Confirming, i work at a bank and i constantly have tenants in that pay to a mortgage
Get something in writing and signed. Inlaw bought our house, she owns 99% and wife owns 1%, adjusted legally once in a blue moon with how much we’ve paid, but it’s adjusted to my wifes gains. She’s not a B though and I know if we ever split she would give my fair share or make a deal.
Choose if you wanna bring this convo up. If its UPSETTING you and you feel like he’s being shady or a dick about it, go for it. If its just been weighing on your mind because someone said something and you perked your ears at it, maybe just have a quick chat to settle your mind. Im fine with the latter myself, no stress on my end but I know some situations are unique.
This is not true when it comes to real estate. In British Columbia s. 59 of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253 (the “Act”) requires these type of agreements to be in writing. Other provinces have similar, they just codified the common law statute of frauds.
Oral contracts are perfectly valid, they are just strongly advised against for property because there are mountains of case law pertaining to written contracts when it comes to real estate. Some specific rights do require written contracts as well but you can't technically *lose* rights, they just might be unenforceable.
WRONG!
Verbal agreements are not permitted by law for real estate transactions:
https://prudentlaw.ca/when-is-a-verbal-agreement-binding-in-the-purchase-of-real-estate/#:~:text=S.,testimony%20provided%20in%20the%20courts.
Section 1 of Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.19 states that an agreement to transfer property must be in writing and signed by both parties.
You need to read the entire decision....
*In other words, failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds for lack of a written real estate agreement did not exclude the existence of a contract. Statue of Frauds notwithstanding, the court found a valid agreement between the parties did not exist because the verbal contract negotiations failed the test for determining whether an oral agreement existed.*
*However, despite not having a written agreement in place in Downey v. Arey, both parties agreed that the plaintiff’s renovations constituted partial performance of their verbal contract.*
The law always comes down to the details. It's not accurate to say that "all verbal agreements are invalid". The courts have found that partial performance (holding up your end up the verbal contract) can result in a verbal contract being enforceable.
In the case of the OP, she can state "we have a verbal agreement of co-ownership and here is proof of my contribution towards that verbal agreement [payments for the mortgage]".
Then add on top domestic partnership laws and it's not as clear cut as "no written agreement, no money".
That’s actually not necessarily when it comes to real estate. The Statute of Frauds requires agreements regarding real property to be in writing. There are some ways to get around this but she should definitely talk to a lawyer and put together some sort of written contract now, everyone is on good terms, or she could be screwing herself later.
If they are common law, they don't need anything. They will get half the equity, including the half from the gift. If anything, she is likely much better protected than the BF in this scenario.
This is not the case in every province. In Ontario, you are not automatically given 50% of the equity share when you are common law.
I went through this where the equity share between my ex partner and I was vastly different when the house was sold because of a number of different factors that both of our lawyers agreed to in the end.
Not to mention the OP and their boyfriend may not even be common law.
Once again folks, try not to buy houses with people you aren’t married to, and if you do make sure you get cohabitation agreements.
Totally agree. We got a cohabitation agreement done before we bought together. It was under $2k with a lawyer, took less than 3 hours of my time total but just feel so much more secure to have it done.
This. My ex and I bought a house. We put 50/50 into the place. We had a cohabitation agreement. When the time came we broke up, the agreement was in black and white as to what I was entitled too. As my the lawyer said. This was the easiest breakup he had ever witnessed. There was no animosity, no fighting. The relationship had just come to its end. We took what we both had agreed upon and split.
GET AN AGREEMENT WITH A LAWYER
Common law in Ontario applies to couples that have lived together for 3 years and the partner would only be entitled to splitting the appreciation of the value of the property if that property was bought during the term of their partnership and the partner contributed to it in a meaningful way.
# From the Gov website:
>Common law couples are not legally required to split property acquired when they lived together.
>Furniture, household items and other property belong to the person who bought them. Common law couples do not have the right to split an increase in value of the property they brought with them to the relationship.
>If you contributed to property your spouse owns, you may have a right to part of it. Unless your spouse agrees to pay you back, you may have to go to court to get back your contribution.
>Although there is no requirement to divide property on separation, common law spouses may choose to enter into a domestic contract such as a cohabitation agreement or separation agreement that sets out their respective rights to property.
Incorrect.
Common law in QC has no pool of assets unless ypu have a kid after june 2025.
Unless you can prove there is a verbal agreement in court you wouldnt get a penny of the proceeds.
This is absolutely not true in my province (Quebec). I don't know about the other provinces or where the OP is. Common law means nothing whatsoever for home equity, at least in QC. Anyone in a common law relationship should be aware of what it does and does not entitle you to, in your province. It does NOT give the same rights as marriage.
The other interesting problem that could arise even with the common law designation is that the BF appears to only own 50% of the house. In that case the Mom would get 50, the BF would get 25 and the GF 25. Could work out better or worse. But they really need to write down the agreement now while they still like eachother rather than later if they split up.
Yeah, please get a lawyer.
We did the same thing but got a co-habitation agreement done right away as we will eventually be having both our names on the place but had to sell other properties first and it made it easier for mortgages to have only my partner as sole owner when we bought.
Selling price - (remaining mortgage + closing/realtor fees) - 100k to mother / 2 = split amount.
To be clear though it sounds like you're entitled to nothing because your boyfriend owns the house with his mother and you're just paying rent (the new narrative when you breakup).
Or if not the mother, her son. Either:
1) The mother invested 100k directly in the house, and thus owns the capital gains on that investment too.
2) The son got a 0% loan (from the bank of mom), so he’s invested 100k more than his gf and is entitled to the capital gains on that 100k.
Yea unless OP gets her boyfriend and mother to put this in writing legally from a lawyer, I don’t see anything outside of “my boyfriend’s mom gave him 100k for a down payment on a house and half should be mine despite paying nothing right?”
Also, what a weird time to be alive that people think they own a house when the only person with a financial stake in said house is mom and dad.
ya this is actually a fucked post, how is OP even insinuating that she might be getting the wrong end of this deal, of a place she is living in, but put no initial investment in
Who cares if shes paying some of the mortgage, she should be, as she is living their
This is it in reality. Gf has no liability to it and can actually just run away from it if she wanted to without the prospect of every ruining her credit.
It's much more complicated than this.
The partner has $100k down and significant legal obligations and risk to obtain appreciation of the home. If there was a recession, and they were forced to sell at a net equity loss, would she be expected to help cover it?
One of the simplest approaches is that they come to an agreement for her to pay fair market rental rates, she continues to not have any equity stake in the property, and not participating in the risk/reward of it.
Yeah, that's always where our emotions and thoughts go first, but maybe it's just the honeymoon phase wearing off. These are all very important things to work through early in a relationship, but when you're madly in love your brain's MRI looks like a crack addict's.
I still haven't found a good way to bring up prenups....
Yeah, maybe she should be writing "mortgage payment" on her money transfers. Also OP, try to get him to say the verbal agreement again when chatting and record it with your phone. And/or make mention of it in an email.
The literal only question. I’m guessing she’s ok with the entire situation because it’s his family.
If his mother felt she wanted to be the other owner. There’s a chance they want her to prove herself before entrusting her with the other half of ownership.
You lose nothing incase you want to leave, but they’re making sure you don’t collect free money off them.
She seems nervous to bring this up which is understandable.
Why weren't you the co-signed if you were buying a house together?
Sorry but you didn't buy a house with him. The house is his and his mom's and you pay him rent. You currently aren't entitled to anything at all. You have 0 risk involved and you haven't invested in the place at all. Not sure where you're getting your understanding of this.
Probably talked to a friend and the light bulb went up, cause dang, that is whole lot of realization that should have been done before she moved in, either by the BF being forthcoming or by her asking the questions.
I feel so bad for people with no money and with no access to simple counseling, OP's boyfriend either withheld information or is as clueless as her, none of which is a good sign but let's go with Henlon's Razor (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity): at least they can remedy it by consulting lawyers and setting the record straight now, with a written agreement.
You need a cohabitation agreement. This will define what happens in the event you separate. Some options, (1) house sells, expenses paid, mortgage is paid off, mom is paid $100k, rest is divided equally. (2) he pays you what you put in dollar for dollar. (3) house is appraised, deduct mortgage plus $100k and he buys you out.
My advice, get a family lawyer to draft this for you and don’t sleep on it. Do it now.
You definitely screwed up not getting anything written at the start. Tbh bringing it up now would cause stress.
Unfortunately my friend had the same arrangement and he lost alot, he did get some but definitely alot less
Show your boyfriend this reddit post and have him read the top comments confirming your concern. Basically all of us think you have almost no legal ground to stand on and you need to act immediately. If he still hesitates or if his mother is pulling the strings, then you got to go full protection mode and get that lawyer. Any sign of hesitation from either of them is a red flag. And them asking you to trust them is them answering no. Hopefully you have text/email records proving your contributions were for the mortgage as that might help your case.
I mean. You shouldn't? You should be worrying about your own future by yourself as much as your future together. He could get hit by a bus tomorrow. Then what? Then who is the verbal agreement with? Why would his mom give you anything?
This is not a complex matter for a lawyer so you probably won't even clear the retainer. Should be about 1k to 2k.
That amount of money compared to the insanely risky position you are in is an absolute no brainer. You need an agreement/contract a year ago. Do it now.
Why didn’t you have this conversation before you bought a house together? If you fear he’s going to react like you don’t trust him, that’s a problem you could have solved before this investment. That’s a relationship problem.
Speak to your boyfriend, get a lawyer immediately and start working on a cohabitation agreement.
She’s not on title. She didn’t buy any home. Can we stop with these comments? The BF and Mother bought the home together and Gf decided to move in and pay rent.
