states.  I grew up in what's called an ""equitable property state.""" Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment.  It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area.  There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash.  If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame.  This is no guarantee of course.  Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further.  While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home.  The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk.  Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate.  When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa).  Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn. It's not your money. What does your wife think of this?  You know, the withdrawal is subject to full tax at your marginal rate as well as a 10% penalty. That's quite a price to pay, don't do it. You are thinking about this very well.  With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract.  What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance?  If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person.  (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one.  The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own.    If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage.  Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic. Before doing anything else: you want a lawyer involved right from the beginning, to make sure that something reasonable happens with the house if one of you dies or leaves. Seriously, you'll both be safer and happier if it's all explicit. How much you should put on the house is not the right question. Houses don't sell instantly, and while you can access some of their stored value by borrowing against them that too can take some time to arrange. You need to have enough operating capital for normal finances, plus an emergency reserve to cover unexpectedly being out of work or sudden medical expenses. There are suggestions for how much that should be in answers to other questions. After that, the question is whether you should really be buying a house at all. It isn't always a better option than renting and (again as discussed in answers to other questions) there are ongoing costs in time and upkeep and taxes and insurance. If you're just thinking about the financials, it may be better to continue to rent and to invest the savings in the market. The time to buy a house is when you have the money and a reliable income, plan not to move for at least five years, really want the advantages of more elbow room and the freedom to alter the place to suit your needs (which will absorb more money)...  As far as how much to put down vs. finance: you really want a down payment of at least 20%. Anything less than that, and the bank will insist you pay for mortgage insurance, which is a significant expense. Whether you want to pay more than that out of your savings depends on how low an interest rate you can get (this is a good time in that regard) versus how much return you are getting on your investments, combined with how long you want the mortgage to run and how large a mortgage payment you're comfortable committing to. If you've got a good investment plan in progress and can get a mortgage which charges a lower interest rate than your investments can reasonably be expected to pay you, putting less down and taking a larger mortgage is one of the safer forms of leveraged investing... IF you're comfortable with that. If the larger mortgage hanging over you is going to make you uncomfortable,  this might not be a good answer for you. It's a judgement call. I waited until i'd been in out of school about 25 years before I was ready to buy a house. Since i'd been careful with my money over that time,  I had enough in investments that I could have bought the house for cash. Or I could have gone the other way and financed 80% of it for maximum leverage. I decided that what I was comfortable with was financing 50%. You'll have to work thru the numbers and decide what you are comfortable with. But I say again, if buying shared property you need a lawyer involved. It may be absolutely the right thing to do ... but you want to make sure everything is fully spelled out... and you'll also want appropriate terms written into your wills. (Being married would carry some automatic assumptions about joint ownership and survivor rights... but even then it's safer to make it all explicit.) Edit: Yes, making a larger down payment may let you negotiate a lower interest rate on the loan. You'll have to find out what each bank is willing to offer you, or work with a mortgage broker who can explore those options for you. Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock.  This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company.  Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount.   They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party.  It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do.  Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock?  It falls, of course.   Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender.  They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors.  In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back.  Okay, well maybe that's a stretch. I personally think that you should do whatever you believe works best. I am not married but when I get married I would also want to do what you are doing with having a joint account for certain things but also still having seperate accounts. I find this is a good approach so that neither of you is dependent finanically on the other one. Also, if you want to buy a present for your wife you would do it with your own money and not the joint account money. I hope my answer helps. You're being too hard on yourself. You've managed to save quite a bit, which is more than most people ever do. You're in a wonderful position, actually -- you have savings and time! You don't mention how long you want/need to continue working, but I'll assume 20 years or so? You don't have to invest it all at once. Like Pete B says, index funds (just read what Mr. Buffett said in recent news: he'd tell his widow to invest in the S&P 500 Index and not Berkshire Hathaway!) should be a decent percentage. You can also pick a target fund from any of the major investment firms (fees are higher than an Index, but it will take care of any asset allocation decisions). Put some in each. Also look at retirement accounts to take advantage of tax-deferred or tax-free growth, but that's another question and country-specific. In any case, don't even blink when the market goes down. And it will go down. If you're still working, earning, and saving, it'll just be another opportunity to buy more at lower prices. As for the house, no reason you can't invest and save for a house. Invest some for the long term and set aside the rest for the house in 1-5 years. If you don't think you'll ever really buy the house, though, invest the majority of it for the long-term: I have a feeling from the tone of your question that you tend to put off the big financial decisions. So if you won't really buy the house, just admit it to yourself now! "Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!).  