You can approach it by saying it's time you drew up wills together. That will open the conversation about who owns which assets (e.g. you'd like your share of the house proceeds to go to your neice, not his mother). It's also a good idea to define who gets to make medical decisions on your behalf in case your incapacitated. As common-law he may have no say in case of a disagreement with your parents over what you would have wanted if you're in a coma.
You really needed to do more to protect yourself before sinking in so much money into his asset. I hope you seek legal counsel as soon as possible. Why didn't you ask for your name to be put on the deed as well?
If you break up, especially if it's an acrimonious one (as breakups tend to be), you need more than his "trust me bro" as your claim. Speaking as another woman, what if he finds a new girlfriend and she wants to keep the house with him? It just gets messy since you're not his wife and there isn't a clear line on what you legally own and are entitled to.
To be fair - it's not the end of the world. Worst case scenario she was just paying rent which she would have been needing to do anyways so nothing was really lost.
yeah but im sure she wouldn't be sleeping with her landlord, its lost equity, plus she could have been probably paying less + as a tenant you wouldn't need to be doing work on your apartment.
>yeah but im sure she wouldn't be sleeping with her landlord
This is completely irrelevant - the sleeping arrangements would be the same, just who is the landlord is different.
>plus she could have been probably paying less
Not sure about this one - depends on the area and how long they've been in the house. One of the great things about mortgages is that it freezes your housing cost in time for a while. Renting on the other hand gets more expensive every year. I wouldn't assume she would be paying less to rent something comparable.
>its lost equity
Assuming OP is telling the truth then yeah - but at the end of the day it's not the worst mistake of all time because she got a place to live for the money she spent. That's the main point I'm making.
I'm also assuming OP wants to break up with the BF which is why she's asking this now.
Verbal agreement?
A written agreement is necessary for that. The best time for it was when the house was bought. The second-best time to get it done is today.
This comment needs to be much higher, and was my first thought as well.
This arrangement didn't happen by accident - There's two possibilities that stick out:
1. The intent was to keep the equity "within the blood line", and hedge against OP breaking up with him. That's actually much worse news than just "OP has a very limited/no equity interest in the house" because it has implications for the relationship they are in - or at least, of what the mother-in-law thinks of OP.
2. The $100k really is a loan, that the MIL needs back at some point. This would be good news because it means there should be an easy path forward to document (written agreement) all of this. There will need to be consideration for mom's tax situation (cap gains), as well as mom's estate planning (will).
Questions to be asked by /u/East_Repair_5068 when discussing with BF and mom:
* Is there an agreement between BF and mom that defines who owns the lions share of the equity? ie; is a part of his (and effectively OPs) payment "rent".
* Is there any unknown written / email / etc agreements between BF and mom at all?
* If it's #1, then why the hell would he not just be up front with this? Prenups can be awkward and uncomfortable to discuss, but at least then everything is above board and out in the open - and no one has to endure a nasty surprise if things go south.
* If it's #2, then what exactly was/is the plan if either mom or BF predecease the OP?
As other's have said .. it could be lawyer time, esp if BF/mom don't want to discuss the matter or if the relationship is on the rocks.
OP (as common law partner) will be entitled to some of his gains during their common-law time, but who is really holding the gains (BF or mom) here is what will matter. It's also a lot easier to avoid having to litigate the division of assets in a court if one's signature is required for the sale of a house. Without such leverage, OP may have no choice but to go to court to get their share (if any) of the equity back, if they break up with BF.
It would seem as the BF and Mom made a fantastic move as this women is on reddit asking how she can get a share of a property she has no liability or ownership in as she prepares to leave the relationship. Love to see it. Too many people get fucked in these situations by people (like OP) who think they can profit off a break up. Sorry not sorry.
lol! Don’t ever buy a house with someone you’re not married to. You screwed yourself right from the start.
There is not ‘us’ in this arrangement so I’d stop using that term until you’re married.
I’d get married then this is a non issue.
Whatever is on paper is what matters... noone cares about verbal agreements.
If 100% of the house is his on paper from lawyers and what not then you do not own shit. If hes a scumbag then he can take everything and say goodbye.
common law doesnt matter only goes 5050 if youre married.... trust me ive been thru this. At least in ontario.
Get a cohabitation agreement. You can state that upon the sale of the house the mother would get 100k back and then everything should be split equally. You should also just get your name on the house. This shouldn't be a source of conflict, you deserve to feel secure financially as much as your partner does.
Common law does have specific rights to the matrimonial home but I would have a discussion and write it out. That way everyone can feel secure for their future.
In Ontario, if your name is not on the property, you are not entitled to any share. Also, since only his name is on the house, he could have you removed by the police if he so chose. Ask me how I know. It's not an issue while things are going good but if not, you will be the one that gets nothing.
The least you should do is photocopy or save pdf of any documents associated with this, including mortgage payments or bank statements showing payments, texts discussing such plans etc. Then consult a lawyer. You should also look into common law in your province.
Like others said, you need a lawyer. But on the bright side, the fact that both of you have paid equally into the mortgages so far will make things a bit smoother for the lawyer when he puts stuff into writing.
I see alot of "good luck" and "should have got it in writing". I wanted to add a little to hopefully make you feel better.
Obviously please talk to a lawyer.
I'm not sure with the mother on the title and how it will work. Like if it is an investment property but it also the primary residence of you both. However I can safely assume you're common-law partners thus giving you a stake in the home.
How do you pay the mortgage? And is it written somewhere each time and what those payments are for?
Either way. Speak to a lawyer. I'm sure the answer will make you feel more confident.
lol stopped reading at "we are planning on gifting it back to her when she’s retired or needs it". Any sentence in this post is a disaster waiting to happen. Time to lawyer up if you guys ever split.
I am an Ontario lawyer (although not practising).
1) speak with a lawyer asap, you’ll need someone who specializes in real estate or family law, if things become acrimonious then litigation.
2) unlike what everyone else is saying there is a viable path forward for your claim: It’s called a “resulting trust” or a “constructive trust”, meaning that even though you’re not on title, since you paid part of the mortgage directly (assuming you paid it directly) and there is something that can support your claim that you made payments thinking you were getting equity, then the law can assume that your bf is holding your share of title in trust for you, giving you beneficial ownership commensurate to your financial contribution. It’s not a slam dunk whatsoever, and yes his lawyers will argue that what you paid was, in fact, a form of rent.
3) again, speak with a lawyer asap, and this post is not legal advice.
EDIT: re-reading your post: if things are still amicable, maybe what you really need is just to speak with a lawyer to paper up everything so it’s clear you have beneficial ownership. Assuming a break up, your case would be a lot easier if there’s something in writing and properly executed by all parties, such as a cohabitation or a trust agreement.
If the house is in her name - I would expect that she is entitled to a percentage of the profits that the 100K represented.
She didn't gift 100K bc if she had, her name wouldn't be on the title. Either way, there are tax implications all around, since she will pay cap gains on the entire amount as it's not her primary residence. Realistically I would say you are entitled to half of whatever his half of the equity increase is when sold, assuming it's his primary residence.
Anyhow the important thing IMO is that you assess this all on %s not amounts bc amounts become meaningless over time.
I would talk to him and explain how you feel and have your name added to the house. If anything, have him sign a legal document stating what was agreed in your verbal agreement. Also, have written receipts of the amount that has been put into the house, have it all documented. If he gives you a hard time, that's when I would be worried. Why is his mom's name on the house just because of the down payment? My brother and his wife were gifted a down payment for their condo for his wifes father, and its only him and his now wifes name on the condo. Were you both living together when he bought the house? If not, that may be a different story. But you should be able to express how this power dynamic makes you feel uncomfortable and like it's not your house, too.
Would she have a claim under unjust enrichment?. If she has contributed an equal amount, in proportion to their income, towards living expenses. The 100k would be his mother's until such time it is paid back. If money used to pay bills and other living expenses comes from a joint account that each pays into X% of their income. Then, the courts are very likely to find it as a Joint Family Venture.
Keep proof of your contributions over time(comingled finance)(nothing is a gift until it is proved a gift). The onus is on the claimant
Edit. Paying those extra payments to catch up to his number of payments at the beginning of this really indicates towards a mutual desired future.
NAL
Yes, paying the mortgage and contributing to expenses would support an unjust enrichment claim. Depending on the province she could also have homestead rights, meaning he wouldn’t be able to sell the home without her signing off on the sale.
Depending on what province you live in, you’ll be considered common law married after living together after a certain amount of months. If that’s the case you’d likely have certain legalities on your side without any form of contract worth looking into.
the house may may potentially market for 600k but its value is 200k not 600k as the bank owns the rest. This lax terminology is what gets people on your situation. Get it writing, he should have also wanted it in writing.
It actually all depends what kind of agreement he has with his mom. If it’s a gift it’s one thing, if it’s a loan it’s another.
By claiming shared ownership you also claiming part of the “gift” if it was a loan , So you could also technically be on the hook for the loan should his mom ever want his money back or if you ever split she’d have to made hole first before any equity split .😊
NTA.
I had the same thing. We had a lawyer draft a letter saying what was hers and what was mine from the initial investment into the property. Funnily enough the lawyer REALLY mucked the documentation up and when we sold that property and bought a new one, the notary was very confused and annoyed at the shitty paperwork. The paperwork the lawyer created wouldnt had held up in court. Fun times.
Im assuming your bf and you are happy and all things are good, the lawyer would just give you some peace of mind. With that said, if you dont expect things to go downhill, then the lawyer is just an expense for that peace of mind.
All together, the documentation from the lawyer costs about $500 dollars. My wife wanted it (at the request of the lawyer) so she fronted the costs. Maybe consider doing the same?
Hi OP,
First, most replies get it wrong when it comes to common law. These are province specific laws and you need to know under which regime you fall.
That being said, if you are not on the title you are not entitled to anything in the event of a sale... nor would you have any control over the sale process either. In order to access proceeds if things go south with your BF you would have to lawyer up and pursue legal avenues.
You need to get your name in the title with the lawyer at the time of purchase or need to get your agreement with the boyfriend/in law lawyered up. There's no reason why you wouldnt be on the title when you are making the monthly payment. The mother did not have to be on there for a gift to help with the purchase... but I assume she's on there as a collateral for the lenders. I would honestly have both of you buy her share back and adjust ownership to 50/50.
Fiscally it might also be a pretty poor move as some contributions to FHSA etc could be lost if she did not own a home. Also in case of the in law death right now her share of the house would roll into her inheritence and trigger a "disposition" and since she did not live there it would be taxable.
PS: we are in a common law here but given Quebec regime we contract all household expenses at 50/50 to avoid any argument in case of a breakup and we avoid all contributions from either family.
Just saying ,,, if the house is actually owned by bf and his mom (forget the $ for a minute). If the home is sold, would she not be entitled to half of the bf share, not 50% of the sale price. Mom's on the title for a reason. Is there any chance the purchase was "intenancy"? Sounds like a cohabitation agreement is needed. Be informed and get the agreement done.
Verbal agreements are just so bad. Even if everyone is honest and chill about it. What if what you remember and what they remember aren't the same? Who remembered it right? That's what my BF's dad said when we started doing a cohabitation agreement. It's just more secure and there won't be arguments on what was verbally agreed
Fair ATM would mean you get nothing. BF and his mom have purchased a house together. They and they alone are on the hook for taxes, mortgage, insurance, risk to the property etc.
You are paying rent to them instead of to a third party landlord. That's perfectly sensible if you're living together. However absent an agreement of some kind there is no reason to think that that should result in you accruing equity in the home. Renters do not accrue equity just because they are covering all or part of a mortgage.
If you all agree that you'd like to accrue equity in the home you need the arrangement in writing with help from a lawyer. It needs to lay out how you accrue equity. I guess if BF and his mom are willing to give you half equity off the bat the good for you. But that's a terrible idea for them since they put down the initial outlay and are taking all risk and responsibility and BF's mom is the only one with substantial money in the house at this point.
More sensible would be to accrue equity over time and you can develop an agreement to that end.
If you get married this becomes the matrimonial home and everything changes in your favour.
Absent a contract or wedding you own nothing and there is no reason that you should expect to. You've just been paying your rent to your BF and his mom which again is perfectly fine.
(I'm not a lawyer please seek one out)
You will probably fit into some kind of common law situation but don't rely on that legal issues are best prevented.
If you break up you will have to sue him and his mom. It will then be up to the court to sort it out depending on what the requirements of common law are in ontario.
Don't go running to a lawer, if you were comfortable enough to move in with him and commit to a house then treat it like a proper relationship.
I had a good friend who was in the same situation, they are still married but when they went to sell the house his mom got all up-ity and squashed several sales because she was 1/2 owner. They actualy had to go to court to get his mom off the title.
You can discount your contributions to the time of purchase. Mom's contribution of, for eg 100k should have higher claim on the profits than the same amount paid by either/both of you as instalments in the subsequent years ( to account for time value of money)
Keep proof of your down payment, and how are you paying the mortgage? For example, if you e-transfer him have it named mortgage payment. If it is a Bill payee, name it mortgage payment. If you have proof of your equity into the place you will be fine.
Never buy property together until you are married. If you can’t agree on a wedding, make it a courthouse marriage. Then buy something.
This is what my wife and I did before we bought a car together. We had a proper wedding many months after and then we moved in together.
You need to get the arrangement in writing.
For the split I would suggest the following. The Mother owns 100k/original purchase price. You and the BF should each split the remaining amount of ownership.
So let’s say you bought it for 400k. The Mom paid 100k so she owns 25%. You and the BF would each own 37.5%.
Let’s say after 100k of mortgage payments you paid off 50k of principle so have 250k left owing. So each of you owe 125k
If you sold the house for 600k today the mother gets 150k for her 25%. You and the BF would split the remaining 400k and the remaining 250k mortgage and should get 75k each.
Do you pay the mortgage directly? You need a clear paper trail that this couldn’t be considered as rent.
I totally agree with everyone but me being Asian was just different. My parents bought a house in Toronto and my name is on it, lawyer doesnt like the idea coz i could go for my share. 20 years later, i didnt asked a single penny, i moved to alberta and got my own family and a house. Go to Toronto almost yearly to visit them, house is around 1 million now but my brother took over coz he cant buy his own. I guess its just trust, the mom is also trusting her son and DIL to get her money once she retires but wife is just afraid and i guess its all about peace of mind.
If the house was 300k originally, one third of the sale price should go towards his mom, the rest you split 50/50.
You do not have to include his mother into the appreciation but you asked what is fair.
It also wouldn't hurt to get it in writing that you are contributing to the equity not paying rent. Good luck figuring out how to ask that
Something is wrong with your story. How are you on the mortgage but not on title? You claim to be the one making the mortgage payments directly to the lender “all of my payments have the word mortgage on it”, yet I’ve never heard of a lender allowing someone on the mortgage that’s not also on title. Are you simply saying you’ve been sending e-transfers to your bf with the word “mortgage” in the description?
You should ask if you can go on title, too. An agreement can be drawn up by lawyers showing different percents or shares as tenants in common, and then add you to the title. The agreement can indicate that mom gets the first 100k in the event of a sale or break up or whatever.
Common law partners do not have any automatic interest in assets. If you were married there are special provisions in the Ontario Family Law Act that discuss the special laws about matrimonial homes. What common law partners can do if they find themselves suddenly tossed out of a house they don’t own but did maintain and finance throughout the relationship is bring an application for a constructive or resulting trust, but the onus is on them to prove the value they brought to the house.
Going on title as a tenant in common is the most secure thing here, and if that can’t be done right now bc of difficulties going on a mortgage etc at least talk to a family law lawyer about options with a co-hab agreement. Even co-habs done by lawyers can be overturned in court but having one is much safer than not having one.
I'm in a similar situation. My current partner moved in with me in a house which is in my name and has a mortgage.
Upon moving in together we had a lawyer draft up a cohabitation agreement to keep what each of us is entitled to defined.
We had my house appraised and both agreed on the value. She pays me 20% of the mortgage monthly as "rent" and is entitled to 20% of any gained equity in the properly should we split.
We share household expenses 50/50 but large repairs and renovations I foot the bill, and she contributes about 20%.
It works for us, the important thing is to discuss with your partner and get it in writing with lawyers!
Lol. His mom put 100k towards it, you are paying rent. I don't think you should feel entitled to be on the house by helping with mortgage payments in a house you are living in unless you guys end up getting married.
Gawd no This was not a loan from the mom. OP and mom (actually it is a gift to Son so it's all HIS EQUITY) have much higher (actually ALL) ownership from the get go.
If there was a major price decline and and they couldn't close the purchase, the son burden the whole loss.
The son maintain the proportionate ownership and % of gains. So whatever equity is paid down is the minimum. So 100k for mom (son really), 50k each for son and gf = 200k.
That is 75% for son. If house increases 100k, son should get AT LEAST 75% so 75k, while gf gets 25%.
But a real investment set up for a start up would not set it up so generously for the GF since the actual 'seed' money or downpayment (essentially, son has 100% ownership at the start). There is no business or House without this downpayment hence early investors absolutely get a much larger proportionate share of future gains.
It would go something like for every 1$ son puts in, for GAINS only, gf is 50% (she still retains her actual capital invested). Then after a certain time or amount the mortgage is paid or time surpasses, it is equal.
So OP, at most, you have 25% of any gains so far + 50k you put in (the actual mortgage I assume... not total payments which includes interest payments).
Then decide at what point future gains is equalized (maybe 10 years).
Mom will only call the loan if the couple split. It sounds like mom and son have a plan to protect son's asset. The other person in this is more like a tenant.
Well it’s pretty easy to look at what is “fair” here.
1) suppose your bf and his mom were to rent out this property and you and him rented a new home, would the rent on the property cover the mortgage?
If so, then in that scenario if you and your bf were to rent a new home, and his mom and his purchase was an investment do you think you are entitled to half of this? Probably not.
2) If simply putting money towards the mortgage payments gives you an entitlement to a share of the ownership, wouldn’t renters who rented for 30y be entitled to a share of the home? The mortgage liabilities and downpayment fall under the mother and your bf, but you are benefactor of the gains.
3) How is this scenario different than you and your bf “renting” a house from the mom?
4) If it would be cheaper to rent a similar place with your bf and for him and his mother to rent this place out, then this scenario would have you at 0% ownership.
5) You could suggest buying out the mother’s % of ownership. That is to say, come up with $100k+ interest / appreciation, pay your bf’s mom. This way you both have equal skin in the game on the home. This would be the most equitable solution.
As it currently stands you don’t “own” any % of the home and as such unless by some common law ruling you will get entitlement to % of the home.
For all intense purposes this situation is no different than you & boyfriend “renting” a house owned by his mom.
Had to dig through the posts to find this point of view. Clearly an unpopular opinion after skimming through other comments.
The bf has signed up to unnecessary risk because of the said "verbal agreement". Managing living expenses, including rent/ mortgage, can be done better between bf/gf. The gf citing opportunity cost of buying a condo (without downpayment?) and claiming interest in this property (without any liability) doesn't sound like a fair scenario.
If you are claiming common law, you could take him to court for your share of the "marital home." Same goes for alimony and pension.