A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments? This actually isn't as hard as it sounds, thanks to the nature of a partnership and proper business accounting. With a good foundation the rest of the building proceeds quite cleanly. On month 1 your sister pays $1400 into the partnership, while you pay $645 into the partnership. FP will record an increase in assets (cash) of $1800, an increase in liability to your sister of $1400, and an increase in liability to you of $645. FP will then record a decrease in cash assets of $1800 to pay the mortgage, with a matching increase in cost account for the mortgage. No net change in equity, but your individual contributions are still preserved. Let's say that now after only 1 month you decide to sell the property - someone makes an offer you just can't refuse of $350,000 dollars (we'll pretend all the closing costs disappeared in buying and selling, but it should be clear how to account for those as I mention earlier). Now what happens? FP gets an increase in cash assets of $350,000, decreases the house asset ($320,000 - original purchase price), and pays off the mortgage - for simplicity let's pretend it's still $300,000 somehow. Now there's $50,000 in cash left in the partnership - who's money is it? By accounting for the house this way, the answer is easily determined. First all investments are paid back - so you get back $20,000 for the down payment, $645 for your mortgage payments so far, and your sister gets back $1400 for her mortgage payment. There is now $27,995 left, and by being equal partners you get to split it - 13,977 to you and your husband and the same amount to your sister (I'm keeping the extra dollar for my advice to talk to a lawyer/CPA). What About Getting To Live There? The fact is that your sister is getting a little something extra out of the deal - she get's the live there! How do you account for that? Well, you might just be calling it a gift. The problem is you aren't in any way, shape, or form putting that in writing, assigning it a value, nothing.  Also, what do you do if you want to sell/cash out or at least get rid of the mortgage, as it will be showing up as a debt on your credit report and will effect your ability to secure financing of your own in the future if you decide to buy a house for your husband and yourself?  Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this ""investment"" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can. I would thus strongly advise you, your husband, and your sister to spend the comparatively tiny amount of extra money to get advice from a real estate/investment lawyer/CPA to get you set up right. Keep all receipts and you can pay a book keeper or the accountant to do end of the year taxes, and answer questions that will come up like how to properly account for things like depreciation on taxes. Your intuition that you should make sure things are formally written up in times when everyone is on good terms is extremely wise, so please follow it up with in-person paid consultation from an expert. And no matter what, this deal as presently structured has a really large built-in potential for heartache as you have three partners AND one of the partners is also renting the property partially from themselves while putting no money down?  This has a great potential to be a train wreck, so please do look into what would happen if these went wrong into some more detail and write up in advance - in a legally binding way - what all parties rights and responsibilities are." Many partnership agreements include a shotgun clause: one person sets a price, the other can either buy at that price or sell at it. It's rather brutal. You can make offers that you know are less than the company is worth if you're sure the other person will have to take that money from you, say if you know they can't run the company without you.  He has asked for $X to be bought out, and failing that he would like to keep owning his half and send his wife (who may very well be competent, but who among other things has a very ill husband to deal with) to take his place. If he can occasionally contribute to the overall vision, and she can do the day to day, then keeping things as they are may be the smart move. But if that's not possible, it doesn't mean you have to buy him out for twice what you think it's worth.  In the absence of a partnership agreement, it's going to be hard to know what to do. But one approach might be to pretend there is a shotgun clause. Ask him, if he thinks half the company is worth $X, if he's willing to buy you out for that price and have his wife run it without you. He is likely to blurt out that it isn't worth that and she can't do that.  And at that point, you'll actually be negotiating. The equity you have is an asset. Locked away until you sell, and sometimes pledged as a loan if you wish. The idea that it's dead money is nonsense, it's a pretty illiquid asset that has the potential for growth (at the rate of inflation or slightly higher, long term) and provides you an annual dividend in the form of free rent.  In this country, most people who own homes have a disproportionate amount of their wealth in their house. This is more a testament to the poor saving rate than anything else. For me, a high equity position means that I can sell my home and buy a lesser sized house for cash. I am older and my own goal (with the mrs) is to have the house paid and college for the kid fully funded before we think of retiring. For others, it's cash they can use to rent after they retire. I hope that helped, there's nothing magic about this, just a lot of opinions. I think your best course of action depends on the likely outcome of the divorce proceedings. The alimony/child support payments are controlled externally. I don't like to plan around things that I have no control over. In your shoes, I would probably avoid buying until things are settled down. "Be careful that pride is not getting in the way of making a good decision.  As it stands now what difference does it make to have 200K worth of debt and a 200K house or 225K of debt and a 250K house?  Sure you would have a 25K higher net worth, but is that really important?  Some may even argue that such an increase is not real as equity in primary residence might not be a good indication of wealth. While there is nothing wrong with sitting down with a banker, most are likely to see your scheme as dubious.  Home improvements rarely have a 100% ROI and almost never have a 200% ROI, I'd say you'd be pretty lucky to get a 65% ROI. That is not to say they will deny you.  The banks are in the business of lending money, and have the goal of taking as much of your hard earned paycheck as possible.  They are always looking to ""sheer the sheep"". Why not take a more systematic approach to improving your home?  Save up and pay cash as these don't seem to cause significant discomfort.  With that size budget and some elbow grease you can probably get these all done in three years. So in three years you'll have about 192K in debt and a home worth 250K or more." Shop around for Gym January is a great time to look because that's when most people join and the gyms are competing for your business.  Also, look beyond the monthly dues.  Many gyms will give free personal training sessions when you sign up - a necessity if you are serious about getting in shape! My gym offered a one time fee for 3 years.  It cost around $600 which comes out to under $17 a month. Not bad for a new modern state of the art gym.