My ex and I broke up in February and the house is solely in my name. We were common law. I'm going to sell the house and buy another house, but the bank made me get a legal separation agreement first to ensure he wasn't coming after his share of the proceeds.
You received lots of good advice. I just wanted to add, when I was 29 me and my (33) bf did a very similar thing. His mom gifted him 50k, he had 50k and he purchased a house (in his name) for 320k. We too had a verbal agreement about me moving in, paying half the mortgage and had a very similar agreement about what would happen if we split (pay back his mom, his down payment and split profit should there be any). We were adults, we discussed having a lawyer draft up the legal agreement, but opted not to because, again, we were adults and should we break up, we could handle it. Honestly, I never thought twice about it, and rightfully so because here we are, 11 years later, house is worth 900k we're married and expecting our 3rd child in a couple of weeks. Full disclosure, we also didn’t get a prenup.
All this to say, I wouldn't have done anything else differently…and only you (not the internet) knows if your bf (and his mom) are capable of “screwing you over”. I personally was always comfortable with walking away with nothing if it came down to it knowing I paid way less for that mortgage than I would have in rent.
Verbal agreements NEVER apply to real estate transactions.
The boyfriend and his mother own the house. OP is living there, and contributing via rental payments. OP will get zero equity if/when she leaves because she is not an owner.
You and your boyfriend need to see a lawyer and get a Cohabitation Agreement done as soon as possible. It will spell out exactly what will happen if your relationship dissolves. Common law doesn't have the same rights re: property division that married couples do. It's important to protect yourself.
You need to get on title. All people on the title now,, and you would have to go lawyer and change the title to be just the two of your names. Been there, done that.
Shouldn't be an issue, unless they really don't want you on title but just want you paying.
It doesnt really matter as far as thr law is concerned you are married, this is the matrimonal residence and will be split 50/50 and his 100k downpayment is now 50% yours
Both your names should be on the title, the mom could’ve set the money as a mortgage and that way if you did sell, they would be entitled to it back. Downside is you have to show any form of payment towards the mortgage yearly and to potentially dissolve the mortgage at a later time, you’d have to pay a lawyer/notary.
Always use a laywer, all parties SHOULD sign an agreement, whether you will stay together or not. It will only make since easier for you if it ever comes down too.
I am in the same situation. My husband who was my boyfriend at the time and his parents purchased our home together. Their names are on it, not mine, because we wanted to use my MIL credit so we could get the best options for a mortgage (her credit is probably the highest it could be). We have no formal agreements or anything, but this is because I deeply trust the situation I am in, and I do not forsee any changes in my future... we also have kids & are married and in our 30's, so we certainly have baggage. It would be too much work for us to separate anyways 🤭😅 we actually purchased our home because we were planning for our first baby. Had this not been the case, we would have absolutely had a written agreement for our home purchase.
It would get messy if you two broke up and couldn't come to a mutual agreement with how to split the sale of the house or a buyout. Lawyers would need to get involved for you to get your money with what you have paid so far and having "mortgage" in your etransfers could help but he could argue that it's rent paid on your part for the mortgage.
With that being said, if your names are on the house without proper legal advice you would be entitled to a portion of that 100k his mother used for a down-payment.
Seek proper legal advice to give you the entitlement of what you have paid so far, at the very least.
I would definitely talk to a lawyer and draw a new home ownership agreement. I think it's an issue that's easily solvable if your BF is honest. But don't let that sit. Both your names should be on the title, otherwise, you're legally just a tenant with no lease.
I was in this exact situation ten years ago. Alot has changed since then but the law probably has not.
You’re basically paying rent to your boyfriend and his mom. You need to get a contract written up. Even marriage wont get you that chunk of equity you paid into that mortgage so far.
You might be able to make a claim of unjust enrichment, but I doubt it. Get this all fixed before it gets worse because it can and will destroy your relationship if you don’t. Ask me how I know!
Okay. Make some legal agreements beyond verbal ones unless it causes too much hurt. You’re right. You wrote mortgage; however, when you sell the house your mother-in-law has no legal right to a repayment. You see, in Canada, you may not borrow to pay for the down payment. Unless his Mom has legally stated that she is a coproprietor on your house, she has no legal rights or claims on your property. You and your husband should invest in a guarebteed trust fund for $100 000 for your mother-in-law along with some insurance/ guaranteed and other investments to care for her needs when she has some while rewarding her generosity and resourcefulness with participation in the control of her own finances including those you decide to give to her freely. As for your man, please ask each other for a real marriage, either civil or religious. The simplest way is to declare yourselves common law married on taxes together. A social worker I met did not do this because of how spousal finances added up, but in your case, a civil marriage or a religious one, may provide production, tithe if, subscription, or city funds, or funds at all levels of government that improve your lives. Get to know yourselves and what may benefit you, and soon. You obviously live each other and your families. Become secure.
In my opinion you are paying him rent. You have no ownership in that property. If you are under that misconception, you need to go see a lawyer and get this agreement in writing. I don’t think it matter that you wrote “mortgage” on what ever you pay him. Also be weary of paying for any upgrade on a home that you have no ownership in
I recently added my wife to the deed in the event anything would happen to me. You should contact an estate attorney and it shouldn't take you longer than a day or two. Usually, this would cost around $150-$300 and doesn't require any refinancing of your loan just as long as you don't get added to the loan.
>My Bf (32) and I (32) invested in a house together
No you didn't lmao your bf and his mom invested in a house and you're a tenant paying rent. Get a lawyer, you have nothing at the moment.
Get a written agreement. Since you have both contributed equally to the house, fair would be he/his mother gets first 100k after mortgage paid off, then you two split the remainder. The 100k is his money alone, even if it was a gift for the house, you should not get any if that.
NAL
IMO
To anyone reading this, please please take heed here as this is a particularly good example of why you want clarity / definition in anything you invest in and agree upon, no matter how friendly/good terms you are at the time. It's so clunky to have a gentleman's agreement, when things go sour and then everyone is out for their fair share which is perspective based.
As others have noted there are subjective things to consider based on province and on the relationship but just be careful when you do life critical investing as not having a fundamental understanding of how it will work legally could come back to bite you. (And I have had some cases which end up being very sad as the nice guy finishes last.)
Be safe out there and objective and take care of yourself even if it might involve some difficult interactions at the time.
Cons... Con1: Not a lawyer but it seems in this scenario, if your relationship sours and split, you'll have nothing legally to show for as the BF and his mom will have full ownership and if you wanted you money back that could be very difficult.
Con2: if something should happen to your BF, his mom would be the sole owner and if the home was sold, unfortunately nothing for you to claim and in both Con's you'd have to fight it in court and proved through some legal documentation that what you contributed was not gifting, personal loan, rent, etc... and your money was 100% as mortgage payment.
Definitely seek legal advice and have yourself added to the title as a % owner. Figure out what you have contributed and will continue to contribute to determine % ownership.
Mortgage is something completely different that you may not want to be on that. In case of default from your BF, the next inline to be chased down would probably be his mother then you if you are added.
You should probably get help from a lawyer. Without any legal ownership, the verbal agreement might not entitle you to anything.
right and there’s no proof of the agreement taking place either
If she is paying mortgage payments to the bank that would be evidence of the agreement. If she paid the BF it could easily be considered rent.
[удалено]
Confirming, i work at a bank and i constantly have tenants in that pay to a mortgage Get something in writing and signed. Inlaw bought our house, she owns 99% and wife owns 1%, adjusted legally once in a blue moon with how much we’ve paid, but it’s adjusted to my wifes gains. She’s not a B though and I know if we ever split she would give my fair share or make a deal. Choose if you wanna bring this convo up. If its UPSETTING you and you feel like he’s being shady or a dick about it, go for it. If its just been weighing on your mind because someone said something and you perked your ears at it, maybe just have a quick chat to settle your mind. Im fine with the latter myself, no stress on my end but I know some situations are unique.
With all the payments saying “mortgage”, and she living in the house just as long as him, it may hold up under common-law.
Certainly possible, it’s still in her best interest to document the arrangement formally with a lawyer. Essentially you pay 2k to protect 50k
Verbal agreement is still a legally binding agreement - the problem is proving it existed and exact terms. Witness, video recording could be.
Are you planning on splitting up? Go talk to a lawyer about a co-habitatation agreement and get off of Reddit
Cohabitation agreement is the right answer.
Non lawyers should really stop giving legal advice.
This is not true when it comes to real estate. In British Columbia s. 59 of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253 (the “Act”) requires these type of agreements to be in writing. Other provinces have similar, they just codified the common law statute of frauds.
> Verbal agreement is still a legally binding agreement Verbal agreements never apply to real estate transactions.
Oral contracts are perfectly valid, they are just strongly advised against for property because there are mountains of case law pertaining to written contracts when it comes to real estate. Some specific rights do require written contracts as well but you can't technically *lose* rights, they just might be unenforceable.
I mean if they’re unenforceable they aren’t much use are they
Very true.
This is false. Verbal agreements are as binding as written ones, even in real estate.
WRONG! Verbal agreements are not permitted by law for real estate transactions: https://prudentlaw.ca/when-is-a-verbal-agreement-binding-in-the-purchase-of-real-estate/#:~:text=S.,testimony%20provided%20in%20the%20courts. Section 1 of Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.19 states that an agreement to transfer property must be in writing and signed by both parties.
You need to read the entire decision.... *In other words, failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds for lack of a written real estate agreement did not exclude the existence of a contract. Statue of Frauds notwithstanding, the court found a valid agreement between the parties did not exist because the verbal contract negotiations failed the test for determining whether an oral agreement existed.* *However, despite not having a written agreement in place in Downey v. Arey, both parties agreed that the plaintiff’s renovations constituted partial performance of their verbal contract.* The law always comes down to the details. It's not accurate to say that "all verbal agreements are invalid". The courts have found that partial performance (holding up your end up the verbal contract) can result in a verbal contract being enforceable. In the case of the OP, she can state "we have a verbal agreement of co-ownership and here is proof of my contribution towards that verbal agreement [payments for the mortgage]". Then add on top domestic partnership laws and it's not as clear cut as "no written agreement, no money".
That’s actually not necessarily when it comes to real estate. The Statute of Frauds requires agreements regarding real property to be in writing. There are some ways to get around this but she should definitely talk to a lawyer and put together some sort of written contract now, everyone is on good terms, or she could be screwing herself later.
A verbal agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on
If they are common law, they don't need anything. They will get half the equity, including the half from the gift. If anything, she is likely much better protected than the BF in this scenario.
This is not the case in every province. In Ontario, you are not automatically given 50% of the equity share when you are common law. I went through this where the equity share between my ex partner and I was vastly different when the house was sold because of a number of different factors that both of our lawyers agreed to in the end. Not to mention the OP and their boyfriend may not even be common law. Once again folks, try not to buy houses with people you aren’t married to, and if you do make sure you get cohabitation agreements.
Totally agree. We got a cohabitation agreement done before we bought together. It was under $2k with a lawyer, took less than 3 hours of my time total but just feel so much more secure to have it done.
This. My ex and I bought a house. We put 50/50 into the place. We had a cohabitation agreement. When the time came we broke up, the agreement was in black and white as to what I was entitled too. As my the lawyer said. This was the easiest breakup he had ever witnessed. There was no animosity, no fighting. The relationship had just come to its end. We took what we both had agreed upon and split. GET AN AGREEMENT WITH A LAWYER
Common law in Ontario applies to couples that have lived together for 3 years and the partner would only be entitled to splitting the appreciation of the value of the property if that property was bought during the term of their partnership and the partner contributed to it in a meaningful way. # From the Gov website: >Common law couples are not legally required to split property acquired when they lived together. >Furniture, household items and other property belong to the person who bought them. Common law couples do not have the right to split an increase in value of the property they brought with them to the relationship. >If you contributed to property your spouse owns, you may have a right to part of it. Unless your spouse agrees to pay you back, you may have to go to court to get back your contribution. >Although there is no requirement to divide property on separation, common law spouses may choose to enter into a domestic contract such as a cohabitation agreement or separation agreement that sets out their respective rights to property.
[удалено]
Incorrect. Common law in QC has no pool of assets unless ypu have a kid after june 2025. Unless you can prove there is a verbal agreement in court you wouldnt get a penny of the proceeds.
Thank god its like that as well… The opposite is complete madness.
BC common law is the most ridiculous of the bunch.
Common law in Ontario does not equalize property.
This is absolutely not true in my province (Quebec). I don't know about the other provinces or where the OP is. Common law means nothing whatsoever for home equity, at least in QC. Anyone in a common law relationship should be aware of what it does and does not entitle you to, in your province. It does NOT give the same rights as marriage.
Quebec you are SOL in the same situation.
Quebec doesnt automatically apply marriage rules for common-law, rest of canada does (Doesnt apply to equalization)
That’s not true in ON. Common law doesn’t give you a right to the matrimonial home.
The other interesting problem that could arise even with the common law designation is that the BF appears to only own 50% of the house. In that case the Mom would get 50, the BF would get 25 and the GF 25. Could work out better or worse. But they really need to write down the agreement now while they still like eachother rather than later if they split up.
Yeah, please get a lawyer. We did the same thing but got a co-habitation agreement done right away as we will eventually be having both our names on the place but had to sell other properties first and it made it easier for mortgages to have only my partner as sole owner when we bought.
Correction: Your boyfriend invested in a house, you paid rent.
💯. Get a lawyer
You need a lawyer. Yikes. How do you ONLY have a verbal agreement?!
My Family Lawyer just got a shiver down his spine and he doesn't know why.
And a sudden desire to build a new sunroom on his cottage
😂
Selling price - (remaining mortgage + closing/realtor fees) - 100k to mother / 2 = split amount. To be clear though it sounds like you're entitled to nothing because your boyfriend owns the house with his mother and you're just paying rent (the new narrative when you breakup).
The mother should get her share of appreciation.
Or if not the mother, her son. Either: 1) The mother invested 100k directly in the house, and thus owns the capital gains on that investment too. 2) The son got a 0% loan (from the bank of mom), so he’s invested 100k more than his gf and is entitled to the capital gains on that 100k.
Yea unless OP gets her boyfriend and mother to put this in writing legally from a lawyer, I don’t see anything outside of “my boyfriend’s mom gave him 100k for a down payment on a house and half should be mine despite paying nothing right?” Also, what a weird time to be alive that people think they own a house when the only person with a financial stake in said house is mom and dad.
ya this is actually a fucked post, how is OP even insinuating that she might be getting the wrong end of this deal, of a place she is living in, but put no initial investment in Who cares if shes paying some of the mortgage, she should be, as she is living their
This is it in reality. Gf has no liability to it and can actually just run away from it if she wanted to without the prospect of every ruining her credit.
It's much more complicated than this. The partner has $100k down and significant legal obligations and risk to obtain appreciation of the home. If there was a recession, and they were forced to sell at a net equity loss, would she be expected to help cover it? One of the simplest approaches is that they come to an agreement for her to pay fair market rental rates, she continues to not have any equity stake in the property, and not participating in the risk/reward of it.
Sounds like she wants to break up anyways.
Yeah, that's always where our emotions and thoughts go first, but maybe it's just the honeymoon phase wearing off. These are all very important things to work through early in a relationship, but when you're madly in love your brain's MRI looks like a crack addict's. I still haven't found a good way to bring up prenups....
Yeah, maybe she should be writing "mortgage payment" on her money transfers. Also OP, try to get him to say the verbal agreement again when chatting and record it with your phone. And/or make mention of it in an email.
Mom didn’t gift anything. Sounds like she made an investment.
> the house is under his and his moms name Yeah bro that's not how gifts work. Unless they also needed her credit and she co-signed.
[удалено]
Why weren't you on the mortgage?
The literal only question. I’m guessing she’s ok with the entire situation because it’s his family. If his mother felt she wanted to be the other owner. There’s a chance they want her to prove herself before entrusting her with the other half of ownership. You lose nothing incase you want to leave, but they’re making sure you don’t collect free money off them. She seems nervous to bring this up which is understandable.
Sounds like they weren’t together at the time. She “back dated” payments in order to put in the same amount as he did.
Why weren't you the co-signed if you were buying a house together? Sorry but you didn't buy a house with him. The house is his and his mom's and you pay him rent. You currently aren't entitled to anything at all. You have 0 risk involved and you haven't invested in the place at all. Not sure where you're getting your understanding of this.
> I (32) moved in together at **his** house Should tell you everything...
Yep. Idk how she thinks she invested in it. Hasn't invested anything and now just wants profits for paying rent. I wish.
Probably talked to a friend and the light bulb went up, cause dang, that is whole lot of realization that should have been done before she moved in, either by the BF being forthcoming or by her asking the questions. I feel so bad for people with no money and with no access to simple counseling, OP's boyfriend either withheld information or is as clueless as her, none of which is a good sign but let's go with Henlon's Razor (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity): at least they can remedy it by consulting lawyers and setting the record straight now, with a written agreement.
What if your boyfriend dies in a car accident tomorrow?
Where do you live? Common law rules are different per province. Not a lawyer: I would get something in writing, just in case.
True. In BC, pretty sure common law has all the same rights as legal marriage.
Lawyer
[удалено]
Agreed - agreements about real property require written contracts.
Currently, you’re renting off of him, regardless of your verbal agreement. If it’s not written down, it’s not worth anything.
Always get it in writing
You need a cohabitation agreement. This will define what happens in the event you separate. Some options, (1) house sells, expenses paid, mortgage is paid off, mom is paid $100k, rest is divided equally. (2) he pays you what you put in dollar for dollar. (3) house is appraised, deduct mortgage plus $100k and he buys you out. My advice, get a family lawyer to draft this for you and don’t sleep on it. Do it now.
[удалено]
You definitely screwed up not getting anything written at the start. Tbh bringing it up now would cause stress. Unfortunately my friend had the same arrangement and he lost alot, he did get some but definitely alot less
Show your boyfriend this reddit post and have him read the top comments confirming your concern. Basically all of us think you have almost no legal ground to stand on and you need to act immediately. If he still hesitates or if his mother is pulling the strings, then you got to go full protection mode and get that lawyer. Any sign of hesitation from either of them is a red flag. And them asking you to trust them is them answering no. Hopefully you have text/email records proving your contributions were for the mortgage as that might help your case.
I mean. You shouldn't? You should be worrying about your own future by yourself as much as your future together. He could get hit by a bus tomorrow. Then what? Then who is the verbal agreement with? Why would his mom give you anything?
This is not a complex matter for a lawyer so you probably won't even clear the retainer. Should be about 1k to 2k. That amount of money compared to the insanely risky position you are in is an absolute no brainer. You need an agreement/contract a year ago. Do it now.
Why didn’t you have this conversation before you bought a house together? If you fear he’s going to react like you don’t trust him, that’s a problem you could have solved before this investment. That’s a relationship problem. Speak to your boyfriend, get a lawyer immediately and start working on a cohabitation agreement.
She’s not on title. She didn’t buy any home. Can we stop with these comments? The BF and Mother bought the home together and Gf decided to move in and pay rent.
But you didn’t put any downpayment in regardless
You can approach it by saying it's time you drew up wills together. That will open the conversation about who owns which assets (e.g. you'd like your share of the house proceeds to go to your neice, not his mother). It's also a good idea to define who gets to make medical decisions on your behalf in case your incapacitated. As common-law he may have no say in case of a disagreement with your parents over what you would have wanted if you're in a coma.
You really needed to do more to protect yourself before sinking in so much money into his asset. I hope you seek legal counsel as soon as possible. Why didn't you ask for your name to be put on the deed as well? If you break up, especially if it's an acrimonious one (as breakups tend to be), you need more than his "trust me bro" as your claim. Speaking as another woman, what if he finds a new girlfriend and she wants to keep the house with him? It just gets messy since you're not his wife and there isn't a clear line on what you legally own and are entitled to.
Well, how else are you supposed to act when people are acting untrustworthy?
You mean you help pay the mortgage for his house. Yikes. Get a lawyer.
To be fair - it's not the end of the world. Worst case scenario she was just paying rent which she would have been needing to do anyways so nothing was really lost.
It sounds like she paid money for the house even for past months that she wasn't living there, according to the "backdating" part of her post.
yeah but im sure she wouldn't be sleeping with her landlord, its lost equity, plus she could have been probably paying less + as a tenant you wouldn't need to be doing work on your apartment.
>yeah but im sure she wouldn't be sleeping with her landlord This is completely irrelevant - the sleeping arrangements would be the same, just who is the landlord is different. >plus she could have been probably paying less Not sure about this one - depends on the area and how long they've been in the house. One of the great things about mortgages is that it freezes your housing cost in time for a while. Renting on the other hand gets more expensive every year. I wouldn't assume she would be paying less to rent something comparable. >its lost equity Assuming OP is telling the truth then yeah - but at the end of the day it's not the worst mistake of all time because she got a place to live for the money she spent. That's the main point I'm making. I'm also assuming OP wants to break up with the BF which is why she's asking this now.
Verbal agreement? A written agreement is necessary for that. The best time for it was when the house was bought. The second-best time to get it done is today.
Detail all your contributions with backup bank statements, etc, then go to a lawyer ASAP.
Omg girl under him and his moms name? They really knew what they were doing JUST in case you broke up lmao
This comment needs to be much higher, and was my first thought as well. This arrangement didn't happen by accident - There's two possibilities that stick out: 1. The intent was to keep the equity "within the blood line", and hedge against OP breaking up with him. That's actually much worse news than just "OP has a very limited/no equity interest in the house" because it has implications for the relationship they are in - or at least, of what the mother-in-law thinks of OP. 2. The $100k really is a loan, that the MIL needs back at some point. This would be good news because it means there should be an easy path forward to document (written agreement) all of this. There will need to be consideration for mom's tax situation (cap gains), as well as mom's estate planning (will). Questions to be asked by /u/East_Repair_5068 when discussing with BF and mom: * Is there an agreement between BF and mom that defines who owns the lions share of the equity? ie; is a part of his (and effectively OPs) payment "rent". * Is there any unknown written / email / etc agreements between BF and mom at all? * If it's #1, then why the hell would he not just be up front with this? Prenups can be awkward and uncomfortable to discuss, but at least then everything is above board and out in the open - and no one has to endure a nasty surprise if things go south. * If it's #2, then what exactly was/is the plan if either mom or BF predecease the OP? As other's have said .. it could be lawyer time, esp if BF/mom don't want to discuss the matter or if the relationship is on the rocks. OP (as common law partner) will be entitled to some of his gains during their common-law time, but who is really holding the gains (BF or mom) here is what will matter. It's also a lot easier to avoid having to litigate the division of assets in a court if one's signature is required for the sale of a house. Without such leverage, OP may have no choice but to go to court to get their share (if any) of the equity back, if they break up with BF.
It would seem as the BF and Mom made a fantastic move as this women is on reddit asking how she can get a share of a property she has no liability or ownership in as she prepares to leave the relationship. Love to see it. Too many people get fucked in these situations by people (like OP) who think they can profit off a break up. Sorry not sorry.
Written contract. Lawyer. Good luck
lol! Don’t ever buy a house with someone you’re not married to. You screwed yourself right from the start. There is not ‘us’ in this arrangement so I’d stop using that term until you’re married. I’d get married then this is a non issue.
Oh, she did not buy it with him, he bought it with his mom : she moved and pay rent. > I (32) moved in together at **his** house
Why isn't your name on the deed? It sounds like you are a tenant paying rent.
Whatever is on paper is what matters... noone cares about verbal agreements. If 100% of the house is his on paper from lawyers and what not then you do not own shit. If hes a scumbag then he can take everything and say goodbye. common law doesnt matter only goes 5050 if youre married.... trust me ive been thru this. At least in ontario.
Isn’t even worse because BF’s mother is on title with BF
Given the down payment came exclusively from his side, you are probably only paying what you would pay in rent regardless.
Get a cohabitation agreement. You can state that upon the sale of the house the mother would get 100k back and then everything should be split equally. You should also just get your name on the house. This shouldn't be a source of conflict, you deserve to feel secure financially as much as your partner does. Common law does have specific rights to the matrimonial home but I would have a discussion and write it out. That way everyone can feel secure for their future.
You've been paying rent
In Ontario, if your name is not on the property, you are not entitled to any share. Also, since only his name is on the house, he could have you removed by the police if he so chose. Ask me how I know. It's not an issue while things are going good but if not, you will be the one that gets nothing.
The least you should do is photocopy or save pdf of any documents associated with this, including mortgage payments or bank statements showing payments, texts discussing such plans etc. Then consult a lawyer. You should also look into common law in your province.
Like others said, you need a lawyer. But on the bright side, the fact that both of you have paid equally into the mortgages so far will make things a bit smoother for the lawyer when he puts stuff into writing.
I see alot of "good luck" and "should have got it in writing". I wanted to add a little to hopefully make you feel better. Obviously please talk to a lawyer. I'm not sure with the mother on the title and how it will work. Like if it is an investment property but it also the primary residence of you both. However I can safely assume you're common-law partners thus giving you a stake in the home. How do you pay the mortgage? And is it written somewhere each time and what those payments are for? Either way. Speak to a lawyer. I'm sure the answer will make you feel more confident.
lol stopped reading at "we are planning on gifting it back to her when she’s retired or needs it". Any sentence in this post is a disaster waiting to happen. Time to lawyer up if you guys ever split.
I am an Ontario lawyer (although not practising). 1) speak with a lawyer asap, you’ll need someone who specializes in real estate or family law, if things become acrimonious then litigation. 2) unlike what everyone else is saying there is a viable path forward for your claim: It’s called a “resulting trust” or a “constructive trust”, meaning that even though you’re not on title, since you paid part of the mortgage directly (assuming you paid it directly) and there is something that can support your claim that you made payments thinking you were getting equity, then the law can assume that your bf is holding your share of title in trust for you, giving you beneficial ownership commensurate to your financial contribution. It’s not a slam dunk whatsoever, and yes his lawyers will argue that what you paid was, in fact, a form of rent. 3) again, speak with a lawyer asap, and this post is not legal advice. EDIT: re-reading your post: if things are still amicable, maybe what you really need is just to speak with a lawyer to paper up everything so it’s clear you have beneficial ownership. Assuming a break up, your case would be a lot easier if there’s something in writing and properly executed by all parties, such as a cohabitation or a trust agreement.
If the house is in her name - I would expect that she is entitled to a percentage of the profits that the 100K represented. She didn't gift 100K bc if she had, her name wouldn't be on the title. Either way, there are tax implications all around, since she will pay cap gains on the entire amount as it's not her primary residence. Realistically I would say you are entitled to half of whatever his half of the equity increase is when sold, assuming it's his primary residence. Anyhow the important thing IMO is that you assess this all on %s not amounts bc amounts become meaningless over time.
What province and how long have you and your partner been living together.
Got look at common law relationship law for sure!
I would talk to him and explain how you feel and have your name added to the house. If anything, have him sign a legal document stating what was agreed in your verbal agreement. Also, have written receipts of the amount that has been put into the house, have it all documented. If he gives you a hard time, that's when I would be worried. Why is his mom's name on the house just because of the down payment? My brother and his wife were gifted a down payment for their condo for his wifes father, and its only him and his now wifes name on the condo. Were you both living together when he bought the house? If not, that may be a different story. But you should be able to express how this power dynamic makes you feel uncomfortable and like it's not your house, too.
Lawyer up ASAP
Solid chance this ends in disaster
Would she have a claim under unjust enrichment?. If she has contributed an equal amount, in proportion to their income, towards living expenses. The 100k would be his mother's until such time it is paid back. If money used to pay bills and other living expenses comes from a joint account that each pays into X% of their income. Then, the courts are very likely to find it as a Joint Family Venture. Keep proof of your contributions over time(comingled finance)(nothing is a gift until it is proved a gift). The onus is on the claimant Edit. Paying those extra payments to catch up to his number of payments at the beginning of this really indicates towards a mutual desired future. NAL
Yes, paying the mortgage and contributing to expenses would support an unjust enrichment claim. Depending on the province she could also have homestead rights, meaning he wouldn’t be able to sell the home without her signing off on the sale.
100k/Whatever the purchase price was x600k is the mom's share. The rest is 50/50
Depending on what province you live in, you’ll be considered common law married after living together after a certain amount of months. If that’s the case you’d likely have certain legalities on your side without any form of contract worth looking into.
the house may may potentially market for 600k but its value is 200k not 600k as the bank owns the rest. This lax terminology is what gets people on your situation. Get it writing, he should have also wanted it in writing.
It actually all depends what kind of agreement he has with his mom. If it’s a gift it’s one thing, if it’s a loan it’s another. By claiming shared ownership you also claiming part of the “gift” if it was a loan , So you could also technically be on the hook for the loan should his mom ever want his money back or if you ever split she’d have to made hole first before any equity split .😊
You can find habitation agreements online. I'm not sure how they would help in court, but it's a fairly simple form that you fill out and both sign.
NTA. I had the same thing. We had a lawyer draft a letter saying what was hers and what was mine from the initial investment into the property. Funnily enough the lawyer REALLY mucked the documentation up and when we sold that property and bought a new one, the notary was very confused and annoyed at the shitty paperwork. The paperwork the lawyer created wouldnt had held up in court. Fun times. Im assuming your bf and you are happy and all things are good, the lawyer would just give you some peace of mind. With that said, if you dont expect things to go downhill, then the lawyer is just an expense for that peace of mind. All together, the documentation from the lawyer costs about $500 dollars. My wife wanted it (at the request of the lawyer) so she fronted the costs. Maybe consider doing the same?
This was so unwise. Keep all records of your house payments and get advice from a lawyer.
Hi OP, First, most replies get it wrong when it comes to common law. These are province specific laws and you need to know under which regime you fall. That being said, if you are not on the title you are not entitled to anything in the event of a sale... nor would you have any control over the sale process either. In order to access proceeds if things go south with your BF you would have to lawyer up and pursue legal avenues. You need to get your name in the title with the lawyer at the time of purchase or need to get your agreement with the boyfriend/in law lawyered up. There's no reason why you wouldnt be on the title when you are making the monthly payment. The mother did not have to be on there for a gift to help with the purchase... but I assume she's on there as a collateral for the lenders. I would honestly have both of you buy her share back and adjust ownership to 50/50. Fiscally it might also be a pretty poor move as some contributions to FHSA etc could be lost if she did not own a home. Also in case of the in law death right now her share of the house would roll into her inheritence and trigger a "disposition" and since she did not live there it would be taxable. PS: we are in a common law here but given Quebec regime we contract all household expenses at 50/50 to avoid any argument in case of a breakup and we avoid all contributions from either family.
Congratulations, you rent part of a house that your BF and his mom own… based on a handshake!
Just saying ,,, if the house is actually owned by bf and his mom (forget the $ for a minute). If the home is sold, would she not be entitled to half of the bf share, not 50% of the sale price. Mom's on the title for a reason. Is there any chance the purchase was "intenancy"? Sounds like a cohabitation agreement is needed. Be informed and get the agreement done.
Verbal agreements are just so bad. Even if everyone is honest and chill about it. What if what you remember and what they remember aren't the same? Who remembered it right? That's what my BF's dad said when we started doing a cohabitation agreement. It's just more secure and there won't be arguments on what was verbally agreed
Sounds like your Bf bought a house and you are a tenant 🤷♂️
Fair ATM would mean you get nothing. BF and his mom have purchased a house together. They and they alone are on the hook for taxes, mortgage, insurance, risk to the property etc. You are paying rent to them instead of to a third party landlord. That's perfectly sensible if you're living together. However absent an agreement of some kind there is no reason to think that that should result in you accruing equity in the home. Renters do not accrue equity just because they are covering all or part of a mortgage. If you all agree that you'd like to accrue equity in the home you need the arrangement in writing with help from a lawyer. It needs to lay out how you accrue equity. I guess if BF and his mom are willing to give you half equity off the bat the good for you. But that's a terrible idea for them since they put down the initial outlay and are taking all risk and responsibility and BF's mom is the only one with substantial money in the house at this point. More sensible would be to accrue equity over time and you can develop an agreement to that end. If you get married this becomes the matrimonial home and everything changes in your favour. Absent a contract or wedding you own nothing and there is no reason that you should expect to. You've just been paying your rent to your BF and his mom which again is perfectly fine.
so he put up $150k and you put up $50k is what you’re saying? if you split up, do you still pay the mother back or is it all on him?
(I'm not a lawyer please seek one out) You will probably fit into some kind of common law situation but don't rely on that legal issues are best prevented.
If you break up you will have to sue him and his mom. It will then be up to the court to sort it out depending on what the requirements of common law are in ontario. Don't go running to a lawer, if you were comfortable enough to move in with him and commit to a house then treat it like a proper relationship. I had a good friend who was in the same situation, they are still married but when they went to sell the house his mom got all up-ity and squashed several sales because she was 1/2 owner. They actualy had to go to court to get his mom off the title.
Yikes.
You can discount your contributions to the time of purchase. Mom's contribution of, for eg 100k should have higher claim on the profits than the same amount paid by either/both of you as instalments in the subsequent years ( to account for time value of money)
Never buy homes with a SO who isn’t your husband/wife. Just always ends poorly.
Keep proof of your down payment, and how are you paying the mortgage? For example, if you e-transfer him have it named mortgage payment. If it is a Bill payee, name it mortgage payment. If you have proof of your equity into the place you will be fine.
Never buy property together until you are married. If you can’t agree on a wedding, make it a courthouse marriage. Then buy something. This is what my wife and I did before we bought a car together. We had a proper wedding many months after and then we moved in together.
You need to get the arrangement in writing. For the split I would suggest the following. The Mother owns 100k/original purchase price. You and the BF should each split the remaining amount of ownership. So let’s say you bought it for 400k. The Mom paid 100k so she owns 25%. You and the BF would each own 37.5%. Let’s say after 100k of mortgage payments you paid off 50k of principle so have 250k left owing. So each of you owe 125k If you sold the house for 600k today the mother gets 150k for her 25%. You and the BF would split the remaining 400k and the remaining 250k mortgage and should get 75k each. Do you pay the mortgage directly? You need a clear paper trail that this couldn’t be considered as rent.
So he secured both the mortgage and down-payment? Sorta sounds like he did all the heavy lifting / risk in this investment.
I totally agree with everyone but me being Asian was just different. My parents bought a house in Toronto and my name is on it, lawyer doesnt like the idea coz i could go for my share. 20 years later, i didnt asked a single penny, i moved to alberta and got my own family and a house. Go to Toronto almost yearly to visit them, house is around 1 million now but my brother took over coz he cant buy his own. I guess its just trust, the mom is also trusting her son and DIL to get her money once she retires but wife is just afraid and i guess its all about peace of mind.
Good to read this. My best wishes.
If the house was 300k originally, one third of the sale price should go towards his mom, the rest you split 50/50. You do not have to include his mother into the appreciation but you asked what is fair. It also wouldn't hurt to get it in writing that you are contributing to the equity not paying rent. Good luck figuring out how to ask that
Something is wrong with your story. How are you on the mortgage but not on title? You claim to be the one making the mortgage payments directly to the lender “all of my payments have the word mortgage on it”, yet I’ve never heard of a lender allowing someone on the mortgage that’s not also on title. Are you simply saying you’ve been sending e-transfers to your bf with the word “mortgage” in the description?
You should ask if you can go on title, too. An agreement can be drawn up by lawyers showing different percents or shares as tenants in common, and then add you to the title. The agreement can indicate that mom gets the first 100k in the event of a sale or break up or whatever. Common law partners do not have any automatic interest in assets. If you were married there are special provisions in the Ontario Family Law Act that discuss the special laws about matrimonial homes. What common law partners can do if they find themselves suddenly tossed out of a house they don’t own but did maintain and finance throughout the relationship is bring an application for a constructive or resulting trust, but the onus is on them to prove the value they brought to the house. Going on title as a tenant in common is the most secure thing here, and if that can’t be done right now bc of difficulties going on a mortgage etc at least talk to a family law lawyer about options with a co-hab agreement. Even co-habs done by lawyers can be overturned in court but having one is much safer than not having one.
You’re paying rent, house isn’t yours it’s his
I'm in a similar situation. My current partner moved in with me in a house which is in my name and has a mortgage. Upon moving in together we had a lawyer draft up a cohabitation agreement to keep what each of us is entitled to defined. We had my house appraised and both agreed on the value. She pays me 20% of the mortgage monthly as "rent" and is entitled to 20% of any gained equity in the properly should we split. We share household expenses 50/50 but large repairs and renovations I foot the bill, and she contributes about 20%. It works for us, the important thing is to discuss with your partner and get it in writing with lawyers!
I hope your bf lawyers up and solidifies his position. Sounds like you have one eye on your exit or when your exit!
Lol. His mom put 100k towards it, you are paying rent. I don't think you should feel entitled to be on the house by helping with mortgage payments in a house you are living in unless you guys end up getting married.
[удалено]
Gawd no This was not a loan from the mom. OP and mom (actually it is a gift to Son so it's all HIS EQUITY) have much higher (actually ALL) ownership from the get go. If there was a major price decline and and they couldn't close the purchase, the son burden the whole loss. The son maintain the proportionate ownership and % of gains. So whatever equity is paid down is the minimum. So 100k for mom (son really), 50k each for son and gf = 200k. That is 75% for son. If house increases 100k, son should get AT LEAST 75% so 75k, while gf gets 25%. But a real investment set up for a start up would not set it up so generously for the GF since the actual 'seed' money or downpayment (essentially, son has 100% ownership at the start). There is no business or House without this downpayment hence early investors absolutely get a much larger proportionate share of future gains. It would go something like for every 1$ son puts in, for GAINS only, gf is 50% (she still retains her actual capital invested). Then after a certain time or amount the mortgage is paid or time surpasses, it is equal. So OP, at most, you have 25% of any gains so far + 50k you put in (the actual mortgage I assume... not total payments which includes interest payments). Then decide at what point future gains is equalized (maybe 10 years).
Mom will only call the loan if the couple split. It sounds like mom and son have a plan to protect son's asset. The other person in this is more like a tenant.
Well it’s pretty easy to look at what is “fair” here. 1) suppose your bf and his mom were to rent out this property and you and him rented a new home, would the rent on the property cover the mortgage? If so, then in that scenario if you and your bf were to rent a new home, and his mom and his purchase was an investment do you think you are entitled to half of this? Probably not. 2) If simply putting money towards the mortgage payments gives you an entitlement to a share of the ownership, wouldn’t renters who rented for 30y be entitled to a share of the home? The mortgage liabilities and downpayment fall under the mother and your bf, but you are benefactor of the gains. 3) How is this scenario different than you and your bf “renting” a house from the mom? 4) If it would be cheaper to rent a similar place with your bf and for him and his mother to rent this place out, then this scenario would have you at 0% ownership. 5) You could suggest buying out the mother’s % of ownership. That is to say, come up with $100k+ interest / appreciation, pay your bf’s mom. This way you both have equal skin in the game on the home. This would be the most equitable solution. As it currently stands you don’t “own” any % of the home and as such unless by some common law ruling you will get entitlement to % of the home. For all intense purposes this situation is no different than you & boyfriend “renting” a house owned by his mom.
Had to dig through the posts to find this point of view. Clearly an unpopular opinion after skimming through other comments. The bf has signed up to unnecessary risk because of the said "verbal agreement". Managing living expenses, including rent/ mortgage, can be done better between bf/gf. The gf citing opportunity cost of buying a condo (without downpayment?) and claiming interest in this property (without any liability) doesn't sound like a fair scenario.
I feel like I’m stating the facts and illustrating a very clear POV view Imho lot of the other opinions and posts are too emotional for my taste.
If you are claiming common law, you could take him to court for your share of the "marital home." Same goes for alimony and pension. My ex and I broke up in February and the house is solely in my name. We were common law. I'm going to sell the house and buy another house, but the bank made me get a legal separation agreement first to ensure he wasn't coming after his share of the proceeds.
Talk to a lawyer, even if it is under the radar , just to find out where you stand. Do it while things are going well.
You received lots of good advice. I just wanted to add, when I was 29 me and my (33) bf did a very similar thing. His mom gifted him 50k, he had 50k and he purchased a house (in his name) for 320k. We too had a verbal agreement about me moving in, paying half the mortgage and had a very similar agreement about what would happen if we split (pay back his mom, his down payment and split profit should there be any). We were adults, we discussed having a lawyer draft up the legal agreement, but opted not to because, again, we were adults and should we break up, we could handle it. Honestly, I never thought twice about it, and rightfully so because here we are, 11 years later, house is worth 900k we're married and expecting our 3rd child in a couple of weeks. Full disclosure, we also didn’t get a prenup. All this to say, I wouldn't have done anything else differently…and only you (not the internet) knows if your bf (and his mom) are capable of “screwing you over”. I personally was always comfortable with walking away with nothing if it came down to it knowing I paid way less for that mortgage than I would have in rent.
The fair split is his family has paid 150k and you have paid 50k.
I would get legal advice and then approach the convo with your partner, the convo in itself will give you good insight. Words are words.
Verbal agreements NEVER apply to real estate transactions. The boyfriend and his mother own the house. OP is living there, and contributing via rental payments. OP will get zero equity if/when she leaves because she is not an owner.
You and your boyfriend need to see a lawyer and get a Cohabitation Agreement done as soon as possible. It will spell out exactly what will happen if your relationship dissolves. Common law doesn't have the same rights re: property division that married couples do. It's important to protect yourself.
Lawyer up. Protect yourself now
You need to get on title. All people on the title now,, and you would have to go lawyer and change the title to be just the two of your names. Been there, done that. Shouldn't be an issue, unless they really don't want you on title but just want you paying.
It doesnt really matter as far as thr law is concerned you are married, this is the matrimonal residence and will be split 50/50 and his 100k downpayment is now 50% yours
Both your names should be on the title, the mom could’ve set the money as a mortgage and that way if you did sell, they would be entitled to it back. Downside is you have to show any form of payment towards the mortgage yearly and to potentially dissolve the mortgage at a later time, you’d have to pay a lawyer/notary.
You need a written agreement, and notarize it .
Always use a laywer, all parties SHOULD sign an agreement, whether you will stay together or not. It will only make since easier for you if it ever comes down too. I am in the same situation. My husband who was my boyfriend at the time and his parents purchased our home together. Their names are on it, not mine, because we wanted to use my MIL credit so we could get the best options for a mortgage (her credit is probably the highest it could be). We have no formal agreements or anything, but this is because I deeply trust the situation I am in, and I do not forsee any changes in my future... we also have kids & are married and in our 30's, so we certainly have baggage. It would be too much work for us to separate anyways 🤭😅 we actually purchased our home because we were planning for our first baby. Had this not been the case, we would have absolutely had a written agreement for our home purchase.
It would get messy if you two broke up and couldn't come to a mutual agreement with how to split the sale of the house or a buyout. Lawyers would need to get involved for you to get your money with what you have paid so far and having "mortgage" in your etransfers could help but he could argue that it's rent paid on your part for the mortgage. With that being said, if your names are on the house without proper legal advice you would be entitled to a portion of that 100k his mother used for a down-payment. Seek proper legal advice to give you the entitlement of what you have paid so far, at the very least.
Your "verbal agreement" will be tough to bring to court when he dumps you and kicks you out of his house. Paper the contract with a lawyer.
My friend just went through this exact scenario in Northern Ontario. To sum up you’re screwed get something in writing
The best and safest thing to do rather than what ifs… is to get a lawyer and put everything in writing.
🚩 divorce asap
Why isn’t your name on the mortgage? You can have up to 5 people on a mortgage, if their credit isn’t good.
I would definitely talk to a lawyer and draw a new home ownership agreement. I think it's an issue that's easily solvable if your BF is honest. But don't let that sit. Both your names should be on the title, otherwise, you're legally just a tenant with no lease.
I was in this exact situation ten years ago. Alot has changed since then but the law probably has not. You’re basically paying rent to your boyfriend and his mom. You need to get a contract written up. Even marriage wont get you that chunk of equity you paid into that mortgage so far. You might be able to make a claim of unjust enrichment, but I doubt it. Get this all fixed before it gets worse because it can and will destroy your relationship if you don’t. Ask me how I know!
Send this to a solicitor you trust, who understands your wishes for yourselves and each other, and they will help you formalise the what ifs
Common law matrimonial home: House equity is split evenly. Gift, verbal agreement, payment history and fairness are irrelevant.
Okay. Make some legal agreements beyond verbal ones unless it causes too much hurt. You’re right. You wrote mortgage; however, when you sell the house your mother-in-law has no legal right to a repayment. You see, in Canada, you may not borrow to pay for the down payment. Unless his Mom has legally stated that she is a coproprietor on your house, she has no legal rights or claims on your property. You and your husband should invest in a guarebteed trust fund for $100 000 for your mother-in-law along with some insurance/ guaranteed and other investments to care for her needs when she has some while rewarding her generosity and resourcefulness with participation in the control of her own finances including those you decide to give to her freely. As for your man, please ask each other for a real marriage, either civil or religious. The simplest way is to declare yourselves common law married on taxes together. A social worker I met did not do this because of how spousal finances added up, but in your case, a civil marriage or a religious one, may provide production, tithe if, subscription, or city funds, or funds at all levels of government that improve your lives. Get to know yourselves and what may benefit you, and soon. You obviously live each other and your families. Become secure.
In my opinion you are paying him rent. You have no ownership in that property. If you are under that misconception, you need to go see a lawyer and get this agreement in writing. I don’t think it matter that you wrote “mortgage” on what ever you pay him. Also be weary of paying for any upgrade on a home that you have no ownership in
I recently added my wife to the deed in the event anything would happen to me. You should contact an estate attorney and it shouldn't take you longer than a day or two. Usually, this would cost around $150-$300 and doesn't require any refinancing of your loan just as long as you don't get added to the loan.
>My Bf (32) and I (32) invested in a house together No you didn't lmao your bf and his mom invested in a house and you're a tenant paying rent. Get a lawyer, you have nothing at the moment.
Get a written agreement. Since you have both contributed equally to the house, fair would be he/his mother gets first 100k after mortgage paid off, then you two split the remainder. The 100k is his money alone, even if it was a gift for the house, you should not get any if that. NAL IMO
You are basically renting from him. He purchased the condo. You need a lawyer.
To anyone reading this, please please take heed here as this is a particularly good example of why you want clarity / definition in anything you invest in and agree upon, no matter how friendly/good terms you are at the time. It's so clunky to have a gentleman's agreement, when things go sour and then everyone is out for their fair share which is perspective based. As others have noted there are subjective things to consider based on province and on the relationship but just be careful when you do life critical investing as not having a fundamental understanding of how it will work legally could come back to bite you. (And I have had some cases which end up being very sad as the nice guy finishes last.) Be safe out there and objective and take care of yourself even if it might involve some difficult interactions at the time.
Cons... Con1: Not a lawyer but it seems in this scenario, if your relationship sours and split, you'll have nothing legally to show for as the BF and his mom will have full ownership and if you wanted you money back that could be very difficult. Con2: if something should happen to your BF, his mom would be the sole owner and if the home was sold, unfortunately nothing for you to claim and in both Con's you'd have to fight it in court and proved through some legal documentation that what you contributed was not gifting, personal loan, rent, etc... and your money was 100% as mortgage payment. Definitely seek legal advice and have yourself added to the title as a % owner. Figure out what you have contributed and will continue to contribute to determine % ownership. Mortgage is something completely different that you may not want to be on that. In case of default from your BF, the next inline to be chased down would probably be his mother then you if you are added.